File:1966 Official Lebanese Map of Shebaa Farms and Syrian border.png – There is no consensus to overturn the FFD "delete" closure. Although good arguments have been made here that FFD might have gotten it wrong on the merits, this DRV is not a re-run of the FFD, but a forum in which to examine incorrect assessements of consensus or other procedural errors. There is no consensus here that such an error, warranting an overturning of the FFD closure, has been made in this case. As regards the speedy deletion of an identical copy of the image deleted at FFD, it is not substantially contested here, as far as I can tell, and is therefore endorsed. Sandstein 08:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Fastily deleted the map on the grounds that it was "redundant", but then deleted both the redundant map and the original identical map that had existed for some 10 years. The map is fine and useful and accurate and should be restored. We don't need two maps, but we do need one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekParadise (talk • contribs) 17:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is this an appeal of an action by Fastily or a closure by Explicit? The appellant says that Fastily deleted the map as redundant, but the history shows that Explicit deleted the map following FFD. What is being appealed? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The file Fastily speedied (after speedying this one, reconsidering, and undeleting it) was File:Shebaafarms.png. The files were byte-for-byte identical. Strictly speaking, he was right the first time and should have speedied this one (as the other had the longer history), but it was this one that was at FFD, so I have no problem with that. Endorse the F1.This file was properly deleted by the FFD, and I'm surprised it lasted this long. Fastily was exactly correct in his comment at the FFD - not only is this a classic WP:NFCC#1 violation, it's so classic that we have a line in our WP:Non-free content policy describing exactly this situation, at WP:UUI #4. It could have itself been speedied under either clause c or d of WP:F7; it didn't even need to go to FFD, so I'm endorsing the deletion there too. —Cryptic23:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Fastily nor Explicit have been notified by the filer, about this DRV. The instructions are very clear. I am at the point now with applicants of this nature who fail to follow basic processes that my !vote here is speedy endorse for being procedurally deficient, with supplementary reasoning of having minimal chance of success. Daniel (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft. I'm used to doing it, and wouldn't be surprised if I'm the only who's ever used any of the parameters of {{drvnote}} besides the pagename. (I got distracted this time by tracking down the other file being talked about.) The instructions at DRV are obscenely long and overcomplex, and various regulars here have fought tooth and nail against every attempt to streamline or simplify them, so we've only got ourselves to blame when everyone else's eyes just glaze over. —Cryptic23:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've come to DRV to find things I've deleted have been listed here, and I wasn't notified. I know I'm not the only one. There's four steps listed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Steps_to_list_a_new_deletion_review, and one of them is notify the closer of the discussion. It's basic courtesy on the part of the applicant, and to not do so is (in my opinion) a significant failing. I'm sure others will likely disagree but that's my $0.02. Daniel (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not you, Cryptic — it's on the applicants, entirely! You filling the void for these applicants' failings is obviously appreciated from a holistic standpoint, and you are doing great work in that space, but my umbrage is with the applicants who waste 7 days worth of DRV time with applications of various levels of frivolity yet can't even invest 5mins to read and execute the 4 steps required as part of completing an application here (one of which is to notify the closer of the discussion). Daniel (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not their fault. The instructions suck, we can't seem to fix them, and they (the other they) are already upset that the content they worked on's been deleted. That never happened to me here until after I'd been dragged to RFA so could get it back myself, but it has on other wikis, and that's bad enough even when I can later admit the deletion was reasonable. Least we can do is give people a fair hearing. —Cryptic02:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the speedy deletion and the FFD. The speedy deletion was for an identical image so I see nothing wrong with that deletion. The FFD was closed as delete per the consensus in the discussion. There has been no error in process for either deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the redundant map is to be deleted, then what possible excuse is there to delete the original map? I tried to use the original map in the article and could not, which is why I created the redundant map and gave clear reasons why there could not be a violation of WP:NFCC (the map by a government that no longer exists in 1966 cannot be obtained by any other source, only parts of it are used, it is out print, etc.).
The original map has existed undisturbed on wikipedia for many years. There was no discussion before deleting it. I don't care about a second redundant map. My complaint is that the original map was deleted without any discussion.
By all means, delete the redundant map IF YOU ALLOW THE ORIGINAL MAP TO CONTINUE. And if you do, please let me know how I can access it.
OPPOSE DELETION OF BOTH MAPS, including one that existed undisturbed for many years without a reason being given.
I also tried hard to follow the confusing instructions in DRV. I recognize that I'm far from a wikipedia expert. If I could have used the original map, I would have.GreekParadise (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we can't have two versions of this map is because they're redundant to each other. But the reason we can't have even one of them is because site-wide policy is not to use a non-free image when a free one can be created. The borders shown on the map aren't copyrightable, but the specific depiction of them on that map - the colors chosen, which features to depict and label, that it's a contour map (which isn't relevant to our use of it), all of these are fixed, original, creative choices that contribute to the map's copyright. We don't need to show this particular image to "prove" that the borders claimed on it were controversial; we don't even need to use an image at all. But if we do use an image, it's entirely possible to create one with a free license. —Cryptic22:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This map has been on wikipedia for more than five years. I believe from memory it was updated in 2017 but I can't find the original because it was deleted. I created the second one, because wikipedia was not allowing me to simply copy and paste the original one. It asked me to give a detailed account of why it did not violation Wikipedia's "fair use" policy which I did.
It's a reputable source precisely because it's 5% of the original source, whereas creating a new map would be the work of an individual editor and not trustworthy.
We allow more than 5% of songs to be played on wikipedia. Real songs that are copyrighted by living people. If that's fair use, this surely is.
Surely we can allow 5% of a large map from 1966 that is out of print and cannot be replicated to be shown on wikipedia.
Furthermore, the reason for "speedy deletion" was NOT because of copyright issues but because of the so-called redundancy.
If you want to delete a map that has been on wikipedia without complaint and survived several documented earlier requests for deletion, I submit you have to go through proper procedures and not seek a "speedy deletion" on false grounds of redundancy that you admit are not the real reason you don't like the map.
I gave all the reasons why the map was explicitly proper under Wikipedia's fair use standards in my submission on the map. (Including it's a small portion, the copyright holder doesn't exist, the map is out of print, no financial harm, etc.) I suggest you address all of the issues I laid out in an official proceeding if you want to delete them rather than doing it ad hoc here.
You -- or someone -- appears to have deleted the original map WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION WHATSOEVER. Is that correct? If not, where is it? I suggest you bring it back, because I don't think that's proper even if you think there's some proper reason for doing so.
Then if you want to delete the original map or my redundant one (which is identical to the original except it gives more reason why it's proper fair use), you do so using proper wikipedia procedures. Simply take the original map and add my fair use argument to it and put it up for discussion.GreekParadise (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I just don't think it's wikipedia policy that we can delete something we don't like without making a record of it on wikipedia.
If a record was made of it on wikipedia, could someone show me where the original 1966 Lebanese military map of Shebaa Farms was deleted and by whom?
I admit to not being sophisticated about such things. If it exists, perhaps that is the undeletion of the original years-old file that we should seek. GreekParadise (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found the deletion of the original file.
If it's proper, we could have an additional deletion review discussion as to why that was deleted without any formal or informal discussion as "redundant." It's the older map. I didn't create it. I copied it when I couldn't just paste it into an article. You can keep the original one. and add my reasons (on the second map) as why it's appropriate for fair use. I just don't know how to undelete it.GreekParadise (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, Cryptic claims it's proper to delete the original map under WP:UUI #4.
So I went there. It says:
A map, scanned or traced from an atlas, to illustrate the region depicted. Use may be appropriate if the map itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory, if the controversy is discussed in the article.
As the map IS of a disputed territory and the controversy is discussed, it is proper to be included. There are several wikipedia articles falsely claiming that Lebanon and Syria consider this to be Lebanese territory as if it were always true. What the map unequivocally shows is that both countries considered it to be Syrian territory, at least in 1966.
It is maps like this one used by the UN that explain how and why the UN legally determined that the land was Syrian and not Lebanese. The controversy is discussed in these articles on Shebaa Farms, as well as the use of maps such as this one to prove the UN claim to be accurate. As it remains disputed today, the evidence is critical so that readers know it to be true.
++++++
Wikipedia has other maps of disputed territories on this site. For example, there is this portion of a 1898 map from the US government allowed for "fair use" here because it's a government document: Delaware Wedge.
The Shebaa Farms map was a Lebanese government document. If we can cite portions of US and Pakistani maps of disputed territory, why is this one any different? GreekParadise (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This map could be either purely illustrative, or a subject for commentary itself.As the map IS of a disputed territory and the controversy is discussed, it is proper to be included.I think this is where the misunderstanding stems from. The example of UUI#4 doesn't talk about a map of a controversial territory (which is replaceable, as the territory is what the controversy is about), but a controversial map of a territory (i.e., the physical map itself is at the center of the controversy and isn't replaceable by an equivalent one).An example of both cases would be the "Red Map" presented by the Hungarian delegation at the Treaty of Trianon. The article Magyarization uses it as an ethnic map only, which would not be valid for UUI#4 if it was under copyright (as the data could have been illustrated by this specific map or any other one). On the other hand, the article about its author Pál Teleki presents commentary about the map itself and the deliberate artistic choices that went into it (in this case, to over-emphasize the proportion of Hungarian speakers), and would be a valid case of UUI#4. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, the map under discussion is a controversial map. It is not just a map of a controversial territory. There are tons of maps showing the same region, but this map in particular has controversial features which, combined with its provenance and date, make the map itself a controversial object. Zerotalk01:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The map clearly satisfies the exception spelt out in UUI#4, so I'll address the argument that a free version could be made. We should consider why that exception is there at all, since there is no map which can't be user-copied. The reason in this example is that the very existence of the map and not only the positions of the items on the map are a matter of dispute and misinformation. Setting the record straight on the facts is one of our roles, and a user-generated map will not suffice to do that convincingly. Also, this is a rare map that is not on the internet as far as I can tell, and the (great) editor who visited a library to copy this tiny portion is no longer with us. So even though I could make a copy, I can't cite the original map as if I have seen it myself. I don't even live in the same country as where this original is. For all practical purposes, I can't make a copy and personally confirm its authenticity. I can't even defer to the confirmation of the original uploader, since that is now gone. Zerotalk03:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of maps that can't be user-copied. One's displayed just above - it's not a great example because it's now in the public domain due to age, but the point of the map is to show the author's creative decisions about which specific areas to color, since they don't exactly correspond to the populations depicted. File:London Tube Map.png couldn't be user-copied, since it not only doesn't correspond to the physical layout of the London Underground, but we have an article about this map and its predecessors, where the map itself is discussed directly and in detail - neither the century-old version that's in the public domain nor the user-created version that are also in that article can substitute for it. File:Bereznay atlas plate 34 detail.jpg can't be replaced with a user-created map of historical Transylvania in András Bereznay because the point of it there isn't to show the borders or other data represented in it, but the specific way it was illustrated, and the article discusses that. That wouldn't be the case if someone tried to put the map in Transylvania, or History of Transylvania or one of its other subarticles. Neither Golan Heights nor Shebaa farms discussed this map at all. It's not a controversial map. It's a map depicting a controversy. That's why a user-created version of this map would be an adequate substitute, and why the public domain maps in the same articles already are. —Cryptic15:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the example is "a controversial map of a disputed territory, if the controversy is discussed in the article". I think we have exactly that. Further, there *should* be commentary on the map in the article. But we can't do that without the map. Is the right way forward to write a new NFCC justification, reupload the map, and then add the commentary or would that be seen as going around the FfD outcome? Hobit (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's been nothing said here to suggest that this is "a controversial map of a disputed territory" rather than "a map of a controversial disputed territory" except for bare assertions; it's an important distinction, and it's what I've based my argument around. If there's legitimate commentary to be added about the map, that can be written up here or on the articles' talk pages or as part of an undeletion request, for example. If looking at the map is necessary for that, it can be done during the FFD if DRV relists, or I can temp-undelete it behind a blank image (probably after the DRV concludes; it's already slightly overdue to already); it's also at the Wayback Archive.What's important is the commentary, not the non-free-use rationale on the file page or even the image itself; the latter follow from the former. The only statement about the map on either article was the caption, "A Lebanese military map, published in 1966, showing Shebaa Farms on the Syrian side of the border" (it was the same in both), which shows nothing about a controversy nor any other reason to use this map in particular. There might've been something longer in one article or the other at some point; I haven't gone digging.If this is restored, btw, it should be the version at File:Shebaafarms.png, which has history going back to June 2005, not the duplicate uploaded to this title on July 31 of this year. —Cryptic19:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a map which provides evidence of the dispute. And making a new one wouldn't carry the same meaning--it's just a map someone made. So while the map itself isn't controversial, it is evidence of the controversy being real. And making a new map would not be. Seems like a darn good reason to have it here. All that said, I agree the map itself is not subject to controversy. Hobit (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
restore without prejudice to a new FfD per Zero. Zero makes a strong case that there is no reasonable way to make a free map that meets our needs. While this specific map is not subject to discussion, it's not required to be. Rather "Use may be appropriate if the map itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory, if the controversy is discussed in the article.". The controversy is discussed in the article and the existence of the map itself is clearly relevant to the dispute. That's enough and it's not discussed by the delete !voters. Hobit (talk) 08:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
