Knowledge (XXG):Files for discussion/2020 March 16

1366:. Even the caption of the file is not really supported by a proper citation and could be removed/revised at anytime. Moreover, even if sourced critical commentary about the cover can be find, there still has to be a strong contextual connection to Benson himself to justify the use of the file. Benson only wrote the forward to the book in question, and there's no indication (as of yet) that he had anything to do with the cover art itself. If he designed the cover or otherwise had some creative input into its selection, and his involvement in the process of determining the cover is something that is discussed by reliable sources, then perhaps it would make some sense to show it. We might guess that he somehow know what the book's cover was going to be before writing the forward and thus perhaps gave it his stamp of approval, but guessing isn't going to be good enough. So, unless there is not only sourced critical commentary about any controversy associated with the cover but also sourced critical commentary about Benson's connection with the cover that goes beyond "he wrote the forward for the book" (perhaps he specifically commented about the cover at some point later on that generated some controversy), justifying it's non-free use per NFCC#1, NFCC#8, NFC#cite_note-3 and if perhaps a type of " 1434:. It's pretty clear from reading many talks by Benson that the book cover succinctly and fairly depicts Benson's thoughts on the Civil Rights Movement. The three academic books I could find on the subject all portray Benson as being adamantly opposed to the civil rights movement, to the extreme degree depicted in the picture itself ("The Mormon Hierarchy: Extentions of Power", "Thunder From the Right", and "The Mormon Church & Blacks"). The fact that the SPLC associates the book cover more with Benson than with the books author is a further indication that it should be included in the Benson article, and not a different article. The Book would have been lost to history had Benson not written the foreword. Is the cover notable? Yes. Why is it notable? Because Ezra Taft Benson wrote the foreword, and endorsed the book. Even if he did not write the foreword, he endorsed the book, which is notable in and of itself. Imagine if today's Secretary of Agriculture endorsed a similar book today? Would that not be notable, even if he had zero input into the selection of the cover art? 1480:. As for your question about today's Secretary of Agriculture endorsing a similar book, again adding sourced text content to his/her article might be an acceptable thing to do, but that doesn't mean the book's cover needs to also needs to be added to the article and it probably shouldn't if the cover itself is not the subject of sourced commentary which particularly relates to the S of A.I think that because this cover is so bad and because Benson was a rather bad guy, there's an assumption that the cover needs to be seen so as to really impress upon the reader just how bad of both things are/were. Suppose things were flipped a bit and there was a really great/positive message, book, movie, painting or whatever that Benson endorsed or somehow was associated with (i.e. something really really good); we wouldn't necessary include an image of that book's cover, that movie's album, that painting in the article just because it was somehow connected to Benson. Benson was the President of the Church of Latter Day Saints, but we don't need to add 1456:. The reader doesn't really need to see this particular book cover to understand that Benson was opposed to the Civil Rights Movement. There is distinction between what we might personally deemed to be "notable" and what is "Knowledge (XXG) notable" and the latter is determined by whether the cover itself has received significant coverage in reliable sources. The fact that Benson wrote the forward of the book or endorsed the book seems something certainly worth mentioning in the article, but that doesn't automatically mean that it's also just as necessary to show a cover of the book. Moreover, the role of the SPLC and the role of Knowledge (XXG) aren't necessarily one and the same; for example, the SPLC might not feel obligated to adhere to things like 1358:. I wouldn't list this as one of my favorite book covers of all time and can completely understand and empathize with anyone who finds it offensive because it is offensive in my opinion. However, any content about any controversy associated with the book cover is going to need to be supported by critical commentary about it within the relevant section of the article that is supported by citations to reliable sources and then perhaps even properly attributed as such; otherwise, what you have is some unsourced claims written in Knowledge (XXG)'s voice that can be removed at anytime per 1493:

endorse lots of things, some of which are worth mentioning within the article; that doesn't necessarily mean, however, that we need to include images of such things in their Knowledge (XXG) biographies. We don't automatically add non-free book covers to articles about authors who actually write the books, non-free album covers to articles about bands who released the albums, or non-free movie posters to articles about film makers/actors; we only would do such a thing if things like

1374:, but makes no mention of who actually wrote the book seems a bit odd and more like they have an issue with Benson himself and that the cover was added more for that purpose than to comment on a "particularly vicious and racist book". It's not like the photo they use shows Benson holding the book and smiling it or shows him at signing copies of it somewhere. They showed two unrelated images side by side and did a little 1299:. Even though there is some discussion of the book in the "Civil Rights Movement" section of the article about Benson, there is nothing specific to the cover art itself or any controversy associated with it. There is a caption added to the file that is supported by a citation, but bascially only seems to leave to an archived version of the book (which actually might be a problem per 1063:) unless there is critical sourced commentary about the cover art itself (not just the soundtrack album), and I see no reason why the same application of NFCC#8 wouldn't apply to this article about a videogame. There is no sourced critical commentary about the cover art in the section about soundtrack and even if there was this type of non-free use is also problematic per 1539:

that were added, I explained above why I don't think the SPLC really helps justify the file's use, and there's no link provided for the other source so there's no real way for me to check it. Since you apparently can access the source and read what it says perhaps you can clarify things more. If the source is the same as

1275:, but generally only when the cover art is used for primary identification purposes in either the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the book in question. While ther types of non-free use or uses in other articles in not automatically prohibited, they do tend to be much harder to justify per 1370:" is going to be pretty hard to do.The fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center states the cover as "offensive" would be something good to add to an article about the book itself or maybe even possible an article about offensive/racial book covers, etc. The fact that SPLC website shows a photo of Benson with 1492:

as a non-free logo and add it to the article for the reader to understand that. Benson seems to have actually written a number of books himself, but we would add an image of the cover of even his best known work just because he wrote the book.The subject of a Knowledge (XXG) biography might choose to

367: 1913:

because it will still be being used in the article about the book. If this is an acceptable outcome to you, then that's fine; however, if you or anyone else still feels the file can be used in both the Benson article and the book article, then a rationale needs to be re-added for the Benson article.

1582:

You are taking someone’s justification and prior knowledge and calling it synthesis. SYNTH doesn’t apply to talk page comments in debates. It merely applies to the article space. The source he provided baldly states it was racist and describes the image in stark terms. That is neither OR or SYNTH. -

1523:

I don’t think you understand OR or SYNTH. I read the source material he has cited and the author literally directly speaks about the cover of the book. I strongly urge you to read his source material. It’s a valid secondary source. There is no synthesis or original research I can see, and the editor

1567:

because those types of statements are our own interpretations or critical commentary on the situation that have little value to Knowledge (XXG) unless they are actually the interpretations/critical commentary found in reliable sources. Anyway, if my opinion is in the minority and the consensus turn

1538:

I read the expanded version of the section, and I still don't think there's sufficient justification for using the file. The current version is better than before, but I don't think a sentence describing the book's cover is sufficient for justifying the non-free use of the file. Of the new sources

1334:

merely a decorative image. This image is about the highly racist book with a foreword by Benson, and the image caption even says it as such. There is no need for a sole article on the book (though I would not object) but it is absolutely pertinent to the article. The image on the front of the book

1311:

and someone wants to create a stand-alone article about it, then it would be perfectly fine to use this file there; the current use in the Benson article, however, doesn't comply with relevant policy which means the files should be deleted unless some sourced critical commentary that goes beyond a

1601:

I thought that was understood since we appeared to be discussing adding content to the article about the image and Benson's connection to the image. OR and SYN only apply to article content; so, when someone brings them up who seems to have been editing for quite awhile, then it should be kind of

1914:

FWIW, as I posted above, I think using a non-free book cover for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the book in question; so, I think that usage does comply with policy and see no reason why it cannot be used in that article. --

1191:. Consensus is to keep this image, but per the updates on 22 March 2020, use it in the article on the book and not in the article on Benson. There is only a FUR for the article on the book currently, so if it is re-added to the article on Benson, a FUR must be added for that article as well. 1568:

out to be that file's use is justified, then that's fine and a consensus doesn't need to be unanimous; however, I've seen nothing posted in this discussion or in the changes made to the article (at least so far) that makes me think the file's use does comply with relevant policy. --

403: 1749:

Thank you, good advice, much appreciated. Canvassing is not my intent. I am not trying to 'sneak' this into the article, or violate NPOV. I have posted to the WT:NFCC, WP:NPOV/N and WP:OR/N notice boards. I noticed it was already in the LDS Project noticeboard.

1335:

alone was criticized for being racist. I will need to locate the reference to this. This is also the first edition cover of this highly charged book. The cover alone illustrates the book, one of the few times that the cover of the book reflects it's contents.

1618:

I still feel there is value in keeping the image, and the source connecting the image to Benson is strong, but will also acquiesce if I am in the minority. I'll add some users I respect and have worked with, many of whom have reverted my own edits. Users:

1735:. Moreover, from a purely technical perspective, your attempt to notify others might not have worked since you forgot to sign your post; "ping"-type notifications only apparently work when the "pinger" signs their post at the time of the "pinging". — 1043:, but this is generally only when the cover art is being used for primary identification purposes either in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the album itself; other types of uses are not automatically prohibitted by 1425:

is a well respected historian, and as reliable a source as can be found. He himself thought it noteworthy to include a description of the books cover in his book and thought it relevant, an excerpt of which was published in the periodical

1825: 1602:

understand that's the context the terms are being used. If that part of my post was confusing, however, then my apologies and let me rephrase it as "inferring such things in Knowledge (XXG) articles often runs afoul of OR and SYN". --

1339:

uses the book cover. The image itself was in the first edition of the book and definitely shows a black man's head cut off, dripping blood to a Soviet style sickle. A description of the cover really doesn't do it justice. -

1798:. While the book is discussed in the article, the is no critical commentary about how the cover itself is connected to Benson (who is not the author of the book or the cover artist), only a description of the cover. — 2044: 992: 956: 741: 526: 331: 136: 1481: 1543:

provided above, then there's for sure lots of commentary about Benson being anti-Civil Rights and anti-communist in that excerpt, but the only comment specifically on the cover that I can find is "

2155: 1905:

The way you added a rationale for the article about the book you created is OK, but you unintentionally replaced the one for the Benson article. So, now the use in the Benson article also fails

1565:

The fact that the SPLC associates the book cover more with Benson than with the books author is a further indication that it should be included in the Benson article, and not a different article

2191: 1485: 1891:

I updated the rationale on the image to have it point to the book article. I assume that is what you meant? Are you saying the Book Article itself also needs a rationale template added?

813: 598: 172: 2264:, can only be used for photographs taken before 1955, and this photograph clearly doesn't satisfy this requirement. Also, the source URL is dead and so the source can't be verified. -- 1561:

The three academic books I could find on the subject all portray Benson as being adamantly opposed to the civil rights movement, to the extreme degree depicted in the picture itself

208: 1468:(in the case of a living person) like Knowledge (XXG) expects us to do. In addition, the SLPC could simply add pretty much any image it wanted to its website under the concept of 1597:

My comments about OR and SYN had nothing to do with this discussion or any discussion on a talk page. They were related to article content. That was what I meant when I posted

359: 1279:

absent any specific sourced critical commentary about the cover art itself to tie the article content to the image. This file was originally tagged for speedy deletion by

351: 251: 1549:

While we might be able to personally infer lots of things about Benson and the book cover, inferring such things on Knowledge (XXG) often runs afoul of WP:OR and WP:SYN

1421:'s earlier concern that at the time, there was nothing about the book cover in the article itself. I have added relevant content appropriately sourced. Historian 1228: 38: 33: 562: 2007: 1448:

While we might be able to personally infer lots of things about Benson and the book cover, inferring such things on Knowledge (XXG) often runs afoul of

1295:. While I think those things were done in good faith, I don't they accurately reflect how this type of non-free use tends to generally be assessed per 797: 582: 1557:

It's pretty clear from reading many talks by Benson that the book cover succinctly and fairly depicts Benson's thoughts on the Civil Rights Movement

1238: 777: 1288: 805: 590: 1427: 1028: 801: 586: 2251: 827: 612: 416: 221: 2036: 1082: 984: 1488:

to the article for the reader to understand that. He was also a member of the Idaho Hall of Fame, but once again we don't need to upload

920: 705: 490: 295: 100: 387: 192: 2028: 1974: 976: 876: 1836:

the image, but I am fine if it is removed from the Ezra Taft Benson article. Hopefully this solution is acceptable to all parties.

1378:

to try and somehow tie the two together. So, no I don't think that kind of thing justifies the file's use in the Benson article. --

1201: 932: 717: 502: 307: 112: 2254:, who was born in 1957. Furthermore, the filename suggests that the photograph was taken in 1979. However, the copyright tag used, 17: 1928:

I am fine with deletion from the Benson article at this point and keeping it just in the Book Article. Thanks for the mentorship

1544: 950: 938: 735: 723: 520: 508: 325: 313: 130: 118: 2183: 1553:

doesn't specifically reflect what's stated in reliable sources but which might be based upon how we interpret what we have read

1524:

has not inferred anything. I think you need to be careful with assertions like this, you are rather over-egging the pudding. -

926: 711: 496: 395: 301: 200: 106: 1284: 1248: 1220: 944: 729: 514: 391: 319: 196: 164: 124: 1701:" a bunch of individual users whom you respect (even if they've reverted you in the past), it might've been better to use a 2226:

Unused, and the licenses on the file have been in question for almost 6 years and have not been verified and/or corrected.

2175: 2075: 1509:, etc. were clearly not an issue; in other words, we would only do so if relevant policy clearly justified us doing so. -- 2211: 2119: 1540: 1431: 1012: 1002: 787: 572: 1881: 1810: 1197: 1127: 1108: 1068: 156: 56: 2290: 2095: 2065: 1994: 1964: 1179: 1149: 896: 866: 681: 651: 466: 436: 271: 241: 76: 2131: 1256: 2219: 2149: 2137: 1252: 1020: 1547:" which again I don't really think is enough to justify the file's use in the article.As for OR and SYN, I posted 2215: 2125: 1212: 1159: 1055:). For this reason, soundtrack album covers are pretty much never considered acceptable in articles about films ( 1016: 554: 1484:

to the article for the reader to understand that. He was the Secretary of Agriculture, but we don't need to add

404:

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sculpture arnoldo pomodoro painting terry ward at smithsonian annmarie 2009.jpg

2143: 1588: 1529: 1397: 1345: 821: 606: 410: 215: 1672: 1551:, in which I purposely used "we" not "you" because it is we who need to be careful of posting anything that 914: 769: 699: 546: 484: 446: 289: 94: 1784: 1075: 377: 182: 1716: 1552: 1071:

being used in the main infobox of the article to identify the game. This file was originally tagged with

1056: 2286: 2273: 2258: 2241: 2168: 2091: 2061: 2021: 1990: 1960: 1941: 1923: 1900: 1886: 1845: 1815: 1788: 1759: 1744: 1692: 1664: 1611: 1592: 1577: 1555:. Now, if you want me to be more specific, I do think we need to be careful making statements like this 1533: 1518: 1443: 1401: 1387: 1349: 1321: 1205: 1175: 1145: 1132: 1094: 969: 892: 862: 849: 831: 754: 677: 647: 634: 616: 539: 462: 432: 420: 344: 267: 237: 225: 149: 72: 1720: 1307:) but which doesn't contain any sourced critical commentary about the book's cover. If this book meets 1300: 761: 661: 1668: 1640: 1732: 1711:

on the talk pages of some relevant WikiProjects or other more general noticeboards/talk pages (e.g.

1304: 2237: 2163: 1919: 1740: 1705: 1648: 1607: 1584: 1573: 1525: 1514: 1393: 1383: 1341: 1317: 1292: 1090: 964: 817: 749: 602: 534: 406: 339: 211: 144: 1909:

and will be tagged for removal by a bot from the Benson article. The file will not be deleted per

1724: 1359: 1937: 1896: 1841: 1755: 1731:) if you're seeking wider input from the community so as to avoid any possible issues related to 1688: 1644: 1636: 1476:

apply much more restrictive criteria for using copyrighted content than fair use as explained in

1439: 909: 694: 479: 284: 89: 1494: 1461: 1375: 1367: 1308: 1296: 2269: 2201: 2113: 2011: 1780: 1628: 1545:

an overtly racist book which featured the decapitated head of an African-American on its cover

845: 630: 1906: 1866: 1862: 1795: 1728: 1698: 1473: 1457: 1272: 1268: 1193: 1104: 1064: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 2084:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below.

1983:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below.

1875: 1854: 1804: 1680: 1676: 1632: 1422: 1414: 1264: 1168:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below.

1121: 1060: 885:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below.

670:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below.

455:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below.

260:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below.

65:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below.

2285: