Commons:Deletion requests/File:TibetanFlag-before1912.svg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No evidence provided that this could be a Tibetan flag. The author is providing a link to another image in commons that he has edited himself as evidence, so he is his own source. No historical record existing about this flag. 6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- On the card used as reference, there are two flags, one of the Qing Dynasty (6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 removed the information on description, and [ at the same time, in discussion page recognised that's the flag of Qing dynasty], so this is not a fair edit. The Qing Dynasty ended in 1912, so The picture depcit the well documented Qing protectorat on Tibet (1720 – 1912). Qing dynasty era ended in 1912 (the information with removed by the user too). If the flag at the right is the flag of China under Tibetan Rul, the picture describe Lhassa, the capital of the Tibet protectorat (so semi-independant state), the flag is probably from Tibet. Either Lhassa area, Central Tibet, Whole Tibet, or represent the power ruling the Tibet, but a Tibetan flag for sure. The same way, the publisher of this picture depicted Hongkong with only the Qing flag at the top, and Korea with the pre-1905 korean flag. There is really no way to think the flag could be from elsewhere with these informations ? Is there a mean to ask a debate to now if this user should be or not blocked due to non-fair edits ? In tree months he removed lot of information, published pictures with truncated EXIF fields, in what looks lika a POV-push purpose (see his contributions).Popolon (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Your assumptions based on an illustration from a chocolate producer does not make this flag a historic evidence. By following your logic, the red disc on a white background should be listed under British flags based on the chocolate collector cards as HK used to be under British rule at that time.--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- This is not in the symbol section, but on the picture itself, flags with round is used by several people in central and eastern asia, Japan, Korea and several Khanates and Khaganates, There is pictures with similar flags on battles between mandchus, mongols and tibetans in some battles depctions, in the kind of Category:Ten_Great_Campaigns (didn't found it here). Flags of mongols during japan attacks under Yuan Dynasty, see also File:Takezaki_suenaga_ekotoba3.jpg, the flag could be used during the used by Mongols (Khoshuts and Dzoungars) during their reign on Tibet. Popolon (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Not a valid argument for deletion, based on Commons policy. Unless the image is a copyright infringement or violates laws on libel, I don't see this image breaking any rules here. Commons is not Wikipedia, and there are no rules which state that images that may not be factual need to be deleted. If you would like to dispute the degree of correctness that this image has, feel free to bring that dispute over to Wikipedia, and remove the image from articles over there once you've established consensus. --benlisquareTalk•Contribs 12:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but this image violates Commons:File naming ("Names should be accurate"), and also seems to be outside the project scope ("Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content. The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative"") The educational value of an unknown flag created by a Common user based on a chocolate manufacturer collector card is hard to be seen, and Commons is not flickr or a personal dropbox. I don't think that we should discuss its accuracy in each Wikipedia project where this file is currently used, as I am talking about Commons policies and recommendations. If not deleted, this file should at least be rename to something like "Unknown flag featured on a chocolate manufacturer collector card" to prevent the current misleading naming--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've been a little skeptical of this claimed flag since 2012, as you can see on Popolon's user talk page. At the very least, a {{fictitious flag}} declaration should be added, unless some solid Tibet-specific historical information can be provided outside of the century-old colonial collector card context. Unfortunately, some old non-official sources on flags printed by reputable publishers (such as the Flag chart from Nouveau Petit Larousse Illustré, 1924) have notorious errors. AnonMoos (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment I added this and renamed the file as well. Some warnings on the talk page where this is used would be useful. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the file move. With the new name and the current fictitious warning template, we should be able to make it clear to anyone that the flag shouldn't be used in encyclopedia mainspace. --benlisquareTalk•Contribs 12:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep per benlisquare. I see that, attempting to resolve the dispute, Yann has moved the file to File:Fictitious Tibetan Flag-before 1912.svg which is, unfortunately, POV, because it has not been established from reliable source that the flag is "fictitious," and if that is controversial, it should not be stated in the filename. What we know is that it is an "alleged" Tibetan flag (so it could be said "alleged" in the name.) The fictitious flag template states a conclusion that may not be accurate about this flag. This flag appears to have a single source, the "chocolate card," which would be an indication, and the rest is original research and synthesis, and this is something to be worked out by encyclopedia editors, not us. We just curate a collection of images. --Abd (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Abd -- If there's a legitimate dispute between opposing views in the real world (Morocco vs. Western Sahara or whatever), then it's Commons policy to allow maps etc. expressing both points of view to be uploaded here, and then we leave it up to the individual Wikipedias to decide which images to use. However, that's not really the situation here. One individual person claims that a flag existed, but the evidence provided is hardly conclusive, and not of such a nature as to overcome the suspicions of several other individuals. The name "TibetanFlag-before1912" makes a decisive claim which is controversial. In any case, "Claimed" is greatly preferable to "Alleged" as neutral wording... P.S. Did you know your username means "slave" in Arabic? AnonMoos (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, alternate images or the like are allowed. We handle controversy over educational materials similarly on Wikiversity, they may be forked, and presented within a neutral context. We will avoid what could be misleading, by adding notes, not by deleting (assuming that something is within scope). The name made a decisive claim, and there was proper objection to that. I agree that "Claimed" would be better. That chocolate manufacturer would use what was available to them, then, and I would argue that such are reliable source, being independently published, so there is prima facie evidence of this being a Tibetan flag. Not conclusive, to be sure. Probably adequate to use with an explanatory note on enwiki. More research is needed, but not needed to Keep the image, and I do suggest renaming to avoid the unsubstantiated conclusion that the flag is fictitious. As to my name, I hope it is not misleading, I am ^abdun min ^ibaadu r-raHmAn. Abd may be translated as slave, servant, worshipper, lover. --Abd (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, a renaming is also fine, but "fictitious" is more appropriate than "claimed" as the author is not claiming that this would be a Tibetan flag and that this flag would relate to the pre-1912 period. A better renaming could be "Unidentified flag appearing on a collector card featuring the palace of the Dalai Lama in Lhasa in the early 20th century". In the same collection, the illustrator has included a Qing dynasty and a Japanese flag on British ruled Hong Kong. This does not mean HK was a Japanese or Qing protectorate in the early 20th century...--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that the proposed name "Unidentified flag" could also be appropriate. The name should also be simple, and doesn't have to be perfect, just not misleading. Without investigating that other card, reliable sources also make mistakes. ("Reliable" in enwiki usage does not carry the ordinary English meaning of "reliable." It's a term of art.) We should be done here. Change to the filename would be proposed and agreed to on File talk. --Abd (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Unidentified flag appearing on Potala illustration would be shorter and still accurate.--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Let's not fill this page with stuff about the name. See File talk:Fictitious Tibetan Flag-before 1912.svg. --Abd (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Unidentified flag appearing on Potala illustration would be shorter and still accurate.--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that the proposed name "Unidentified flag" could also be appropriate. The name should also be simple, and doesn't have to be perfect, just not misleading. Without investigating that other card, reliable sources also make mistakes. ("Reliable" in enwiki usage does not carry the ordinary English meaning of "reliable." It's a term of art.) We should be done here. Change to the filename would be proposed and agreed to on File talk. --Abd (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, a renaming is also fine, but "fictitious" is more appropriate than "claimed" as the author is not claiming that this would be a Tibetan flag and that this flag would relate to the pre-1912 period. A better renaming could be "Unidentified flag appearing on a collector card featuring the palace of the Dalai Lama in Lhasa in the early 20th century". In the same collection, the illustrator has included a Qing dynasty and a Japanese flag on British ruled Hong Kong. This does not mean HK was a Japanese or Qing protectorate in the early 20th century...--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, alternate images or the like are allowed. We handle controversy over educational materials similarly on Wikiversity, they may be forked, and presented within a neutral context. We will avoid what could be misleading, by adding notes, not by deleting (assuming that something is within scope). The name made a decisive claim, and there was proper objection to that. I agree that "Claimed" would be better. That chocolate manufacturer would use what was available to them, then, and I would argue that such are reliable source, being independently published, so there is prima facie evidence of this being a Tibetan flag. Not conclusive, to be sure. Probably adequate to use with an explanatory note on enwiki. More research is needed, but not needed to Keep the image, and I do suggest renaming to avoid the unsubstantiated conclusion that the flag is fictitious. As to my name, I hope it is not misleading, I am ^abdun min ^ibaadu r-raHmAn. Abd may be translated as slave, servant, worshipper, lover. --Abd (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Abd -- If there's a legitimate dispute between opposing views in the real world (Morocco vs. Western Sahara or whatever), then it's Commons policy to allow maps etc. expressing both points of view to be uploaded here, and then we leave it up to the individual Wikipedias to decide which images to use. However, that's not really the situation here. One individual person claims that a flag existed, but the evidence provided is hardly conclusive, and not of such a nature as to overcome the suspicions of several other individuals. The name "TibetanFlag-before1912" makes a decisive claim which is controversial. In any case, "Claimed" is greatly preferable to "Alleged" as neutral wording... P.S. Did you know your username means "slave" in Arabic? AnonMoos (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete Pleclown (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
