Template:Did you know nominations/Nowy Sącz Ghetto

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 Montanabw^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Nowy Sącz Ghetto

(

)

~~... that all Polish Jews trapped in the Nowy Sącz Ghetto (pictured) were deported to Bełżec extermination camp only one year later?~~

ALT1:... that during World War II, Steinlauf family from the Nowy Sącz Ghetto ~~(pictured)~~ with their four children, were rescued by the Król family with their seven children risking penalty of death? (see ALT2 below)
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/White House Passover Seder

Created by Poeticbent (talk). Self-nominated at 04:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems: - I prefer ALT1 as more interesting, but would rephrase it for clarity:
ALT2: ... that during World War II, the six-member Steinlauf family from the Nowy Sącz Ghetto ~~(ghetto pictured)~~ were rescued by the nine-member Król family, who were risking the penalty of death?

Image eligibility:

Freely licensed: - The date of first publication or the date of photographer's death needs to be provided and reliably cited to determine the copyright status of the picture

My reply: Please read the content of PD-Polish, and PD-EU templates: the photograph is from before World War II. It is old and inapplicable for copyright according to Polish copyright law. Poeticbent talk 14:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Used in article:
Clear at 100px: - At thumbnail size all you can see is a black-and-white picture of a generic street.

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I suggest posting the hook without an image. Also, please consider my comment above ALT2 above. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Kpalion, I'm striking out all the unnecessary stuff. Please update your assessment as soon as possible, because your (failed) 'red crosses' might be in error. Having a preference for your own alternative hook is not an error on the nominator's part. The rules only require you to confirm that the hooks are supported and true. The same with the picture. – If you read the Polish copyright law, you would know that the photograph taken in 1937-39 is in public domain legally, therefore you cannot 'fail' this part of the nomination either. Also, according to rules, you cannot approve your own alternative hook. Using 'question mark DYK? symbol' has a different meaning in DYK. It is not meant for your preference of the ALT you yourself redacted for grammar. BTW, I do like your ALT2. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 14:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The template I used can only produce a green tick or a red cross, and nothing in between, so please don't worry to much about those. ALT2 is, of course, just a friendly suggestion, and I wouldn't fail your nomination just for rejecting it. Anyway, I'm glad you like it, so let's go with it.

The image license issue is more serious, though. I'm not a lawyer and I haven't read Polish copyright law. But I have read the two templates placed on the image page. One says that the picture is public domain because of where and when it was first published, and the other says it's in public domain because of when it's author died. If you used these templates, then it means that you know where and when the picture was first published and you know who took it and when they died, so I'm asking you to provide this information. Otherwise, the claim that the image is in public domain remains unsubstantiated. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

~~Good to go for ALT2 without the image. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)~~

I replaced the template at Commons with Template:PD-anon-70-EU. The picture is over 70 years old and it has never been copyrighted – simple as that – although I do not insist on it. There's no controversy about its status. But please, be informed, that all 'subst:DYK' icons are being picked up by bots. That's why they need to be either relevant, or removed as irrelevant, because they are messing up the nomination procedure. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: You cannot approve your own hook according to rules. Poeticbent talk 15:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right, Poeticbent. We need another pair of eyes to approve ALT2 (and, possibly, to weigh in on whether the image is acceptable). — Kpalion^(talk) 16:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: Image: Where on the website is it stated that the image is PD? Even if it's PD in Europe, it's doubtful that it's PD in the US (where the Wikimedia servers are) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The image shows Holocaust ghetto in Nowy Sącz in occupied Poland. Circa 1941. The photographer is unknown, and the EU copyright term of 70 years expired in 2011. The website does not need to say everything. The Polish copyright law basically says the same thing with regard to World War II street photographs in the Commons template (per above) which I replaced with the EU template for the sake of argument. Poeticbent talk 00:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: Please note, I have removed the image, because the benefit of keeping it in is negligible. The copyright status is not the main issue here. Poeticbent talk 02:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You say "Public Domain confirmed at source", but the source link given does not confirm anything. It's simply the JPG. Hence my question. Sources of images should also provide information on the image, especially when it's related to the copyright status of the image. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I suppose, what I meant to say is that the actual date (1941) and the location (ghetto) is "confirmed at source", which makes it Public Domain according to copyright law. The source does not need to state everything. The place and the time when the picture was taken is sufficient, because we can apply the applicable copyright laws ourselves. Poeticbent talk 04:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You mean, there's a law that says that if a picture was taken in 1941 in a ghetto, then it's in public domain? ^{[citation needed]} — Kpalion^(talk) 08:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

When the author is unknown and the ghetto was in occupied Poland ... yes! The relevant copyright law can be found at Template:PD-anon-70-EU. — I know from long personal experience that people who don't deal with copyrights in the real-world, usually don't have a clue what copyrights are for. Unlike ownership of physical objects (including historical photographs) which is easy to uphold, copyrights are meant to protect financial interest of parties involved in commercial use of ideas. So, the creator can get a cut of the sales instead of just a single check. That's all there is to it. Poeticbent talk 20:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The nominator has withdrawn the image, so this is no longer a concern for this DYK nomination, but we still need another reviewer to accept (or reject) the ALT2 hook. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

ALT2 is acceptable and no image is now proposed. I have added some extra inline citations as per the DYK rules. Rest of the review, as per Kpalion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)