Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hamas members attacking civilians in Kibbutz Mefalsim, Israel (October 2023).webm

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Hamas members attacking civilians in Kibbutz Mefalsim, Israel (October 2023).webm

[edit]

This is a snuff film taken from reddit. It's impossible to verify that this was Hamas or that it even took place at this location. It adds absolutely nothing to either the main article about the war or the article about the location in which this allegedly occurred. The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter..., and this doesn't. Lethargilistic (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is a parallel discussion on the article's talk page. Lethargilistic (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep . Not from reddit. This CCTV footage was verified by Wall Street Journal News and multiple other WP:RS as authentic. See for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZBTXaclQV0&ab_channel=WSJNews Marokwitz (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Although a decision was not necessarily reached here but I think this is too graphic for Wikipedia nothing learns anything from this video.Bobbyshabangu (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep . As mentioned above, CCTV and verified. I disagree with nothing to learn, there is a lot to learn, the same way we see horrible images from the holocaust--185.118.205.174 20:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobbyshabangu 1) Commons is not Wikipedia; 2) Commons is not censored. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is based on verifiability. How graphic you think it is is not really relevant. see WP:WINC; WP MOS:OMIMG -- Lenny Marks (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep If the video is "too graphic", then its inclusion to any Wikipedia articles must be avoided and/or prohibited. Deleting the video from Commons would be useless. @meet_j (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The video is sourced to this reddit post, not a news site. The YouTube link offered above does not contain the video, so it is not a verification of the contents of this video here. Lethargilistic (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently going through satellite imagery of the city this was filmed in to identify the street. The general scenary with the color of the dirt roads, shrubbery seems to match the city generally. Give me a day and I'll probably be able to identify the street. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuckstablers: I'm 99.9% sure this video was taken at 31°30′15.7″N 34°33′50.6″E / 31.504361°N 34.564056°E / 31.504361; 34.564056. FYI. -- Veggies (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep. I find it odd that you leave out the next part of that sentence, so I'll include it here so that it's clear. "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article".
Let's ask the question then; does this directly depict people, things, activities and concepts described in the article? It is depicting people (hamas militant), doing things (chasing down and executing israeli civilians) described in the article (the article about the war in which this occurred). Yes. It is depicting people doing things described in the article. Therefore it contributes to the readers understanding of the article's subject matter, as it shows the things being described. A picture, or video, is worth a thousand words. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't include that part because there is no evidence that this is actually depicting the event. It is cited to a post on reddit, not a verifiable RS. Lethargilistic (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's a different argument. If you're arguing that because a reliable source has not confirmed it's validity, then say that. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, I don't actually see anything in the image use policy that specifically states that all images/videos must be referenced/verified by a reliable source for inclusion. If you want please refer to something in the image use policy to support your viewpoint there. We know a massacre happened there, we have reliable sources on that, the timestamp on the video lines up with what I could find for the time this massacre took place, even looking briefly at google earth I can see the general area, color, shrubbery with trees, colour of trees, colour of dirt, matches that city. Given enough time I can probably identify what street it happened on if that assuages any concerns you have over the legitimacy. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the content policy portion, I understand that Commons is not Wikipedia, but I find the idea that there is no policy about verifiability and reliable sourcing unbelievable for a site so concerned with copyright violation. Can you link me to the Commons policy document you are referencing so I can get back to you on that? On the other points, I simply won't accept anything less than a source for where this video came from. I'm sure your geolocating skills are very good, but you're not in the chain of custody on this and this is a war. We should be wary of archiving anything (as someone else said) as "important documentary evidence of a significant historical event" when we don't know where it came from. Also, I admit my initial post was not the best at explaining my full rationale, which is verifiability, offensive content, and its educational value. I underestimated how controversial this would be. If you think offensive content is irrelevant and you think that it is educational, then we simply disagree. Lethargilistic (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete wmf:Resolution:Controversial content concerns. Inclusion on the project seems intent to shock the reader by showing a loss of human life, not to educationally describe how an attack was carried out. Aasim (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, what specifically from what you linked would support deletion? I just read it, couldn't really see specifically what would support it's deletion. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We support the principle of least astonishment: content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain. No one is asking for traumatic real life depictions of human injury or death. We are not LiveLeak. Aasim (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please. -- Veggies (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Awesome Aasim This is a misapplication. The idea here is that unnecessarily vulgar content be avoided. WMF is full of graphic content where appropriate. See Abu Ghraib abuse, the Holocaust, and 9/11. Your view would have us remove a tremendous amount of material on this project that is also used effectively on sister projects. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This decision should be left to individual projects, not forced on them by a Commons deletion. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Important documentary evidence of a significant historical event. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 11:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Regarding the content, it has obvious historical value. I don't see how it's any different than The Last Jew in Vinnitsa, which has been rated as a quality image on Commons. My concern is regarding the copyright. I've never been comfortable with the "CCTV has no inherent copyright" claim—in the US or elsewhere. I think this is an area where Commons needs definitive, clear legal advice. -- Veggies (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep OP's reasons for deletion were that it is 1) a "snuff film", 2) from Reddit, 3) he doesn't want it on certain Wikipedia articles. 2 and 3 and wrong prima facie; It doesn't matter where it came from so long as it is properly licensed and this is not Wikipedia. His first reason most closely falls under "Not educationally useful," which is also untrue. In Commons:

"educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative"
— com:DP

Which would of course cover this video, if only as a matter of historical record. Additionally, this file is automatically educational per COM:INUSE. --Lenny Marks (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hey everyone. I don't use Commons much, and I understand now that I made a "Commons is not Wikipedia" mistake. I do not think that the rationale I opened this thread with is appropriate for removal. Therefore, I think this thread should objectively be archived. However, I want to flag that Illegitimate Barrister has been uploading many graphic videos like this for quite some time without using them in any projects. I only noticed this because someone in the Wikipedia thread linked to a LiveLeak video of a suicide under the impression that the video was for use on Wikipedia. The uploader was the same, and I thought that was weird. I understand that the rationale for hosting on Commons is low, but (independently of their graphic content) is this a violation of COM:NOTUSED or COM:SPAM? Most recently, it seems to be mostly videos of police officers killing people and, IDK, maybe there's educational value there or maybe there isn't, but it does not seem to me like this content is intended to be used for anything. I don't know much about the norms here, but maybe someone should talk to them about it? Lethargilistic (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also not sure how that goes here/whether that's normally acceptable. Perhaps you should formally withdraw the nomination though so that it can be archived/closed? Lenny Marks (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept Nom withdrew request as it was not based on valid grounds for removal --Lenny Marks (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_members_attacking_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_Israel_(October_2023).webm&oldid=868214531"