The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: withdrawn. I am satisfied with the improvements to the article. howcheng {chat} 17:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stonewall_riots.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Moni3 ( | contribs).

• NFCC 8 violation. This is a photo of police officers attempting to perform crowd control, which then escalated into a riot. I'm sorry, but I don't see how this is necessary to understanding the article. The FUR on the image page discusses how it contrasts the conservative appearance of the police with the more outlandish style of the protesters, but police officers are always conservatively dressed and gay youth tend to be flamboyant [irrelevant --hc] (and they aren't even that outlandish here). Furthermore, Stonewall riots#Riots doesn't contain any sourced commentary about the image itself, which would be necessary to justify our use of the image. As such, the image is used only in a decorative manner, which is a flat-out copyright violation. howcheng {chat} 17:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Elcobbola (talk · contribs) instructed me how to word the fair use rationale. Apparently I did such a bang-up job that this image was used as an example in the last non-free dispatch. So, obviously I disagree with you. I don't think I can speak for Elcobbola, so I'll invite him to this discussion. Otherwise, I will add anything necessary to the wording in the rationale to keep this image. Let me know what you want to see and I'll do it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To expand - your statement that "gay youth tend to be flamboyant" (I was not that flamboyant as a youth) is puzzling and not really relevant to this discussion. The image represents a clash of generational values that were widespread in the late 1960s. The article addresses 1. the youth present at the riots were disaffected and marginalized even in the gay community, 2. police abuse of power was perceived to be common in the neighborhood against gay people, and 3. the participants of the riot during the evening. I don't agree that the image is used in a "decorative" manner, but that it is a historic document of the riots. It is the only image taken during the evening of the first night of the riots. The image is not as famous as, say, Image:Birmingham campaign dogs.jpg, but then dozens of pictures were taken during that demonstration. Surely the guidelines don't preclude the only image taken because the image itself did not become as famous or moreso than the event? --Moni3 (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the "flamboyant" comment, and I stand corrected on that point. I think you have confused wikt:historical with wikt:historic, the former meaning "something that occurred in the past" and the latter meaning, "of importance to history". A historic photo will have commentary specific to the image and perhaps have won awards or influenced later images -- for example Kent State shootings (from the same time period) would be incomplete without that photo because its imagery helped shaped public opinion about the event. This photo here only shows police attempting to do crowd control; there is no image of the officers abusing any of the patrons (which would help your point), and there aren't any real symbols that identify the youth<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:VoABot/adminlist.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:VoABot/botlist.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Voice of All/Dates.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Voice of All/monobook/parse.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>s as gay in the photo -- they look like any kids from the late 1960s. This could be a photo of any anti-war demonstration from that period as well. howcheng {chat} 18:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could be any image of antiwar demonstrations, but it was not. It was an image taken the morning of June 28, 1969 outside the Stonewall Inn, where gay people just had had enough and pitched a holy fit. I understand the fame of the image is a factor in its fair use. However, how much does the only image taken factor in to fair use? The existence of the only image is in itself significant. --Moni3 (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very common mistake we find in the use of non-free photos: This is a non-notable photo of a notable event. Notability does not transfer from one to the other. I'm sure there are other non-free photos of the Kent State shootings but only Image:Kent State massacre.jpg won a Pulitzer Prize. Image:Vj day kiss.jpg is a famous (non-free) photograph, but the public domain version of the same event Image:Kissing the War Goodbye.jpg doesn't have anywhere near the same amount of recognition. howcheng {chat} 20:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not agree that this image is only decorative. It is the only known photograph of the riots taken on the night and is of historic importance. As for the subjects not looking gay, I would be interested to know what gay people should look like. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "gay youth tend to be flamboyant". There's a sufficient rationale for what the picture conveys that can't properly be conveyed by text. They don't look all that flamboyant, do they, Howcheng? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they don't. If you read what I wrote above, it really just looks like a bunch of 1960s kids. howcheng {chat} 20:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope you're not stating that the picture is not relevant because the rioters don't look gay enough. Am I misunderstanding this? --Moni3 (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "just looks like a bunch of 1960s kids" - so gay 1960s kids looked different? Graham Colm ^Talk 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is getting out of hand very quickly, so I apologize for being unclear. Let me try and choose my words more carefully. I'm trying to contrast the reasoning given in the FUR with the actual scene that we can see with our eyes here. The given reason is that the photo shows "young men with more liberal clothing and hair, contrasting with the conservative appearance of the police" -- my point is that many 1960s kids appeared this way, and thus there is no specific identifying characteristic (pink triangles and rainbow flags not being popular symbols yet) that differentiates this photo from any other 1960s crowd control photo. Is the point supposed to be that gay kids look like straight kids, contrary to popular perception of the time? If so, then we need some sourced commentary in the article about what the image of gay youths was to people of that era and how this photo shattered their expectations -- that would certainly be enough of a visual requirement to keep the image. howcheng {chat} 21:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the FUR says much more: It illustrates the beginning of the riots, showing the type of people who participated: primarily young men with more liberal clothing and hair, contrasting with the conservative appearance of the police. The value differences between riot participants and the police is reflected in this image, and directly led to the cause of the riots. It is the only published image of the riots during the first evening when they spontaneously began.Graham Colm ^Talk 21:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but I was trying to get to the crux of the FUR. howcheng {chat} 21:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no crux; all the reasons contribute to the valid FUR -many other fairly used images have only one.Graham Colm ^Talk 21:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per David Carter, author of Stonewall (on the cover of which is the image in questions, which also covers Martin Duberman's Stonewall from 1994), p. 162: That at least three of these street kids were literally on the front line of this action is documented by a photograph taken that night by freelance photographer Joseph Ambrosini. The caption underneath the photograph - published in the Sunday edition of the New York Daily News just a little more than twenty-four hours after the riot began - describes the photo as showing the crowd attempting to 'impede police arrests outside the Stonewall Inn.' One the left of the photograph is Jackie Hormona, face-to-face with a police officer, his left hand reaching toward the officer. To his right one sees the feminine young man Tommy knew from the street with the plucked or shaved eyebrows. To the right of that youth stands the young man Tommy always saw wearing a coat or suit and usually tie. The face of this young man, who sports a Beatles haircut, is partly obscured by another youth with his back to the camera. In addition to this photographic evidence regarding the role played by the street kids of Friday night, there is memory of Jerry Hoose, who was summoned there by a phone call from his close friend John Goodman. Goodman told Hoose on his arrival at the scene "that Hormonna had kicked a cop, maybe, or punched a cop and threw something through the window, and then everybody got going. But he was there and he attributed it to Jackie, and I believe that because she was a lunatic. And all the other queens like Zazu Nova Queen of Sex and Marsha P. Johnson had got involved. It wasn't just the drag queens; it was the street people outside of the Stonewall." I will joyfully alter the image page, the article, the caption with a paraphrase of this information. This image is significant. Tell me what you want to see and it will be done. --Moni3 (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an historic image with a sufficient fair use rationale. There is no free alternative. To say that the image should be deleted because the rioters do not look gay contravenes WP:NPOV. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grrr, I am not saying that they don't look "gay enough" -- can we please get off this because it's just a bad distraction to the main point. I am saying it should be removed because it is not necessary to understanding the article. It's a "nice-to-have" but it's not essential to the understanding of the Stonewall riots, which is the bar for inclusion. Show me how exactly reader understanding is impaired if the image were to be removed. howcheng {chat} 23:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I can see where the NFC concerns come from. I don't think this photo, itself, is the subject of commentary. The subject of the photo is, but that isn't what the threshold is. On the other hand, if the stated problem is that it doesn't meet NFCC 8, I would say that is not true. The image contributes significantly to the article. This is honestly a borderline case for Fair Use. Protonk (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (from involved editor) - Stonewall riots#Riots doesn't contain any sourced commentary about the image itself, which would be necessary to justify our use of the image. The NFCC do not require "sourced commentary". Show me how exactly reader understanding is impaired if the image were to be removed. This is no longer a requirement (published notice was here). This image illustrates the event itself and the participants therein at a "high level" and, in more detail, the appearance of the participants (the importance thereof articulated in the purpose), their facial expressions, etc. These are all contributions to our understanding. Perhaps each one in and of itself is not significant, but the totality certainly seems to be. Эlcobbola _talk 01:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Kaldari had no consensus to remove that language (it was made without comment on the talk page) and thus I have restored it. howcheng {chat} 02:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW: User:Betacommand, similarly, had no consensus to add that language (it was added less than a month before Kaldari's subsequent removal). Эlcobbola _talk 02:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that's not true. It's been in there since July 2007 (and I know, because I instigated that change). howcheng {chat} 03:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done a good job of justifying in this discussion how the image is significant to the article. I am unable to believe there is nothing more I can do to the article, caption, or fair use rationale that will remove all doubt. I am willing, as stated above a few times, to do anything. Once it is clarified what should be done to keep this image and close this deletion discussion, that will be completed with all haste. So I'm inviting howcheng to enumerate what I need to do. The article is at FAC right now, and those involved at FAC can attest I will do anything for the quality of the articles I write. --Moni3 (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to GrahamColm above, you need make this image indispensable to reader understanding; it should expand upon specific points made in the text, such that a reader who might have trouble "picturing" (no pun intended) in their head what exactly is being meant can instantly understand it by looking at the actual picture. As it stands now, if the photo were to be removed, it wouldn't make much of an impact. Does that make sense? As I'm not familiar with the subject matter beyond a superficial level, I'm afraid I can't be much help with the specifics. howcheng {chat} 16:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Try this Need more? --Moni3 (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Even though I'm the co-nom of the article at FAC, I'm comfortable voting because I wasn't involved with the selection of the picture or making the FUR. Howcheng, I don't have any impression at all that you're bigoted or out-to-lunch, but I still want to pick on your comment because it makes the point; I could just as easily be picking on any number of people who would say the same thing, but you're handy :) You read the article (I hope), you looked at the FUR, which referred to "more liberal clothing", you thought about it carefully, and you still introduced this by saying "gay youth tend to be flamboyant", which certainly wasn't in the FUR or the article. What you're not getting is the fact that the picture shows typically-liberal-for-the-times, non-freakish, non-obviously-flamboyant young people confronting the police. This is an essential point that can't adequately be conveyed by text, and that will fly over the heads of some of the readers ... including possibly you. This is the point of any civil rights movement; a group tends to be marginalized, dismissed as freaks or worse, and taken advantage of, and over time, impressions change. There's more than ample evidence that impressions still need to change about what a crowd of such people in 1969 might look like, and the picture is worth a thousand words. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: - Delete - That the image is iconic, well remembered and was seen by a lot of people is not debatable. The issue is that, without sourced commentary on the image it is simply decorating the fact they appeared on the show. Image fails NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 23:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatlessullivantogether.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Siroxo ( | contribs).

• The only article that used this image as well as the free equivalent (an image of the band arriving in the U.S. a matter of days before this image was taken) is the main article on the band, and I have replaced other uses. This image isn't really adding much to the article- as I have said, there is a free equivalent showing the band actually arriving in the U.S., and this image seems to be relevant on**So... you wly because it shows the band breaking into the U.S.. I do not doubt that the performance was significant, but I do not see what the need for an image is- what does it actually show that can not be said and is, in fact, not already said? The use of stock rationales (this is not the primary means of identification) and the fact this image continually slips into other articles all over the project does not help. J Milburn (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it's important that the reader see exactly what 70+ Americans saw. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless the physical appearance of the Beatles as they appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show was important (and that would have to be added to the article, based on reliable sources). Otherwise, this is akin to using a magazine cover when the text is only "so-and-so appeared on the cover of such-and-such magazine" -- a point that clearly does not need to be illustrated in order to be understood. howcheng {chat} 16:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, the exact appearance of the beatle's on the ed sullivan show was staggeringly important to their popularity and reception in the states. It is kind of the defining moment in the "arrival" of the 1960s. Google. GNews archive for 1964. Review of the DVD of all of their appearances noting "mop top". That should be sufficient. Protonk (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yes, the fact that the Beatles were on the show is incredibly important as heradling the start of the British Invasion and whatnot, but I'm talking about their physical appearance on the show; I mean, the "mop top" look is adequately conveyed in Image:The Beatles in America.JPG. howcheng {chat} 21:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm talking about their physical appearance on the show. I agree that the "mop top" look can be shown by a free image but some of those sources aren't talking about their image elsewhere, they are talking about their appearance on a show that made a half-assed attempt to not show Elvis's hips. Protonk (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Note that Elvis Presley doesn't even include that image in the article, although I think it could be justified there. The problem here is that the Beatles article doesn't really go into depth about their physical appearance as broadcast on the show -- there is no visual requirement to have this image, which is what NFCC 8 sets the bar to be. howcheng {chat} 04:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't have a horse in this race, so I can equivocate here. I think that an article just about the Ed Sullivan appearances could be written and summarized in the beatles article. In this hypothetical article, I can't imagine it being complete without an image of them on the show. However, that article doesn't exist (and I'm not inclined to write it just now). So I can of course see your point. Protonk (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I left a message at Talk:The Beatles to see if any one of the article's regular editors feels up to the task. howcheng {chat} 04:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I have no idea why this is being discussed at all. A few thousand fans saw The Beatles at the airport, but the defining moment for America was seeing them on TV. How can one even think of deleting such an important historical moment? The mind boggles...--andreasegde (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article as it is written does not visually require the image to be there. I know it's a historic event, and I understand how important it was to rock history, but if you want the image to be kept, the article needs to be expanded in order to justify the use of the image. howcheng {chat} 21:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.