Template:Did you know nominations/AIDS–Holocaust metaphor

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

AIDS–Holocaust metaphor

  • Reviewed: Enclave law
  • Comment: Review under previous username, Catrìona

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 06:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough, long enough, neutrally written, and well cited. Hooks are interesting, but given the contentious nature of the subject, I would strongly prefer that ALT2 be used, and I've struck the other two; ALT2 is a plain statement of fact, but is still interesting. I think two minor points need to be addressed before this is passed; the hook needs to make it clear that it's not all public health officials across the globe that are being referred to; and the lead of the article needs to be a bit longer, otherwise it's liable to have a big tag plastered on it at some point. Vanamonde (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Template:Re Why not simply stick to the wording of the article, and say "frequently invoked..." rather than "was known for invoking..."? Vanamonde (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Can I quickly check that we are happy that the article image (the triangle poster) is fair use? It was uploaded by Template:Ping, one of our copyright experts, so it is probably fine. But it does have a copyright logo in very small text at the bottom, which seems to challenge our tags saying text and shapes are not copyrightable, and the Wellcome tag on the image page suggests we need another licence. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The statement is an attribution back to the NY ACT UP organization. At the time I wrote to the current ACT UP in New York, inviting them to either revoke any claim of copyright or make an assertion, but never got a reply. Sadly most LGBT+ organizations this old have either vanished, so artwork has an uncertain status, or understandably they do not know what to say about copyright of their own archives. In this case, even if someone at ACT UP decided to complain about use of the image, though iconic, a coloured triangle is not creative enough for copyright under U.S. law. For Wikipedia, sticking a Fair Use label on it would be an extremely safe option, but unnecessary. (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming Fæ. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)