Talk:Anna Krauss

Public domain image

Hi, there is a public domain image available of Anna Krauss. Do not add it. It is a image taken by the Gestapo, likely after she interrogated and just before she was executed. It not suitable for Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 12:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Scope creep, can you point me to the previous consensus not to use Gestapo images? — HTGS (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HTGS: No one in the world shows post-torture pictures anywhere. They don't show them on British tv, they don't them on Japanese newspapers, or Chinese streaming services, they don't show places like Meta and Twitter or Tiktok and they don't show them on here, unless it is an article on torture, but even the article on here shows the most innocuous versions of it. They don't show them anywhere for plainly obvious reasons. scope_creep^Talk 09:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that claim? I have seen the aftermath of some pretty horrific stuff on TV news.

I think we should restore the photo, as it is the only image we have available, and there is no reason to restrict content that adds value (see WP:NOTCENSORED). If another image of Krauss can replace this one, then we happily should do so, but having an image (with context) is better than not. This particular image might be shocking for its context, but is not grotesque or objectionable in itself.

Please also do not tell people there is a consensus where there is none. Your edit summary here [1] appears to be unfounded, but please correct me if I’m missing something. — HTGS (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are not restoring it. Making up a facile rationale for restoring them like you've seen horrific stuff on TV news, when you have no idea what your talking about, is beyond the pale. What you seen on TV isn't torture images. You have just picked this up and thought yea, why not. So because it is the only image, we should use, even though it a torture image, even though it is physically and morally reprehensible. scope_creep^Talk 23:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for restoring the image is not “because other people show bad photos too”; that was just my response to your rationale for removing it (“No one in the world shows post-torture pictures anywhere”). My rationale for keeping the photo is that it adds encyclopedic value to the article. I would not suggest adding post-torture images for the mere shock value, and I’m personally surprised at how many photos we have included at Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, so I’m certainly not running around looking for opportunities to add them.

And by the way, comments like “We are not restoring it” sound a lot like WP:OWNERSHIP. We are here to work out the best way forward; consensus may or may not lead to the result you prefer. — HTGS (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An WP:RFC would be required to settle the issue. Please draft suitable wording for an RfC question before starting it. A suggestion:

Should this image be added to Anna Krauss as shown in this diff?

Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no other photo of her in existence? Typically the freely licensed one simply takes priority, but this is a possible case for deciding to use a non-free image instead (justification along the lines of "no available photograph that properly depicts the subject" or something. If this is the only known photo of her, that's a hard situation. We do typically use only-known-photos even if they're bad or problematic in some way. We even have lots of articles depicting forms of torture/abuse: torture for starters, but also e.g. stress position (I just removed an image of an identifiable child from that one -- sigh), waterboarding, slavery in the United States, Emmett Till depicts the subject at his now famous funeral, Peter (enslaved man), etc. The difference, of course, is that those are necessary to understanding the subjects themselves. Is that true here? I don't know. I suppose it would hinge on a combination of "does it accurately depict the subject" (there's a case for "no") and something like IAR ethical grounds for not displaying it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Emmet Till photo is a better case study than I thought existed. It’s shocking, obscene, and in many ways, not necessary to the article. My take here was that a photo of the subject with two black eyes is distressing, but not so offensive that it should be removed (and in some ways, the distressingness helps to demonstrate the entire point).

Are you genuinely concerned about the veracity of the image though? If the image isn’t verifiable then we may as well stop here. — HTGS (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The publication of the shocking photos of Till's body at the funeral was a key moment in turning "just another murder" into the civil rights movement. Including one photo helps readers understand that it truly was that shocking of a crime. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing Would you agree that similar arguments could be made here? The visual demonstration of her injuries serves to similarly inform the reader of the context. — HTGS (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This would be possible, particularly if the photo were in a section called something like ==Arrest and torture== and the caption said something like "Krauss with black eyes after being tortured". But (a) the historical context is very different, because AFAIK publication of the photo itself did not create a significant media sensation at the time, and (b) the photo has previously been proposed as a lead image with no explanation given. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page won't load. I use setting to hide any images from the article just in case. Sorry, I try not to see anything graphic. Images must be used in an tone that helps the article and as long it don't violate any laws. Cwater1 (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for those of us who don't read German, if there are no other photos, how do we actually know this depicts her, apart from the Commons file description? The description doesn't provide information on provenance apart from saying whose archive it came from. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The biographies about her at the German and Dutch Wikipedias both use this photo. Commons reports the image being used in 9 Wikipedia articles across five Wikipedias (plus one at Wiktionary, where it illustrates an entry on the Dutch word for female members of the resistance). I assume that if other photos were reasonably available, we would have found them by now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq I was hoping to avoid the need for an RfC. Do you have an opinion one way or the other on the inclusion of this image? — HTGS (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no opinion. I noticed this article somewhere and merely hope to facilitate a decision. An RfC is only needed if an edit war continues. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq and Rhododendrites: There's another discussion about this photo here. I don't see any consensus in this discussion. Jarble (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]