# Talk:Warsaw Ghetto boy

If there's no official title for this photograph, why is it italicized? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

JHunterJ: The title was used in (only) one of the sources cited in this article (the Time Maganize source). Photographs are not covered in MOS:ITALICTITLE. How do you think that it should be formatted? Catrìona (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I tried to make the lede an encyclopedic definition but the edit was reverted.
If photo titles aren't italicized, the title of this article shouldn't be.
If this photo isn't titled "A Jewish boy surrenders in Warsaw", then the article title shouldn't be italicized regardless of how photo titles are formatted.
If this photo is titled "A Jewish boy surrenders in Warsaw", then that should be the subject of the lede sentence, italicized or not depending on how photographs are formatted (but should be consistent with the article title and infobox title).
WP:BOLDAVOID wouldn't stop any of those implementations. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
JHunterJ: The problem is that a plausible, unofficial title is put forth by one RS, but is not used in any other source. Since it's not the official or widely accepted title, it doesn't seem right to use it in the first sentence, formatted as if it is widely accepted. Photographs aren't covered in MOS:TITLE (as far as I know, the MOS does not state how to format them). However, most of the titles in Category:World War II photographs are italicized, so it seemed reasonable to italicize this title. Since the article has to be called something, it seems best to use a name that is in RS rather than make something up, but if you have a better suggestion, I'm willing to consider it. Catrìona (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
OTOH, it seems right to use the title of the article, formatted as if it's the title (there's no special formatting to indicate "widely accepted", and certainly it would not indicate that any more than using it as the article title). So, if that's the unofficial, not-widely-accepted, but still best-from-the-limited-options-available title of the photograph, the suggestion is still https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Jewish_boy_surrenders_in_Warsaw&diff=865829233&oldid=864845141 . -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
(Also, "I'm willing to consider it" skirts close to WP:OWN.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
"Warsaw Ghetto Boy" is another possible option as an informal common name, used in a number of books.  Somewhat similar to Tank Man.--Pharos (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I would support "Warsaw Ghetto boy" as that seems to be a commonly used term (it is unsettling that the first Google result for "Warsaw Ghetto boy" is Institute for Historial Review, a Holocaust denial website). I wasn't intending to imply WP:OWN, only that I chose the current title for lack of a better alternative. Catrìona (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the title should be "Forcibly pulled out of bunkers" (not italicized but in quotes), as it is the translation of the original German subtitle given to the image in the Stroop Report. The current title implies weight given to the boy in the image, but most of the article isn't about him specifically. TarkusABtalk 03:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@TarkusAB: Actually, the reason that the image is so compelling is because of the boy (stated in multiple sources), and the article is intended to give a balanced overview of the subject, so it naturally covers more than the boy. We shouldn't highlight the Nazi POV as the reader's first engagement with the subject. None of the sources use the Stroop Report caption as their main title, presumably for this reason. In contrast, the current title is represented in reliable sources: The Boy by Porat, L'Enfant juif de Varsovie, etc. Catrìona (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
OK that makes sense. Could we perhaps avoid bolding Warsaw Ghetto boy in the lead, and remove the image caption? These make it seem like it's the official name of the image when there isn't one. Maybe open the lead with "A boy in the Warsaw Ghetto holds his hands..." and then remove the image caption all-together. The lead is the caption effectively. TarkusABtalk 04:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@TarkusAB: I would not object to your suggestion. I would have left the image without a caption, but I couldn't figure out how to have the image display well without a caption. Catrìona (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I made some changes. The image framing looks a bit unorthodox but I think it's an improvement. You can do as you wish. TarkusABtalk 04:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Since you have such strong feelings about the image layout in this article (the GA reviewer did not object) perhaps you could point to the place in the MOS where it says that left aligned images cannot be placed directly under headers? I have used this style in lots of articles and no one has objected yet. Catrìona (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona: You're right, I thought it was there but it isn't (I think it may be implied somewhat in MOS:IMAGELOCATION's clear choice of the right as the default side for images); I may have confused something from an old discussion with something the MOS actually states.However, as a general rule it's considered sloppy design, or at least it was when I worked in newspapering. You want the reader's eye to go straight from the section hed into the text. I would challenge you to find any competently run newspaper on the racks, anywhere a language is written to be read from left to right, where a left-justified image comes at the beginning of an article but under the headline (if you have to do that, you make the hed shorter or smaller until it fits in the space next to the image. The fact that you indicated you prefer alternating placement, as I do, suggests that you understand this idea (not everyone here does), since that plays off the way our eyes traverse the page.This excerpt from a "design for beginners" manual, in describing flaws in a webpage, never says this explicitly, either, but note that its example of an improved page puts all the text directly under a shorter hed, where the original had a wide hed with two pictures on the left and text starting in the middle.It doesn't mean anything that the GA reviewer didn't have a problem with it; most people who review GAs don't know much about this sort of thing and don't bring it up. Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: Thanks for your edit to this article. Unfortunately, the content in the lede must reflect that in the body, and it is probably too much detail for the lede anyway. If you have a reliable source for this information, I would be much obliged if you would cite it in the "Photograph" section of the article. Catrìona (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The "Photograph" section does not show the gun, why would it go there? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

While this is what Struk says [1]: "The most elementary of copyright laws states that the creator must be identified before copyright can be held". But I am not sure if she is correct. Please see Commons:commons:Deletion requests/File:Обстрел Вестерплятте.1939.jpg or commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Westerplatte Sucharski sabre.jpg. To quote a user (with whom I disagree, but that's not the point): "Photos taken in 1939 and published anonymously would have still been under copyright on the URAA date, so their copyrights would have been extended in the US. ". Anyway, to say that anonymous works cannot be copyrighted is clearly wrong, otherwise we wouldn't have commons:Template:PD-anon-70-EU. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus: because WP is about WP:V, we should leave this in place until another source discussing the copyright status of this particular image is found. Bringing in third-party sources that do not mention the image would be OR. Catrìona (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:V does not trump common sense. It's like saying 'stealing cars may be a crime, but unless you have a source that contradicts this person saying that stealing that particular car was not a crime, we will say 'stilling cars is not a crime'. Nope, stealing cars is always a crime, and anonymous works are always copyrighted. It doesn't matter if the source says otherwise, the source is wrong (per commons:Commons:Anonymous works). I am not saying the image is not in PD, I am totally fine citing Struk who says NARA and IPN say it is, but we cannot make a claim about anon works not being copyrighted, simply because Struk doesn't understand copyright and makes an erroneous claim in her book. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Struk is correct that copyright cannot be upheld on truly anonymous works.  However, that is not the same as saying that they are public domain (and we should not put those words in her mouth), though they may be considered de facto so.  The work actually became public domain in 2013, after the time of Struk's writing, per the 70 year rule.--Pharos (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
If you can find an RS that says that the work became PD in 2013, feel free to add it to the article, and if you feel that there is a better way to paraphrase what Struk wrote, go ahead. Catrìona (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
@Pharos: I wish you were right, but please see commons:Commons:Anonymous works. And also the claims another editor made on the three 1939 German anonymous works (I list 2 of them above). Anon stuff is copyrighted, and also if something is PD in one country (ex. Germany) it may not be PD in another (US). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Your recent changes make it sound like Struk's suggestion that the work is in the public domain is equally valid as the company's claim to copyright, which is not the case. I reverted your WP:SYNTH addition. Catrìona (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid I disagree with your revert and changes and I am restoring my paragraph. I will explain why I prefer my version in detail here:
First, my version does not say that the companies claim copyright (through their labelling of them with a copyright c symbols makes it pretty clear they do). It says that they are "charging commercial rates for its usage". Anyway, this incorrect claim you make is just here on the talk page and is not in the article, outside of the PRIMARY SYNTH interpretation of the link to the Getty's Images (which technically is OR, but I am totally ok with leaving it in, let's have some common sense perspective here...).
Second. You removed the referenced link about Getty Images acquiring Corbis licenses calling it SYNTH. This is not SYNTH, it's a simple fact, and it is helpful here to tell the reader why we move on from discussing Corbis to Getty. Corbis no longer licences images and in fact the discussion of Corbis is of little interest as it is something that no longer is part of our world. Discussion of Getty images is more relevant, but as I noted above, your ref for GI us PRIMARY. My ref helps out by providing a link on why we move from Corbis to Getty. Ideally, what we need is a SECONDARY source that states that GI is using this image. Again, linking to this image and making our own assessment that they claim copyright is the most problematic part of this paragraph as far as our rules go (PRIMARY OR).
Third. We cannot claim, in encyclopedic voice, that anonymous works cannot be copyright. I'd very much prefer it if we could, because I think this would be better, but copyright is messed up, and as I noted above (with links to Commons) copyright on anonymous works can, sadly, be claimed. In other words, she is plainly wrong. Look, just read commons:Commons:Anonymous works ("Due to the Berne Convention, all new creative works, within the boundary of local laws, are automatically subject to copyright protection, even if they are published with no author information or under a pseudonym on purpose (otherwise known as an anonymous work)."). So saying "Copyright cannot be claimed on anonymous works" is wrong. It doesn't matter if this is what the source says, because she is wrong, and we should not make such claims here, not in encyclopedic voice. Which is why I attributed it to her. That said, I think the entire discussion of anonymity is off-topic in this article, and I'll rewrite this section further.
Lastly. You claim Struk is a photograph historian (source?) and you also removed a link I've added to her name, which violates WP:RED (or do you think she is not notable?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
PS. Fixed one more error. Corbis got the image from Bettmann Archive, not from NARA. Struk states Bettmann got it from NARA 'allegedly'. Let's leave that part out (through I agree it is likely, it is also not relevant who he bought it from). Also, she makes a mistake regarding date Corbis bought Bettmann Archive. She says 1993, but other sources say 1995: [2], [3]. Not that this is a major issue for us, just saying in the 1990s should be good enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:V, we should report what Struk actually wrote, rather than your own interpretation of copyright law. If you continue to use the source that states that Getty Images acquired Corbis licences to imply that Getty acquired this specific photograph at that time *is* WP:SYNTH, and if you continue to make that claim, it may be appropriate to bring this up at the NOR noticeboard. Whereas using Getty's website to show that it is still claiming copyright on this specific image is neither original research nor an abuse of primary sources.
She describes herself as a "photographic historian" on her linkedin page. She writes books about historical photographs that are well-regarded by historians, what else do you need to be a photographic historian? Per WP:RED, you are expected to make sure that the person is actually notable before adding a link, but I won't object because it's a borderline case. If there's not an existing article, readers are owed a brief description of who the person is; I've never before heard that such two-word descriptions were expected to be referenced.Catrìona (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to take it to any noticeboard you want, I explained my points. The reference I've added is useful and relevant for understanding the context of the GI link, and Struk mistaken claim about copyright has no place here, is irrelevant, and should not be readded. Our articles should not contain factual errors, referenced or not. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

What's the whole quote from Frédéric Rousseau?  It would help to find out where "Judeo-Christian morality" should link to, since Judeo-Christian ethics is clearly the wrong article.--Pharos (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

It's correctly referenced to a freely accessible website, you can look it up. Personally, I think that the Judeo-Christian ethics article needs a worldwide tag, because it is a concept that is not exclusive to America. Catrìona (talk) 08:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The Judeo-Christian ethics article is an entirely different concept - and we go by the concept, not the name.  Probably the best link is just Judeo-Christian, though brotherly love covers the concept in general.  Apparently Stroop was explicitly anti-Christian (even supporting a racist version of neopaganism) and embraced the pseudo-Nietzschian master–slave morality criticism of Judaism.--Pharos (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The SS man was smiling at the photographer, not because of the boy. (SMcCellan (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC))

I was just reading [4] and found this: " Struk closes her seminal study with reference to an iconic image, and a challenge. This arguably the most  familiar Holocaust image of the backs of a woman and three children unloaded at the ramp and heading toward death?has been reproduced at human scale and mounted in situ at the Auschwitz memorial complex." Setting aside that it is yet another photograph that likely needs its own article, I think the author here argues that that photo is the most famous Holocaust photo? Which would make the claim for this one being the most famous one disputed? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see the article do not state that the photograph is the "most famous Holocaust photo". It only states that it is the "most well-known photograph taken during the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto uprising" and is "one of the most iconic photographs of the Holocaust". I think both claims are okay. --Redrobsche (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@Piotrus: I think this may be the image that you're looking for. If not, it's probably a different image in the commons category. BTW, do not agree that this one is the most familiar.  buidhe 03:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
.

Background section:
"In 1941, they [Jews] were forced to move to the Warsaw Ghetto, which contained as many as 460,000 people in only 2.4% of the city's area."
While it does illustrate somewhat, saying "2.4% of the city's area" without specifying either the city's area or the ghetto's area is quite vague and doesn't properly stress the extreme population density. I know it's obvious that Warsaw isn't and wasn't of this size but if the modern Tokyo metropolitan area was a ghetto, for example, 460,000 people would comfortably fit in 2.4% of its area given that they are only a little more than 1% of its population. I therefore suggest to change "in only 2.4% of the city's area" to this line from the lead of the Warsaw Ghetto article itself:
"in an area of 3.4 km2 (1.3 sq mi), with an average of 9.2 persons per room".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto
Thank you 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:6C27:F8CA:672C:1C3C (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: that's WP:OR. Please provide a reliable source that supports the change that you are proposing.  M.Bitton (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
That's original research? It's in the main Warsaw Ghetto Wikipedia article I linked, it's a direct quote from the lead section. 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:6C27:F8CA:672C:1C3C (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't know if it helps but the sources cited in said article are:
"Bains, Alisha (2016). World War II. Encyclopædia Britannica. pp. 190–200. ISBN 978-1680483529"
and
"Gutman, Israel (1998). Resistance: The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. pp. 118–119, 200. ISBN 0395901308"
See citations 6 and 7 for the links 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:6C27:F8CA:672C:1C3C (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 Done Bains, 2016 verifies the room density and the area is verified in an online source I found. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  04:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
 Undone: This request has been undone. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  06:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)