Template:Did you know nominations/Ding Xuesong
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 19:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Ding Xuesong
Ding Xuesong
- ... that Ding Xuesong (pictured) was the first female ambassador of the People's Republic of China? Source: 新中国第一位女大使丁雪松二三事
5x expanded by Toadboy123 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ding Xuesong; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
: There is an issue with the portrait image used in the article (and here in the hook): it needs a US PD tag, but as it was published in 1936, I'm not sure that it is PD in the US. Given that we don't seem to have original publication info, we can't claim that it was published without copyright notice. I'm not sure of the relevant Chinese laws, but it's also possible that the image of her clothing (taken inside a museum?) is non-PD: my interpretation of the Commons page is that it's at least dubious.
Article otherwise seems fine; a little brief in the lead, but cited, neutral and with no evident plagiarism or copyvio. QPQ is done, and article was expanded within the window. Hook is good and cited; can accept on good faith. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist If there are copyright issues with the image, I am fine with it not being used in the DYK. Other than that, I hope all is good with the hook. - Toadboy123 (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- And also regarding the image, I decided to look into it. The image happens to be cropped from the main image of the subject with her institution classmates in 1936 (Source: https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_14823516). Since, the image is taken more than 70 years ago, it could be in PD-China and could be PD-US considering the age. But like I said, if there are copyright issues with the image I am fine it with not being used in the article. - Toadboy123 (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- PD-us needs publication before 1923 to be automatic: there are circumstances that give rise to exceptions, but I can't see that any apply here and there's no suggestion in the page licensing that they should. I'd suggest raising a discussion on Commons: if the image isn't free use, it could be reuploaded to Wikipedia as fair use (because Ding has died), but I have found out the hard way that it upsets people on Commons if you go ahead and do that while the Commons image is still live. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- @ UndercoverClassicist Well in that case, I would suggest the image be avoided in its use in the DYK considering the conflicting issues regarding its status. - Toadboy123 (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I would agree, but we can't put an article on the mainpage if it's got copyvio concerns: images count just as much as text does. The infobox image needs to be sorted out or removed, and the same is true of the other one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- @ UndercoverClassicist Based on my understanding, I have edited the image's template. Considering the image was published in 1936 and in China, an image becomes PD 50 years after publishing. Although some Chinese images published from 1940s to 1960s are copyrighted under the URAA due to them being 50 years old after the URAA year of 1996, this particular image was already 50 years old in 1986, which would mean it would be PD in US as it was published before 1989. - Toadboy123 (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- We don't have any information on the original publication: how do we know that it's 1936 (Commons itself is not a reliable source). As far as I can see, China established copyright relations with the US in 1904; given that we don't know where it was published, we can't say that it was published without copyright notice, and therefore can't satisfy criterion 2 for the US-PD tag. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- @ UndercoverClassicist Well according to this link here ( https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_14823516 ), it states that the image was taken on 1936. (cropped from the group image) - Toadboy123 (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's something, but taken isn't published: to use that US-PD tag, we need to be absolutely certain of where it was first published (that is, made widely available in print or an exhibition), and that that publication included no copyright notice (I'm not sure how likely that is, a priori, because I'm not sure precisely what counts as one: however, it seems inherently unlikely that a professional publication would lack anything recognisable asserting the author's existence and rights, even in the 1930s). UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- @ UndercoverClassicist So, should the image be used in the article or should I remove it and use another under fair-use for the DYK to proceed? In my opinion, I think that image is PD considering the age of it. - Toadboy123 (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- One way or another, the copyright status of both images needs to be resolved before the article hits the main page. A fair-use image would be fine: uploading the same image as fair use will cause problems at Commons, and it would be better to start a discussion there as to its copyright status, which will either clarify it or lead to the image's deletion and reuploading here as fair use. Again, its age isn't (by itself) relevant: it is not old enough, unfortunately, to qualify automatically as PD in the US. The clothes image also needs to be either discussed or removed, since China's freedom of panorama does not appear to apply in this case, and so the image is not PD in its source country. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist I have removed the image and added an alternative image under fair-use rationale. - Toadboy123 (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- New image checks fine, though I'd like to wait for the bot to come along and shrink it to be sure that the non-free use criteria are fully met. File:Coat and qipao worn by Amb. Ding Xuesong when presenting credentials (20210909152626).jpg also needs attention, specifically towards freedom of panorama; we either need to be much more sure that the objects themselves are PD in China (via FoP) or to remove the image, perhaps replacing it with an alternative. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist Since there is no alternative to the image, I have decided to remove it. Let me know if the article is good to go. - Toadboy123 (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Approved AGF, without the image and with the necessary change to "... that Ding Xuesong was the first female ambassador of the People's Republic of China?" UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist Since there is no alternative to the image, I have decided to remove it. Let me know if the article is good to go. - Toadboy123 (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- New image checks fine, though I'd like to wait for the bot to come along and shrink it to be sure that the non-free use criteria are fully met. File:Coat and qipao worn by Amb. Ding Xuesong when presenting credentials (20210909152626).jpg also needs attention, specifically towards freedom of panorama; we either need to be much more sure that the objects themselves are PD in China (via FoP) or to remove the image, perhaps replacing it with an alternative. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist I have removed the image and added an alternative image under fair-use rationale. - Toadboy123 (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- One way or another, the copyright status of both images needs to be resolved before the article hits the main page. A fair-use image would be fine: uploading the same image as fair use will cause problems at Commons, and it would be better to start a discussion there as to its copyright status, which will either clarify it or lead to the image's deletion and reuploading here as fair use. Again, its age isn't (by itself) relevant: it is not old enough, unfortunately, to qualify automatically as PD in the US. The clothes image also needs to be either discussed or removed, since China's freedom of panorama does not appear to apply in this case, and so the image is not PD in its source country. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- @ UndercoverClassicist So, should the image be used in the article or should I remove it and use another under fair-use for the DYK to proceed? In my opinion, I think that image is PD considering the age of it. - Toadboy123 (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's something, but taken isn't published: to use that US-PD tag, we need to be absolutely certain of where it was first published (that is, made widely available in print or an exhibition), and that that publication included no copyright notice (I'm not sure how likely that is, a priori, because I'm not sure precisely what counts as one: however, it seems inherently unlikely that a professional publication would lack anything recognisable asserting the author's existence and rights, even in the 1930s). UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- @ UndercoverClassicist Well according to this link here ( https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_14823516 ), it states that the image was taken on 1936. (cropped from the group image) - Toadboy123 (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- We don't have any information on the original publication: how do we know that it's 1936 (Commons itself is not a reliable source). As far as I can see, China established copyright relations with the US in 1904; given that we don't know where it was published, we can't say that it was published without copyright notice, and therefore can't satisfy criterion 2 for the US-PD tag. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- @ UndercoverClassicist Based on my understanding, I have edited the image's template. Considering the image was published in 1936 and in China, an image becomes PD 50 years after publishing. Although some Chinese images published from 1940s to 1960s are copyrighted under the URAA due to them being 50 years old after the URAA year of 1996, this particular image was already 50 years old in 1986, which would mean it would be PD in US as it was published before 1989. - Toadboy123 (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I would agree, but we can't put an article on the mainpage if it's got copyvio concerns: images count just as much as text does. The infobox image needs to be sorted out or removed, and the same is true of the other one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- @ UndercoverClassicist Well in that case, I would suggest the image be avoided in its use in the DYK considering the conflicting issues regarding its status. - Toadboy123 (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- PD-us needs publication before 1923 to be automatic: there are circumstances that give rise to exceptions, but I can't see that any apply here and there's no suggestion in the page licensing that they should. I'd suggest raising a discussion on Commons: if the image isn't free use, it could be reuploaded to Wikipedia as fair use (because Ding has died), but I have found out the hard way that it upsets people on Commons if you go ahead and do that while the Commons image is still live. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- And also regarding the image, I decided to look into it. The image happens to be cropped from the main image of the subject with her institution classmates in 1936 (Source: https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_14823516). Since, the image is taken more than 70 years ago, it could be in PD-China and could be PD-US considering the age. But like I said, if there are copyright issues with the image I am fine it with not being used in the article. - Toadboy123 (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Readding tick as DYK bot didn't pick up on the one above. Z1720 (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist, Toadboy123, and Z1720: To comply with WP:DYKHFC I have moved one citation to end of hook fact in our article. Bruxton (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)