Opothleyahola

The following pic is one of the most iconic picture of any surrender by a military in the world. Its an actual, explicit picture of a Lt Gen from a defeated army signing a real instrument of surrender following his force's defeat. Its neither a portrait, nor a picture implying a surrender, it shows a real surrender. The picture should be added on the page. I invite people's input regarding objection or support to the said edit, for discussion. Thanks.

You have not explained why you saw it fit to remove the Surrender of Japan - USS Missouri image which has been there for a long time, to replace it with this one. Also, given your pro-India POV pushing, your edit seems pointy and tendentious. Mar4d (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have very well explained the nature of this photo which makes it iconic, unlike the picture of Surrender of Japan, this one actually shows a defeated army signing the instrument of surrender. I would ask other users to refrain from commenting about other user's nationality. I have also observed a certain pro-Pakistan POV in Mar4d's objection regarding the pic, may be he/she doesn't like the subject of the picture under discussion, I am nobody to judge. The subject of the page is 'Surrender', the photograph of Pakistan's signing of instrument of surrender in 1971 is a famous photograph, which should be added on this page, it can be added in addition to the picture of surrender of Japan. Barthateslisa (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking to add this picture, not replace a current picture on the page. This picture has a unique significance of its own. Barthateslisa (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, you removed the current picture with an edit summary stating you believe the 1971 picture is "more relevant". Mar4d (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

• Support, Suggestion add the photo to a gallery section. Note I have never seen this photo, I would not refer to the photo as the most iconic.CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in favor of [[File:Surrender of Japan - USS Missouri.jpg]]. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my concerns above, and also because there is no space to accommodate the image without displacing the article's text (refer to MOS:IMAGES). Mar4d (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with user Mard and Iazyges nomination based on pov. This photo is not nearly as significant nor iconic as the poster claims it to be. 82.132.216.49 (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The easiest way to get this photo included, is to expand the article with well sourced content so that we can add pics instead of replacing them. TimothyJosephWood 19:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'SecondUser:Timothyjosephwood. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support addition of this picture; it shows a different part of the surrender process, in a different area of the world from the other photos. If this is really a famous photograph, I presume that it has been checked for copyright issues. I added a little sourced content; the article is now long enough for another photo; this should counter some of the objections above.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• OpposeI think the amount of edit-war, socking and disruption this pic and the topic it relates to generates at its respective article alone is enough a reason to omit it from here. We dont require this generic topic to turn into a needless battleground. On a serious note, the reason provided by the editor adding the image that "he" feels the image to be important is not really a reason but POV.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 21:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The copyrights of this image are doubtful. The image is not available at the source and we have no proof that Indian Navy ever released it to public domain or to Commons. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SheriffIsInTown: Not so; see the image page for licensing information that has been verified by OTRS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • OTRS is mistaken, Indian Navy cannot own that image as it had no role in the surrender, it would have been understandable if Indian Army owned it, also there are people in the image who do not seem like posing. Then there is another dimension whether the copyright should be owned by the person taking the photo or by people inside the photo if the image is of human beings? If you take my picture that does not mean that you have automatic permission of publishing it anywhere just because you owned the camera, you will need my express permission otherwise it will be unlawful. Same way, if we accept for a moment that Indian Navy personnel owned the camera and took the picture. Did they obtain express permission of the individuals in the photo to publish it to Wikimedia or Wikimedia did so? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no objections about the use of this image in particular, in this sense mirroring Timothyjosephwood's comments above. The article does seem to have little space for another one at the moment, and removing Japan's surrender photo appears to have ruffled some feathers, albeit justifiably given it aptly ended a World War. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as there currently appears to be no space for it, and it should not replace the Japanese surrender one as it is far more famous and iconic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'll address all of the above in separate points:
  1. It is relevant, and more pertinent than the others, at least in one illustrative sense.
  2. The page has been expanded enough to support another image (though it was already long enough - just stagger images right and left when the article is short, instead of lining them up all on the right). Several of the above opposes, grounded in nothing but article size, are now moot.
  3. Whether the proponent of the addition formerly sought a replacement instead of an addition is irrelevant old news; it is not the subject of this RfC, which is addition not replacement.
  4. Whether the proponent would be made happy by the addition for personal political reasons or not (an I-can-read-your-mind aspersion no one should be casting, especially in an RfC) is also irrelevant. What matters is whether readers would be served by the addition, and they obviously would be, since it would be the only image of an actual military surrender in-progress. If 100% unquestionable motivations for adding something had to be proven before any additions were ever accepted here, WP would have a total of about a dozen tiny articles. People add material because they care; it is not your or my job to play Volunteer Motivation Correctness WikiPolice, and we all have points of view, lots of them.
  5. WP is not the place to question the usability of photos from Commons. If someone somehow thinks they have a defensible copyright complaint to raise, then they should take that to Commons (see commons:Commons:Deletion policy for instructions). Good luck; this one has already been checked by OTRS, and the Indian Navy released it under a CC license on request.
  6. The caption can be trimmed to remove the word "defeat", which should address some PoV concerns (though they're questionable to begin with; it's a matter of historical record): "Pakistan's Lt. Gen. A. A. K. Niazi signing the instrument of Pakistan's surrender in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (Dhaka, 16 December 1971)." [Don't use "Dec", per MOS:DATE.]
  7. Concerns that the India/Pakistan/Afghanistan/Bangladesh PoV pushing that occurs at some articles is so fatal that any and all mention of the outcomes of national disputes in that region of the world must never be mentioned, is obviously misplaced and counter to WP:ENC.
  8. If a particular editor is being disruptive in this topic, leave {{subst:alert|ipa}} on their talk page if they have not received one in the last year. If they have already, or had not but don't take the hint, open a request about their disruption at WP:AE, with diffs, citing the WP:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan case and the discretionary sanctions it authorizes. If you're just pushing the opposite side of that PoV war, beware WP:BOOMERANG; everyone else is really, really tired of all sides of this battlegrounding.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per SMcCandlish's well-reasoned points. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per SMC. TimothyJosephWood 15:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per points 1-5 of SMcCandlish's comment. I feel it's worth pointing out that (at least in the English speaking world), the OP is being extremely hyperbolic about the importance of this image. Repeated google image searches for terms like "surrender," "military surrender," "historic surrender," "important surrender," and other, similar terms do display this image, but usually lower down on the (first) page, with stock images and clips from television shows and video games above it. It's no-where near as iconic as the image of the Japanese delegation aboard the Missouri, which appeared at or near the top, almost every time. (Indeed, this is easy enough to understand, as a surrender motivated by the only use in warfare of nuclear weapons in history adds quite a bit of notability.) Personally, I recognized the image, but could not have told you anything about it off the top of my head, until I read the proposal.

That being said, this image and others from the same event appeared well above The Capitulation of Granada. So I say add it. If there's not enough room, or it looks bad, remove the first image. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per SMcCandlish. (Some OT suggestions below) --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]