Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Biblical criticism/archive1

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the hypothesis diagram

I think because of issues discussed above, we will have to pick between scaling up the hypothesis diagram and adding two-source back in--unless you have other ideas on how to make them fit that I haven't tried. I am open to suggestions. I won't act on this till I hear back from you on your priorities for this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Going to work on these others. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried using {{multiple image}} or similar? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Glad to see you here. I am still mostly a novice at images and don't know much more than I know. I have only learned about making images bigger and smaller here recently--because of this article. I will go now and read up on multiple images and see if that might fix the problem. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I was struggling through reading the page on multiple images when I found Katolophyromai had done it for me. Thank goodness! :-) Are you okay with how it looks? I like including the diagrams, so if you are okay with it I am too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The layout looks fine, but it's not clear to me what the two additional colours in the two-source diagram represent. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: The two additional colors represent material that is only found in Matthew or only found in Luke. They are actually the exact same colors that are used to represent this same material in the four source diagram on the right. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest either switching the positions of the two diagrams, or clarifying that in the caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I did as you suggested. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• File:Johann_Jacob_Griesbach.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Gunkel.jpg

I replaced the Griesbach image with one that has a US Pd tag on it, and someone has placed a tag on Gunkel since you looked at it I guess; I'm guessing Gerda.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The new Griesbach image has a PD tag, but per that tag, "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States".

I don't know why! How do I find out? What exactly am I looking for? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I did it! I think I did it anyway! I found another image and followed all of its information to the end and posted the appropriate US PD tag, and I think it's actually good! Please say it's good... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow the rationale on the new Griesbach image - why do we believe it to be an edict of government? Same with the Wellhausen image. While you're correct in your edit summary comment on the second that reproductions of 2D works don't get a new copyright in the US, (a) the original work can still have a copyright, and (b) the edict tag wouldn't be an appropriate one to reflect its US status. Looks like the Gunkel image is also still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay here's what I've got. [[1]] is a photo of a painting. (The painting is on this page: [[2]].) The original painting dates to 1800, so the artist has been dead for over 100 years, and the painting itself has no copyright and is in the public domain.

That page says The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States. ... see Reuse of PD-Art photographs for details.

If you go to re-use of PD-Art, there's this: In Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (1999), the New York District Court held that "a photograph which is no more than a copy of a work of another as exact as science and technology permits lacks originality. That is not to say that such a feat is trivial, simply not original". ... While the New York District Court does not hold jurisdiction over the whole US, other district courts have generally relied on and expanded on this decision. ... If the original work of art is sufficiently old that its own copyright has expired, the photograph itself will then be free for use in the U.S.

From the Wiki page: This was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality. In other words, it is public domain by a ruling--an edict--of the government. [[3]]

I concluded all of this put together meant this photograph qualified for a US PD tag. If I did this incorrectly, or used the wrong tag or something, if you'll tell me what to do so I can do it correctly, I want very much to cooperate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay. So essentially that edict tag is only appropriate when the image itself is part of a government edict - not if we believe it's in the PD because of a government edict. The PD-Art tag you cite above reflects that in the US, copying a 2D work doesn't create a new copyright, so we don't need to worry about the copyright of the copier/uploader, just the original work. So what we need to have is a tag indicating why the original painting is in the public domain in the US. If we can demonstrate a publication before 1923, then the {{PD-US}} is the best choice; if not, depending on the circumstances another tag may be appropriate. The best way to determine that is to identify the earlier publication of the image we can. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'm following you; how do we demonstrate a publication date? All we have is the information the uploader gave that the painting dates to 1800. Is that sufficient? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This is another situation you can take advantage of a reverse image search tool, to see if there are any online sources that give more details on the provenance of an image. Looks like the images currently needing confirmation of pre-1923 publication are the Griesbach and Gunkel. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• File:Julius_Wellhausen_02.jpg: when/where was this first published?

It says--if I am reading this correctly--that it was first published by AlexanderRahm on 27 May 2009. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

That's the date of the most recent upload here - my question is, when and where was it first published? The current US tag states that it was published before 1923, so we need to confirm that. The same issue arises with the Gunkel image, which now has that same US tag requiring pre-1923 publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know what else to do so I sent questions to both the users listed on the page at Wellhausen's photo asking if they knew the answer to your question. I hope they answer! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

This one is done too! I can hardly believe it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Replaced the incorrect edict tag with a 'before 1923' tag. It was also published in 1914 it says. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• File:Northrop_Frye.jpg: source link is dead, and who is believed to be the copyright holder?

I have no idea whatsoever what to do about this one. It was originally uploaded by a Russian in Canada --apparently--in 1984??? could that be right? Do you have advice on this? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest as a first step checking to see if there is a live link elsewhere on the Library and Archives Canada site that would give more details about the image. That would hopefully allow us to determine who the presumptive copyright holder would be - the creator, a publisher, or LAC itself. At present, the information provided in the image description is not consistent with the tag in use. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess I will have to remove this photo. It's on the Library of Canada site but its access is being determined right now, which I assume means it does not have public access yet, and all the other pictures of Frye say "private." Nothing says "public" which I also assume it would say if it was. I know I am making all kinds of assumptions, but I assume this means no more Frye. That's really a shame because he probably had more impact on BC than anyone since it was invented. Oh well. Nothing to be done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Found one! Check it out! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, no - again that edict tag isn't correct, and the Corel decision doesn't apply here because it's not a 2D work. Fortunately for us though Canada has freedom of panorama for sculptural works, so just replace that with a FoP-Canada tag and this should be good. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh thank you, thank you so very very much. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The FoP-Canada tag is now at the image. Is that sufficient to cover the US? Does it need some kind of a US tag as well? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• File:WilliamRobertsonSmith.jpg needs a US PD tag and better source

replaced this one with drawing with tagJenhawk777 (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

For the new image, if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 80 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I am guessing because of the date. It doesn't matter who he was because this was published over 100 years ago. It has that "before 1923" tag on it as well as the one about the unknown author's death. So, is this one okay? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• File:Marie-Joseph_Lagrange.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I replaced this one with another photo that appears to me to have all its info--but I am unsure if I understood your question--are you asking are we sure Lagrange died? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

No - for that image and the Smith one, there is a tag in place stating that copyright expired "where the copyright term is the author's life plus [X] years or less" (80 for Smith, 70 here). In order to verify that that is correct, we need to know not only that the creator of the image is now dead, but when they might have died - for images made relatively recently, it is quite possible that an unknown image creator has been dead for less than that period.

For the new Lagrange image, given his date of death, I am skeptical that the uploader was indeed the copyright holder - that particular image appears to have been published elsewhere, including as the cover of a book, prior to upload. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

How do you find this stuff?!? That is truly awesome! Tell me how I can learn to do that too please! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

You can do a reverse image lookup on Google Images - in the search bar click on the camera icon and enter the image URL. There are also dedicated tools such as TinEye that would do the same thing. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

It may be inappropriate but I have to say, you totally rock. That is way cool. Going and doing! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I went back to the original picture of LaGrange as it was able to get an "older than 1923" tag. Thank you so very much for all your help on this. You have been indispensable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I did Griesbach and Gunkel, the others are outside my current competence. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Can I say that? I didn't know I could say that! I have been in a panic trying to find pages that explain this--I went to the Teahouse and asked. I've been trying to figure out how to do what you've asked but so far I haven't. I will! I promise! What I know how to do with images is click on the "use this" button and copy paste--beyond that I am clueless! But I'll figure it out... somehow... Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I think that's all of them except Frye and I don't know how to do what you've asked and no one has answered me at the Teahouse yet either. If you could explain, I am more than happy to cooperate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added some answers above, feel free to ask questions if things are still unclear. As a general rule: make sure you read the copyright tags on the image description page and check that the terms are met. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria That is a good request, I can see that. I will read the additional information on every image from now on until I die, I promise. This will make a permanent change in how I deal with images. I will do all within my power to co-operate with each and every request here--but I am an image novice and lack your skill. I will pedal as fast as I can! I will come back with questions as they arise. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I have to add, I am concerned about these requests to add PD tags--what right do I have to do that? Where do I find the information necessary to be able to legitimately say what they say? Research is something I do, so I can check out the Canadian Library! YAY! Something I actually know how to do! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I am totally blown away by all of this. I thought the fact the images were in commons meant they were okay to use. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I've made that assumption too. But apparantly a random pic at Commons is like a random piece of info at WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I am reduced to begging for help and any information available from the users posted at the images. I don't know how else to find this information. Does that mean I have to remove all these pictures from this article? Will that sink the FAC? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria One of my pleas for help produced a response! People on Wikipedia can be so great. Gunkel has a PD tag now too. The painting of Griesbach dates to 1800, and the photographs of old painting thing gets it a tag, and it is from before 1923 too. Wellhausen has a 'before 1923' tag now. Frye has the Fop Canada tag. Smith has the 'before 1923' tag. LaGrange has a 'before' 1923 tag also. Is that all good then? Did I do it? No--I should ask--did we do it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

As I see it, there are two remaining issues, one of which should be easily fixed and the other maybe not. The easy one is the Smith image: we still have a life+80 tag for a relatively modern image with an unknown author. However, it appears that first publication was in the US, in which case the 1923 tag alone will be sufficient, so we can avoid the issue entirely (unless we do happen to know who created the image?). The one that I suspect will be more challenging is the Gunkel. On the one hand, again, life+70 tag with unknown author - if we don't know who created the image, how do we know that person died over 70 years ago? On the other, while we know the image was created before 1890, when and where was it actually first published? (The source link might say something about this, but it's not opening for me atm). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The Smith file has a pre-1923 tag on it--but the other info on it has disappeared. (???) I can't get any additional info on the Gunkeleither--and everywhere you look, it's the only image of Gunkel out there! What's up with that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

On Gunkel, could we just ignore--or remove--the 'author died' tag and go with the PD-Us tag that says it was published before 1923--because it's there too--both tags are there (???) since it does say it was published in 1890. Does it matter when and where it was first published if it has the pre-1923 tag on it?

If an image is hosted on Wikimedia Commons, we need to know its status in both the US and its country of origin. For the Smith image, that's the US, which is why just the pre-1923 tag would work. For the Gunkel image, we need more info on its original publication to determine that. Plus, created and published aren't the same thing - it's quite possible for an image to be created in 1890 and not published until some later date. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I get it now. So do you recommend removing that one? I have tried the reverse imaging at both places you mentioned here, and looked it up --lots of places have used that same image--but no one has any more info on it than we do. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

If it's really not possible to find out anything more, then yes, removing or replacing it is likely the best option. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Consider it done then. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Gunkel is gone. I replaced him with a photo of the Rylands Papyrus 52. All the bonafides are there. It was published in 1920. The author died in 1926, more than 70 years ago. It has a PD-US tag. All is copacetic. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I would like to add this image if I can figure out how it can get a PD tag: [4] It has all the information on its background there and it looks like permission from Germany about sharing, but I don't know if there's a tag for that like there was for Canada. Can you help? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, I've been reading this: [5]. Does it apply to the Barth photo indicating it doesn't need a tag? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Although country-specific versions of CC licenses exist, any version typically applies worldwide, so you don't need a Canadian one. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering if Germany had a similar arrangement with us like Canada does about sharing.

I moved the images around so they are next to what refers to them more. I have also added a second new image [6] which says it is public domain in the US though it doesn't have a tag as such. Is that good enough? If so, do I pass muster? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It has the pre-1923 tag, which seems fine. So yep, should be good to go! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

does that mean you can support the article? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Can we strike those problems that have been addressed to indicate that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)