Talk:Physicians for a National Health Program

File:PNHP poster.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PNHP poster.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:PNHP poster.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links

This page has five: three go to the same site, and can be consolidated into the one. The fifth is a presentation that is not about PNHP, the fourth an interview that, if it has any use, can be incorporated into the article. Regardless, most of the external links have no place here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am skeptical that consolidation will serve the readership looking for specific categories of information. I agree the presentation should be moved to some other article(s)' external links and with incorporation of the fourth. I do not agree with deletion before those improvements are made. EllenCT (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:EL: "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." We do not need 3 links to the PNHP. I would suggest adding the presentation and interview where appropriate so we can clean up the section and move forward, as the burden is on those who want to include information. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are claiming that two of the three are prominently linked from the third, then please show where. I hope you will act on your suggestion before invoking a guideline to try to override our policy-based mission to provide the most accurate information to our readers. EllenCT (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are clearly on the front page sidebar of the PNHP site. Looking at the Vimeo site, I can't tell if this is a copyvio or not, so we can't use it, so the only link you need to worry about is "http://www.humanmedia.org/catalog/program.php?cPath=40&products_id=276 Interview with Stephanie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein on Humankind public radio]," I'll remove the rest. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the Vimeo link even though you were unable to determine its copyright status? I don't agree with that. Did you move the link that I "need to worry about" after suggesting that it could be deleted if it was moved somewhere else? Can you imagine why I might not be okay with that, either? EllenCT (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. We cannot let probable copyright violations sit. I moved that link to the talk page above so you can add it to the article. It's up to those who want to include information to justify it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have either way about the probability that the video is a copyright violation? Where do you propose moving the audio? EllenCT (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care where we include the audio, I don't have any real interest in it outside of keeping it out of the external links. That one is your responsibility as the person who wants to include it. As to the video, since we cannot surmise the copyright, we can't use it. That's our standard with YouTube links we cannot verify, and this is no different. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reason to believe that either of the two were not uploaded by the publisher? The audio clearly was, and it looks to me like a 95+% certainty that the video was, too. If you are asking me to move them somewhere but you have no idea where, I'm pretty sure that you need to be worried about that, not me. EllenCT (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot verify that they were for the video. As I said about the audio, you're the one who wants to include it inline, so I'll leave that to you. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Can we remove them from the external links and move on now? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, you didn't even watch the first 25 seconds then, did you? Do you have any evidence whatsoever to counter the abundant obviousness that both the video and audio are entirely free from copyright concerns? Do you intend to continue insinuating made-up facts to try to get your way without even spending a single click to tell whether those made-up facts are true? EllenCT (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said I couldn't verify it. If you believe you can, great! You're the one who wants to include them within the article, so you are free to do so. They're still inappropriate for external links. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So which guideline number are you saying they violate now that you have been caught without even looking at the first 25 seconds as regards to copyright? Why should any editor or reader believe you are trustworthy or acting in good faith after trying to pull that? EllenCT (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've "caught" me doing nothing. I said I could not verify the copyright on it, that's still the case. If you can, awesome! I hope your verification conforms with our policies on the matter. They still do not belong in an external links section verifiable or not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could not or did not try? EllenCT (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TO, you're the one who's edit warring here. First you tried to remove links from the Single Payer page, because they were "advocacy" links to PNHP. Now you're deleting links on the PNHP page itself. Just because you can't determine to your own satisfaction that something has permission, that doesn't mean it's a copyright violation. You're not a copyright lawyer, so you can't make that determination. PNHP does have copyright lawyers. If it satisfies their copyright lawyers, that's enough for us. You could delete any source (including the New York Times), from any article by saying that you're not satisfied that they have permission and it's hypothetically a copyright violation.

Furthermore, if you believe that the WP:EL doesn't belong, then the remedy is not to delete it, but as WP:EL says, to rewrite that material in the body of the article, which I would be happy to see you do.--Nbauman (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read our relevant policies on NPOV, Verifiability, and external links before we continue on this. The burden, again, is on those who want to include the information in the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've read WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:EL many times. They don't say what you claim they say. We've met the burden. You're just insisting that you're right and being obstinate.--Nbauman (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how does the radio interview and the video that we cannot verifability discern copyright meet the standard of [[WP:EL], then? For example, how does either link meet the standard of Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided the 8th note here? How are they "directly related to the subject" per the needs of #13? How is Vimeo not a "user-submitted video site?" Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you continue to say you can not "discern copyright"? What information about copyright have you sought? Both are clearly uploaded by the copyright holders, and they are both clearly marked as such. You are not editing in good faith. EllenCT (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I say I cannot discern copyright because...I cannot discern copyright. I cannot verify that the group uploading the video has the right to do so, is the same group that is listed in the video, has distribution rights to the video, and so on. I am editing in good faith, it's simply how this project works. It's the guideline for external links, it's the rules regarding copyright. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you have a theory that someone is going around masquerading as nonprofit public interest groups to try to pirate their recorded discussions of PNHP history and overviews? You call that good faith? EllenCT (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying I cannot verifiably confirm the status of this video, and, even if I could, it still wouldn't be proper for an external link section. If there's something in it you want to use in the article, we can cite the speech directly. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since not watching the first 25 seconds isn't working out so well when trying to discern copyright, why not try watching and listening to the whole video and the whole audio before trying to discern suitability as external links? EllenCT (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the suitability of it is based on Vimeo being a "user submitted video site," needing flash to work, and is arguably not directly related to the subject. Even if the copyright could be discerned, it's not proper per the guideline. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you imagine a scenario in which that argument would not be convincing to me? Because I can't imagine one where it would. Your logic is fundamentally flawed because "arguably not directly related to the subject" assumes that you have faith made in arguments from zero information, which is not good faith. EllenCT (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said "arguably" for a reason. Can you give policy/guideline-based arguments for keeping these in external links or not? If the answer is no, we can remove them and move forward, this is getting tiring. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail" per WP:EL. EllenCT (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you're quoting from what a basic external link is expected to be. The actual guideline tells us we cannot use them, as they fully fall under "Links normally to be avoided." If they cannot be moved into article space as citations, they need to be removed as there is no policy/guideline related argument for keeping them in their current form. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which particular objection(s) under "Links normally to be avoided" are you claiming apply? They clearly meet the WP:EL guideline I quoted and do not meet any of the criteria in WP:ELNO. EllenCT (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The video is unsuitable based on Vimeo being a "user submitted video site," needing flash to work, and is arguably not directly related to the subject, copyright concerns aside. The interview also needs an outside player to be used, falling under ELNO. Again, the contents are not something I'm against using as a reference if you find something of value in them for this article, but they are inappropriate for the external links per the guideline. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]