Talk:Photographs of Alan Kurdi

Help in moving "corpse" from the title

Can any auto-confirmed user help move this page to "Photographs of Aylan Kurdi" or "2 September 2015 photographs of Aylan Kurdi". Only the photographs taken on 2 September 2015 are notable. Time will show if the word "corpse" is desirable or necessary to use in the article's title. --Burst of unj (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to move it, however it is not likely to survive at AfD and the consensus will almost certainly be for a merge. Let me know if you want the move. Flat Out (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I desire that the title be moved to "Photographs of Aylan Kurdi". Thank you. --Burst of unj (talk) 03:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to move it to Photography of Aylan Kurdi. Flat Out (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Will you make the move without further ado, or are you merely going to revel in the happiness of the theory about doing it? Please interpret this question in the most polite manner. --Burst of unj (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I was proposing another title. Flat Out (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The two photographs and various cropped versions of those are notable, not photography ‎("usually uncountable, plural photographies) The art and technology of producing images on photosensitive surfaces, and its digital counterpart. The occupation of taking (and often printing) photographs". --Burst of unj (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Flat Out (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus for Flat Out's proposal.

• Move to Photographs of Alan Kurdi. The only notable photographs of him, are of his lifeless body. I think I also have support in this from this: At the deletion discussion on German wikipedia [1] CB says that the case is more about the Photographs of Alan Kurdi - and less about his biography. --Burst of unj (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Shall I move it to 'Photographs of Alan Kurdi'? -Lopifalko (talk)

As one of two users on this thread (apart from you), my answer is "yes". (The other guy - not you - has said on another thread that he wants the article deleted, merged.) --Burst of unj (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I've renamed it, it can still be merged if that makes sense. -Lopifalko (talk)

Help in moving "photos" to "photographs" in the title

There seems to be some foot dragging going on about moving "photos" to "photographs" in the title. I find somewhat odd a certain constellation of opinions: Someone wants the topic deleted as a seperate article. That someone also would like to wait for any renaming/moving to occur. (That same someone was willing to make a requested move, and later wanted a different title, for an article that/she wanted deleted .) Maybe someone without vested interests/or tar heels could move the title? --Burst of unj (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I renamed it. I just did it as it seemed obvious, didn't read this talk page beforehand. -Lopifalko (talk)

Merge Nilüfer Demir to here

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nilüfer Demir

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

How to keep pictures with a "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license"

When the article has a drawing/rendering with the above license - what must accompany the artwork in the article? Must text mention the name of the artist? Can the name of the photographer (who created the photograph which the artwork is a seemingly a representation of) be omitted? User LocoWiki at Commons has stated that "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: w:en:Creative Commons attribution This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license." Burst of unj (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Each time the artwork gets removed with the edit remark "copyright infringement (derivate or direct capture of a copyrighted template": Is there any justification for that edit remark (and edit itself)? --Burst of unj (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion at Commons [2] regarding the image. Burst of unj (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

A small primer for this context:

1. The original artwork (the drawing) must carry one of the free licenses (CC-BY-3.0-Unported or some other) or be in the Public Domain (a legal construct for works that have lapsed into the Public Domain, because the author has been dead for 70+1 years (one of the most widespread term lengths of copyright);
2. That free license, if given to the artwork by its author, almost always extends to the photo that shows the image;
3. An artwork that is not licensed under a free license, cannot be legally uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and then given a 'free' license. Such action can result in file deletion.

• Licensing information does not have to be in the article, but the file's own page must have it in verifiable form.
• In case of an artwork, it's good to mention the artist's name in the image caption of the article where the image is used.
• The name or username (if on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons) of the photographer must be included in the file page on Commons (in the file description). If the username is not from Wikimedia Commons, the service that uses that username must also be mentioned, and the user profile linked to in the image description file, along with a link to the original. In case of a video, include a timestamp (with YouTube it's #t=XXhXXmXXs at the end of the URL).

-Mardus (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

posed photos?

This should be the original location where the dead body was found. --Scrutinize13 (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it is fair to ask if some of the photos are posed. Are there any notable sources that raise the same question? --Burst of unj (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

(Although I do not see any footprints.) For pictures like these[3] [4] [5] the body was apparently placed at an other foto location. --Scrutinize13 (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparently moved from one location to another, yes. Are there any references that draw the same, or similar, conclusions? (Footprints in sand can be avoided by staying off the beach, and only stepping around in the surf.) --Burst of unj (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The victim in the photograph linked to above matches Alan Kurdi in those details that are visible. However, we must consider the possibility that this is the body of a similarly dressed but different child. In the video in this news article you see the body of a drowned child (from 00:25 to 00:29) that is also matched by the victim in the other photograph in all details visible in both images, but is not Alan Kurdi (different colour of shirt). In the video you also see rocks in the immediate vicinity. I think this is the same victim as in the photograph linked to above, which then is not Alan Kurdi.  --Lambiam 20:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You have a good point. --Burst of unj (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

In this DHA-video: in 00.26 you see a blue shirt; in 00.36 there is lying and carried away a body in a red shirt. --Scrutinize13 (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The strongest argument for posed photos are the inconsistencies: The hotel employee says that he dragged the boy on land/gently closed his eyes. The photograph indicates that he has just drifted to shore, or that a rising tide is about to wash him out to sea. The hotel employee never said that he left Kurdi's eyes and face in the water, or in the dirt/sand. Are there any notable sources which mention the inconsistencies? Burst of unj (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

For one thing, we can't be certain how accurate the statements of the employee (of the Woxxie Hotel in Akyarlar) are. But assuming they are, I agree that it is strange that the body is positioned face down. After dragging it out of the water, the natural response would be to position it face up, which would be consistent with his statement about closing the eyes.

At the moment I see no other inconsistencies. He dragged the body out of the water around 6:30 am, which was before sunrise. On the photos he reposted on his Facebook page, marked by Facebook as a "Mobile Upload" from September 2 and therefore likely authentic, it is still rather dark. Judging from the light on Demir's photographs and on videos that must have been taken at the same time, on a day was not particularly sunny (there were scattered clouds), it is already one or two hours later. The gendarmes we see were not accidentally patrolling on the beach; the text on their backs reads "OLAY YERİ İNCELEME", which means (literally) "Event Place Investigation", the Turkish equivalent of our "Crime Scene Investigation". This means the police must have been alerted when the ambulance was called. By the time the photos were taken, the tide may have risen enough to reach what first was dry ground.

If the body was turned around later – something we can't be sure of based on the available information – the question remains who did it.  --Lambiam 13:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That description is mostly as good as anyone's so far. As far as high tide and low tide and rising tides or a turn of tides - there are tables from which that info can be determined, by someone with those charts at hand (or the right digital tools). Burst of unj (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You have provided the following link with photos, his Facebook page, marked by Facebook as a "Mobile Upload" from September 2. One photo has a boy in a red shirt, apparently with shorts at his ankles, lying on his back in the surf. If this is Kurdi, are there any notable sources which say who pulled his shorts from his ankles and placed them properly around his waist? Burst of unj (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I now think these "dark" photos are unrelated. This article, from a reliable source (in the Wikipedia sense), describes the photo with a boy in a red shirt as "Corpse of one of the children who died in the shipwreck of a boat off the Libyan coast on 27 August". So much for the authenticity of "mobile uploads". Elsewhere I saw an interview with Mehmet Çıplak, the gendarme who is seen carrying the body of Alan Kurdi, according to which the investigation started around 5 am after an emergency call had come in that a boat had capsized and lifeless bodies were coming ashore.  --Lambiam 10:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment Why is this even coming up for discussion? Wikipedians are not investigative journalists. Beware, good people, Burst of unj, which account was only first used on 3rd September 2015, clearly for use only on this subject, has a very obvious agenda with regard to the Alan Kurdi story. WP:NPOV is being ignored. It is fairly obvious that every contribution made by this user has the intent of throwing mud on the story and of minimising its effect. This whole subject is of the greatest importance right now and Wikipedia must avoid being taken for a ride. Boscaswell (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

"Why is this even coming up for discussion?" - In part because a hotel employee tells how he (and a friend) recovered two bodies and brought them on land. Then he gently closed the eyes of the boy. Sometime after that the boy's eyes and face end up in the surf. One question is, are there any references that can add any details about what happened, or how things happended (from the time the hotel employee lays the boy in the sand, until the boy ends up with his face in the water again). I am not saying that some stranger knew that a photo team would arrive, and therefore decided to position the body in the most dramatic way possible - as a drowned boy with his face in the "drink" (or ocean). I am not saying that someone re-positioned the boy's body for perceived commercial gain. We just don't have any sources in the article now, that explain what happened (or even what did not happen). Do such references exist? And if they do exist, will journalists shy away from those, so that they never get accused of being "the bad journalist who tried to bad-mouth Aylan/Aylan's memory" etc? --Burst of unj (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Burst of unj was not the editor to raise the question.  --Lambiam 18:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

That was a contributor who has three edits. But he/she probably won't get ragged on for that as long as he/she stays out of the deletion discussions. Burst of unj (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Lambiam, but if you were to spend even only a short while perusing the contributions of Burst of unj you would understand that there is no good faith in this case. The account is being used only for this subject and the contributions, which are all with one POV, have been and continue to be relentless. Boscaswell (talk) 05:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox for an article about a series of photographs

• Cause of the photographs: Drowning?
• Participants: Bodies of Syrian refugees (and a policeman in some pictures)?
• Deaths At least one body, in the tree photos mentioned
• Burial of photos: Kobanî, Syria?
• Accused of something related to Photographs: Four Syrians?
• Charges related to Photographs: Smuggling migrants/Causing multiple deaths by conscious negligence?
  

No insensitivity intended. Burst of unj (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of infoboxes in general. This seems, moreover, too highly specific. How many articles do we have on a series of photographs? How many of those involve any deaths?  --Lambiam 18:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)