Talk:PropOrNot/Archive 1

Archive 1

Section title

Change of section title from "Russian propaganda analysis" to Blacklist of "bona fide 'useful idiots'" for advancing Russian propaganda fails WP:NPOV.

Changed it to simply "Compiled list".

The article body text can discuss it further. Sagecandor (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. "Compiled list" is indeed much better (in terms of POV) than your original "Russian propaganda analysis". SashiRolls (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image discussion

Removed here with edit summary of "removed copyright violation".

The image is a screenshot of the homepage of the website that is the title of this article.

Per WP:FAIRUSE a fair use rationale is given on the image page.

Can we put a fair-use image of the website homepage in the infobox? Sagecandor (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a non-neutral image which should be counterbalanced by another image for NPOV. (All widely reported views should be represented.) Regarding the copyright violation, that's up to Wikipedia Commons. SashiRolls (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I would interpret WP:FAIRUSE to say that this is acceptable per copyright policy. However, I'm not sure that it is the best possible image to use. I'm not sure what SashiRolls' object is to this, but I wonder if the logo of the website wouldn't be more appropriate, and more in line with what is usually done in articles about websites. Bradv 05:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

And regarding balance for NPOV? SashiRolls (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

... Assuming you're talking about the logo and/or website of the organization that is the subject of this article, this appeal to NPOV doesn't seem to make any sense at all (unless, I don't know, there are two logos used by the organization at different times for contrasting political reasons...or something?). No comment on logo vs. some more extensive screenshot. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't understand. How is showing a logo of a website on an article about a website biased in any way? Bradv 05:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bradv and Rhododendrites:Changed to logo per third opinion by Bradv, at [1]. Better ? Both? Only logo? Only homepage ? Sagecandor (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes. Logo is better. At first glance I thought the previous image was the logo. There's still a reasonable fair use claim to be made, but unless the screenshot is particularly important to understanding the subject the logo is probably sufficient. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine either way. I think this is more inline with what is done on other articles about websites, and it avoids showing a picture of text. Are all editors satisfied with this approach? Bradv 05:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict) Please do not delete the fact that it was impossible to post without effort. Thank you. (restoring my deleted ec templates, showing that I had to recopy the following text four times to speak. SashiRolls (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've left part of it. You posted three ec templates on separate lines with separate signatures, which is excessive to the point I assumed it was a mistake. Edit conflicts are annoying, I know (I was adding one at the same time) :) , but "(edit conflict)x3" or even as you've done above typically suffices to convey what happened if it's important to do so. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

So because PropOrNot has a copyright claim to their name, and because they have a copyright claim to their logo, no images that respond to their non-POV logo are permitted on the page by virtue of their copyright name claim? I understand your argument; I'm asking you to think a bit more carefully about the inappropriate deletion of content above. SashiRolls (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Other images are allowed — the logo discussion has nothing to do with that. What do you propose to add, and why? I concurred with the removal of that painting earlier for the sole reason that I didn't understand why it was there and what it had to do with this article. Bradv 05:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; just looking for dialogue on the question, since I've put some work into the page and think the illustration is a good one for visual NPOV. SashiRolls (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Image question

File:Putin @ Abode of Chaos.jpg

A photograph by Thierry Ehrmann of artwork at the Demeure du Chaos

Removed bizarre image added now to two articles [2] and [3]. Not discussed in this article. Not relevant. Sagecandor (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Added back a 2nd time by SashiRolls (talk · contribs) at [4]. Same issue as raised by Neutrality at [5]. Image is irrelevant. Sagecandor (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Sagecandor & Neutrality have a problem with illustrating articles with good topical photos, such as the CC BY image illustrating the CounterPunch article we source to which explains why the Washington Post issued a partial retraction / alert on their article about PropOrNot: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/02/counterpunch-as-russian-propagandists-the-washington-posts-shallow-smear/

So, it is already refered to in the article, you prefer a bleak background I see (or some sort of "cleaned up" image) SashiRolls (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It is used as an illustration in that source. It is not discussed in that source. Or explained how relevant to this topic. Sagecandor (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Added back a 3rd time by SashiRolls (talk · contribs) at [6]. With no explanation of how the source discusses it. Or how this museum is relevant to this article. Sagecandor (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this image of [7] File:Putin @ Abode of Chaos.jpg relevant to this article for inclusion of the picture on the page? Sagecandor (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Remove. This image does not strike me as sufficiently relevant or neutral for inclusion in this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll also note that The Washington Post didn't issue a partial retraction. Right or wrong, all it did was add an editor's note that explained why it was standing by its story in response to the criticism. This was incorrectly characterized as a partial retraction by a few unreliable websites. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, DrFleischman, where to we go from here with removing this irrelevant bizarrely placed image? Sagecandor (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It can probably be removed now per WP:CONSENSUS, but personally I'd give it 24 hours. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright sounds good. Sagecandor (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. This image cannot be simultaneously irrelevant and non-neutral, obviously. I guess it is art because it obviously bothers those who add logos that violate copyright and are certainly not neutral. SashiRolls (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is against this, with myself, DrFleischman, and Bradv. You'd have to obtain consensus to add it back in a 4th time. Sagecandor (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your copyright violation use of their logo. Did you send their permission to use the logo to WMF? SashiRolls (talk) 04:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I have indeed added logical argument as to why this image is useful on a page in which the PropOrNot people are cited as saying "Putin’s Russia is a revisionist authoritarian wannabe-imperialist kleptocracy".

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on PropOrNot and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I don't see any explanation of why this image is relevant in the article, in the edit summaries, or on this talk page. Instead, I see demands that other people prove why it is not relevant, which is kind of backwards. If someone can explain why this is relevant then it is worthy of discussion here on the talk page, but until that happens it should be removed. Bradv 20:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bradv and DrFleischman:Thank you for the third opinion. Can the image now be removed? Sagecandor (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. In fact it already is. Bradv 21:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Sagecandor (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC

Well congratulations! You've added a copyright violation photo in the info-box, and deleted a CC-BY image that is directly related to the subject of the article, which is about a group claiming that many alternative news sources are stooges of Russian propaganda. This is a political move to violate WP rules in this way by including their logo unless you submitted a written authorization from PropOrNot, which maybe you did, I don't know. Were you in contact with PropOrNot to use their copyrighted material? SashiRolls (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not on individual contributors. And please read Wikipedia fair use policy at WP:FAIRUSE. Sagecandor (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why this section is so long. Regarding the logo: Use of an organization's logo in the article about the organization is a standard fair use case on Wikipedia. On the other hand, unless you own both the photograph and the artwork in the photograph, it's a copyright violation and should be deleted from Commons (if we have an article about the artwork, it could be used with a fair use rationale on Wikipedia, but not on Commons). I would nominate it myself there, but I'm not entirely sure I understand the context, since an author of the artwork is not given. FWIW I didn't even look to see how it was being used in the article and have no opinion at this time concerning its relevance -- I didn't get that far before seeing it's apparently problematic. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't own either, but Thierry Ehrmann does. That's his property its on. (It's pretty recognizable to anyone who's ever been to the Museum) (Cf. Salamander on rusty iron). SashiRolls (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have never worked for, or even met, Thierry Ehrmann, before anyone wastes time on COI. SashiRolls (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah. So if Ehrmann is the copyright owner of the artwork and the photograph and has published it with a compatible creative commons license, this could just be resolved by linking to the source page (where the license is visible) from Commons (and using the relevant template). Though, again, he would have to own the copyright to both (not just own the venue and photograph). This isn't an accusation of bad faith -- just the sometimes tedious fine print of how licensing on Commons/Wikipedia goes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The link to the source is above. (Counterpunch) SashiRolls (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

WaPo source

Now you're deleting the WaPo, Mr Marek? That's new. ^^ --SashiRolls (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Read the edit summary, it's self explanatory.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

In her penultimate paragraph she adduces the evidence of PropOrNot, then reaches the cited conclusion in the final paragraph of the article. You save your strongest arguments for last: it's good writing technique. N'importe quoi, mon cher bénévole. :P -- SashiRolls (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The article is mostly about a different topic. Also, it's a horrible writing technique, especially for print media seeing as how most people don't read past the headline or the first para. That's why our articles have "lede"s too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

CounterPunch source

"CounterPunch" should be removed as a source for this article as it fails WP:Identifying reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The source in question is a direct quote from an e-mail Counterpunch received from PropOrNot. I think this is an appropriate use per WP:PRIMARY. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree that Counterpunch should have the right to respond to PropOrNot's allegation with the email they sent. This could be qualified by saying that CP said they received a letter from PON, etc., etc. if we really think the CP folks are a pack of liars. (which I don't, but hey, who knows...)SashiRolls (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The most we could use this source for is to note that CP was removed from the list. Quoting it at length violates WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with both DrFleischman and Volunteer Marek, we can use it, but sparingly and not WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to blockquote a huge chunk from it. Sagecandor (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman said this was an appropriate use, though to casual talk page readers this may not be clear. I would appreciate further comment to be sure I have understood. --SashiRolls (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

(For clarity, SashiRolls is correct about my position, Sagecandor is not.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying I agree with both DrFleischman and Volunteer Marek. I agree with DrFleischman that we can use it. And I agree with Volunteer Marek that we should not blockquote large chunks from it which would be WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, unless other secondary sources also covered this from "CounterPunch". Sagecandor (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Dr. Fleischman and SashiRolls; restoring per consensus. BlueSalix (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the "sparingly" part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)