Commons talk:Deletion requests/Santorum images

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

• Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

I recommend those participating in this discussion read the book Freedom for the Thought That We Hate by two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Anthony Lewis, it's a most informative work related to the issues involved here.

I hope you find the book an enjoyable read,

-- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons is not a repository of all freely licensed media. If it were, then restrictions other than licence/copyright concerns might reasonably be regarded as censorship. In addition, this content is not being deleted by government. The terms of what we choose to host are a combination of WMF and community decision making. Just as any publisher decides what to publish, and also what not to publish. This right to choose not to publish is a valuable as the right to publish, lest one be forced to publish government propaganda or false information. So be careful with playing the censored card, in case you are actually denying another his or her right to refuse. There is nothing stopping someone setting up another website to host this content. You have that choice. Rejoice in that choice. That's freedom. Colin (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Good points, all, thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

For me these images have little concern regarding censorship and is more focused on whether they are in scope as self-published by a non-notable artist. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

If it were simply a vote of whether we approve of Santorum, that vote would go heavily against him. I don't think most of us object to the production and distribution of these images. The question is, are they materials we want to be associated with? As a community we get that choice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Prosfilaes, so why don't you nominate the images in Category:Caricatures of Barack Obama for deletion then. -- Cirt (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Some of them should be as low quality self uploads. The DonkeyHotey stuff is professional level and he is arguably a notable caricature artist. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I am seriously thinking about reviewing all the caricatures of politicians, identifying those created by "us" (ie those of us who are nonnotable artists) and trying to do a group DR for those that fall into the same territory as the Santorum ones. not sure how a group DR is done though, i would have to figure that out. and, im not sure a group DR is really better than individual, outside of truly cookie cutter groups of images that are all of exactly the same quality/subject.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

"The DonkeyHotey stuff is professional level and he is arguably a notable caricature artist." -- I agree with this comment by Saffron Blaze, above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem with a group DRs like you propose is highlighted in this experience. When good images get mixed with the bad the issue can get dragged off in numerous areas. Many of the Santorum images are truly non-notable, but some are notable. Having notable images there raised the issue of censorship and neutrality. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Mercurywoodrose, the easiest way to file a mass deletion request is COM:VFC. darkweasel94 18:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)