Commons:Deletion requests/File:Geschändetehostie.jpg

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.

File:Geschändetehostie.jpg

Delete per reason "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose" - I don't see an educational purpose which this picture serves. --Saint-Louis (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep i do see a purpose to illustrate the fact, that some people do keep and frame desecrated altar breads. useful to illustrate on paganism, satanism, etc. (bad photo though) Schmelzle (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete Nobody can really guess what's has happen with it. You can't illustrate that procedure. Also the result could be fake etc. Not very useful and necessary for understanding the thread/article. It is only a discussion influenced by ideology... nothing else -- Jlorenz1 (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep It would be very helpful to know where this came from, but I agree with Schmelzle; the very illustration of the fact that someone has a framed item labeled Geschändete Hostie is by itself interesting and educational.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Quality is terrible --Mbdortmund (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete Probably illegal photo according to § 167 German criminal code. No encyclopädic value. --Matthiasb (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete The act of descrecation might be illegal under §167 (if done in a manner likely to disturb the service). The depiction may be illegal if considered likekly to offend religous practices. Neither of the two question should be considered here, as most images here are illegal somewhere on Earth. On the basis of the poor quality of the image and questions surronding the intentions of the author, which presumably are not educational, I suggest to delete the image. --Arcudaki (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep - § 167 German criminal code has absolutely no relevancy for Wikimedia Commons -- thankfully! --Melanom (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete - Not useful for encyclopedial use, possible fake, tasteless - most of the arguments are already mentioned. Picture of poor quality and no educational use of intentionally offending picture, so no value for any article in wikipedia. --Tarantelle (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep - otherwise reupload to German Wikipedia. Some guys just want to get rid of this picture out of no reason, nor the possibility given by the rules there. Problems there should be cleared there before moved and bloated in Commons. Oh... and Wikipedia/Commons is a divine service? Defchris (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete commons is not the private image hoster for admins on de.wp. No encyclopaedic value, because the result of desecration - the desecrated host - and in this quality isn't illustrating anything. It's tasteless, too. And, if it is a fake, it'd be even more irrelevant. --Hullorio (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I welcome all the new editors from the German Wikipedia, and hope you'll stick around and makes some contributions to Wikimedia Commons beyond this Deletion Request. May I note that Commons does not solely collect images for Wikipedia; strictly speaking, encyclopedic value is not the standard for Commons. Nor is "tasteless" a deletion reason. If there are questions surrounding the intentions of the author, it would be nice to have them mentioned here, as it's clear to us Commons users that we're getting the tail end of a larger argument and nobody is bothering to explain just what the hell has already gone on with this. As it is, I think claiming that it's "intentionally offending" is unproven.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• FYI: The original discussion can be found here, where you also can find the information that the user who uploaded the image on the German Wikipedia intends to offend. Anyway, my reason to delete is not the (subjective) offensiveness of the image but the fact that the images serves no educational purpose. There are a lot of things which can be put into frames and it cannot be deduced from the image "that some people do keep and frame desecrated altar breads". The picture is therefore only of private interest. --Saint-Louis (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep "Qualitiy" is no reason except the image's content would be absolute unrecognisable. "Tasteless" or any moral or religious outrage is no reason as there is no "Faugh!" in an encyclopedic context. §§ 166 or 167 StGB (German Criminal Code) is no reason as this image is a kind of artwork, however good or bad in quality, and therefore covered by freedom of art and opinion. In addition Commons is not a courtyard. Furthermore it is absolutely okay to upload private images for serveral reasons e.g. illustrating user pages. Finally there is no proof that the image's author uploaded the image in order to offend someone. That is a mere allegation. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 16:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete The image is just fuzzy and blurred, it is difficult to identify it. There is no evidence for an educational purpose, the intention of the uploader was to offend in a discussion about secession from the church: [1] at 00:53, 17. Jul. 2009 (CEST). During the discussion of deletion request on de.wp the image was suddendly moved to commons without any consensus. This is why we are discussiong this deletion request. For catholics the image is very offending (vide [2] and [3]) but I assume this alone would not justify a deletion on Commons. But the image is also an act of intolerance and disrespect. I do not think that an image of a desecrated qur'an would be accepted - at least I do not find any images of defiled copies of the holy book of the muslim world on Commons. For catholics the consecrated host has - at least - equal importance. As already mentioned an educational purpose isn't there, so please delete it. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • While we're going on about intolerance and disrespect, can we remove all copies of images that imply that non-believers will suffer an eternity of torment? As a sign of the great tolerance and respect here, in , one commenter says "Der Künstler wird, meines Erachtens nach, sowieso brennen." ("The artist will, in my opinion anyway, burn.")--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• As I stated above, quality is no reason for deletion. Even if the image is not of the best quality, I can identify the object quite well.
• Please dont's argue with the Quran. Any image that displays Mohammed is very offending for muslims. However, that is no reason to delete such images from Commons. I consider such arguments simply as an unholy coalition between religions to suppress uncomfortable and unwanted opinions, and afterwards they continue to bash each other's heads in.
• Also there's no concensus necessary to move images from a local project to Commons.
• --Eva K. ^{is evil} 17:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree to your last point, but your other statements are incorrect. If you want to, I could buy a qur'an and defile it. Let's expect the reactions. Of course I would call it art, too. I do think the thing with: IMO the artist will burn is simply used in a facetious way. incorrect, v.i.--Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC) The intention of uploading the image was not to illustrate, simply to provocate. I was not talking about images of Mohammed, but about defiled qur'ans. I know you like to quote others incorrectly to substantiate your statements, but anyhow this isn't fair. On commons, an educational purpose must be visible. Where is this purpose? --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment It was in fact uploaded to illustrate and has been used in de:Hostienfrevel. It was placed in the article on December 8, 2008 and was removed again on February 16th, 2009 with this [4] edit. So the image has been in article use for over 2 months and was not uploaded for provocation issues primarily. Schmelzle (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for devalueing my statements as incorrect. I think it's a kind of religious arrogance to claim the image's author will burn. And of course considering the burning of heretics at the stake in former times your statement is an unacceptable threat. So don't be blasphemic in the meaning of your own belief and leave that decision to the god which you believe in. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 18:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'd say attacking and devalueating the belief of one's oppenent is not the finest way to handle contentual controverersies. But it's not infrequent when someone isn't able to contribute to discussions in a normal and appropriate way. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Let's expect the reactions" is not an argument. We should not give to threats of any sort. Frankly, the fact that "tolerance and respect" tends to come after physical and legal threats doesn't convince me of the reality of tolerance here. (Yes, physical threats; what exactly do you think it means to be set on fire? Whether you wait to the afterlife or not, it's still a hideous event, and the fact that you can consider it facetious, or "cleverly amusing", I find somewhat disturbing.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I did not constate that Martin-vogel will burn, I only said that IMO the one saying "I think he'll burn" said this in jest. Nothing else. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC) incorrect, v.i. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, before you continue to nag about other photographer's blurred images: File:2 Apple blossoms.JPG, File:Faded tulip.JPG. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 21:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, deletion requests: done. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

On de: or en:wp this would have been a violation of en:WP:POINT. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think? It was just a broad hint because you insisted on the image's low quality: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Finally it was your deletion request on your own photos, not mine. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 10:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Argumentiere und agiere nicht für etwas, das du eigentlich nicht willst." "Do not argue and act for sth you don't want." --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to teach me? --Eva K. ^{is evil} 19:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• As the author of the "he'll burn statement" I would like to point out that the a) the suposed threat is not physical but metaphysical and the fire is methaphorical. b) Martin-vogel does state, quite clearly, that be does not share the belief in a afterlife. Therefore to threaten to him with damnation in afterlife is as threathening as telling me that aliens are going to kidnap me if I leave the window open: Not very threathening at all. c) It was not said in jest.
  With regard to the image I would point out that if image quality is not a reason for deletion on commons (as stated above) then it should be kept, as the other reason "offensive" is not applicable: The act of desecrating a host (which is the body of christ) is pretty much the ultimate sin in catholic belief. The depiction of any sinfull act is not offensive however. (Otherwise gothic churches would need a lot of whitewash). In other words: Impaling a kitten is not o.k. A clear, sharp and well lit image of someone impaling a kitten should be kept under these criteria.--Arcudaki (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete I'd like to point out that I never cited "offensiveness" as the reason for deletion but the lack of a "realistic educational purpose". This picture doesn't serve such a purpose and therefore falls out of the project scope. --Saint-Louis (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you are refering to "Self-created artwork without obvious educational use." In the section "Examples" of Commons:Project_scope#File_not_legitimately_in_use. Correct ? --Arcudaki (talk) 11:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose" - in other cases this was no reason for deletion. -- smial (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep This seems to be the extension of some personal ideological feuds on the German Wikipedia. It is the only file of its kind in its category which shows an actual host, rather than a 16th century woodcut illustration. While the means by which the host was allegedly desecrated is unclear, and the photo is somewhat blurred, deleting it without adequate substitutes seems to me to be more a case of ideological restriction of an illustration of an artwork because of objections to the content. If the photo is not used at all by any language Wikipedia, perhaps one can argue that it serves no legitimate educational purpose, but if the file is used to illustrate one or more Wikipedia articles, that is in itself a legitimate educational purpose.--Bhuck (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• It does not show anything. Since the process isn't depicted it illustrates nothing. I could also take a cracker or wafer and crumble it and would get the same result. Educational purpose isn't given, because the image solely shows some framed crumbs. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not illustrating the desecration of a host, but purports to show a desecrated host (i.e. illustrate what a host looks like after having been desecrated). If crumbling is a form of desecration and you crumble a consecrated wafer, you have a desecrated host. That an unconsecrated wafer and a consecrated wafer have the same outward and physical form (and differ only in their inward and spiritual grace) is not the fault of the photographer, but lies in the nature of the host itself.--Bhuck (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete. The very specific claims about what this image pretends to show cannot be verified. (For starters, crumbling a non-consecrated wafer doesn’t translate to desecration of an eucharistic host.) By hosting this image with its current filename and description, Commons would propagate unsubstantiated claims that may mislead the public and may even damage Commons' own credibility.
In addition, there is no information about location and other circumstances such as the absolutely strange (not to say, insane) kind of presentation. The photo seems to show a sort of exhibit. But in what institution it might have been exhibited, in a stalinist era dungeon, the grand orient freemason temple of Paris, or Fred Phelps’ church? Of course, due to the german-language caption none of that would fit. --Túrelio (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment: This is a two dimensional artwork, is it not? Is it a free image? Jonathunder (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a 3-dimensional "artwork", as the frame as well as the shadows below the wafer/host particles show. --Túrelio (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep Like "Eva K. 17:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)" and "Bhuck 21:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)" --Fg68at de:Disk 17:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete. There is absolutely no educational purpose in it. It has just been made in order to insult people's feelings. As nobody knows if this is a consecrated host it is also not useful to "to illustrate the fact, that some people do keep and frame desecrated altar breads", as someone stated above.----Turris Davidica (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) 12:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete Convaincu par les discussions précédentes. Amqui (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Translation: Convinced through the precedent discussions --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  DeleteOffensive, possibly criminally and without any educational value. --Avemundi (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "Offensive" is your POV and therefore no reason for deletion, you might find much more "offensive" images on Commons. "Possibly criminally" is simply an allegation, the image is covered by freedom of expression. We can only discuss the image's educational values --Eva K. ^{is evil} 23:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Useless to say that Avemundi is one of the leaders of the project:catholicism on it.wiki, a project well known for defending christian related POV in many articles. Note that a call to arms was submitted on the talk of the project, so expect more POV (and uninformed) votes --Jollyroger (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the image has no educational value. It is prohibited by some national laws. In Italy it is a criminal offense to publish material like that (freedom of expression is not unlimited). That might lead to a partial obscuration by postal police and I think this could diminish the reputation of wikimedia projects. Useless to say that Progetto:Cattolicesimo does not defend any POV (otherwise it would be banned) and anybody can contribute to the project. The aim of the project is to develope and coordinate articles about Catholicism. Italian wikipedia has about 100 projects covering many subjects.--Avemundi (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

In Italy it is a criminal offense to publish material like that: pure bullshit. Even blasphemy isn't a crime any more, just a minor infraction.

There is absolutely no legal means for the Postal Police to obscurate a website for that "crime", you are just trying to scare people with false statements.

Even if an image like this would be illegal in italy (it isn't and you are lying), it wouldn't be a valid reason for deletion. --Jollyroger (talk) 07:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep of course, no other reason to delete except christian POV. --Jollyroger (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep i really don't understand the reason of this deletion request. --Hal8999 (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Then why do you vote here? --Túrelio (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

because *somebody* has created the page and *somebody else* was so kind to advise it.wikipedia (and es.wikipeda, and en.wikipedia, and pt.wikipedia...). Thank you 92.74.122.220--Hal8999 (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the infomation. This sort of cross-wiki messaging isn't really very constructive. --Túrelio (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree --Hal8999 (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the notifications. I didn't know they were so unpopular. I'm sorry for any inconvienience. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

 Comment. Just as a reminder to all and especially to those who may have become aware of this discussion by messages on their local project: deletion discussions on Commons, similar to other Wikimedia projects, are not like political elections and are not decided by simple vote counting, but by the strength or validity of presented arguments. Therefore it doesn't make much sense, just add more plain Keep or Delete votes.
An additional hint: if you want to weaken your own position, then you should heavily and personally attack those who have a different opinion than you. --Túrelio (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

that's not a matter of personal attack, that's a matter of knowing the motivations behind some votes, and counting the whole "call to arms" deal into the equation. --Jollyroger (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I forgot that you are a pure or abstract human being who has no personal motivations at all; ever heard about w:WP:AGF? Anyway, by reading my first comment you might have concluded that (alleged) "motivations" are rather irrelevant for the outcome of an rfd. And, though I don't welcome cross-wiki notifications of that type, calling this comment-less link "a call to arms" is rather POV, only it's yours. --Túrelio (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

understood, mr. I feel like a pure or abstract human being but I accuse you to be one so no one notices my POV. Anyway, I see you did not get the message, please feel free to continue your rant alone. Other users have been warned of what's going on. --Jollyroger (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete Imagine that someone puts on commons an image of your mother and names it: "A prostitute": the woman's son must feel offended and must ask for removing of that image. The same way we christian are offended if anyone load on common a dissacrant image of something we love very much. I cannot understand why should we keep images and other contributions whose only reason is to offend the sensibility of those who believe in Christ and in his presence in the Eucarist. DonPaolo (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete It's offensive, and not useful per Wikipedia and other project. --Dongio (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete Is not useful for Wikipedia. Not explicative. Any other offense to any religion, political leader, worldwide accepted political idea or even to atheism, should be avoided, to maintain a relaxed environment and peace of minds. --Giancarlo Rossi (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete This picture ia a clear derivative work of somebody-else work (I mean the person who decided to put this "thing" inside the small picture), till now it's real author is unknown, lacking informations, without permission, clear copyright violation and of course of a questionable purpose. Nicola Romani (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete I agree with Dongio. --HAL9000 (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As foreseen, the call to arms got an effect. --Jollyroger (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It has'nt been a call to arms, just an information. Even for you. Did you know about this DelReq before having read the notice? A call to arms would have been sth like: "The infidels attack us. Fight back." IIRC I didn't wrote this ...

--Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Luckily there are people, like JollyRoger, who don't even need call to arms for defending our freedom of opinion; thank you for your taking care of it. But I'd still like to express my personal opinion by myself. And yes: of course is only my opinion, and I can assure that I don't consider it more important or better than the other's one; I just hope someone will find it useful for discussion or interesting to think on. --Fredericks (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

AFAICS an unholy alliance of religious warriors and djihadists from serveral local projects have been drummed to launch Wikimedia's Holy Inquisition and to fight free thinkers. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 11:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I actually saw the RfD before the message on the project talk, but became interested in it after seeing the abuse. the message was sent selectively to catholicism-related projects, so I can't really believe it was "just an information". The effect was to bring here the votes you see above, and you can see their motivations: we christian are offended . So what? --Jollyroger (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It was an information intended to inform Users interested in catholicism-related topics, if you are interested in such the information reached you, didn't it? :-)

Why should one post information to projects not related to the subject of the DelReq? But I've already understood that such information isn't wanted to posted on talk-pages of projects. I'm sorry. I've already deleted these notifications. I won't do the same mistake another time. Please, I've commited an error, please apologize me. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete I vote for deletion for two reason:
  • IMHO this photo doesn't add any educational value. I find the article Host desecration really interesting, educational and well documented. This photograph instead has no trace of documentation: it just depict a moldy wafer: without any documentation, to me it could simply be some badly conserved nougat processing waste. But feel free to consider "educational" this photo: I can assure it is the truly picture of the Holy Grail ;-)
  • IMHO there exist things that is right and useful to explain by words, but don't need to be shown explicitly. To me is a matter of sensibility, personal and towards other Wikipedia users. Some example: this for Algerian War (personally I find really interesting the information, but I consider those victims deserving of the largest compassion and respect: isn't explaining the torture only by words in the article educational enough?); this for article Dismemberment (isn't much better and respectful - I would say: "educational" - the painting of the actual wikipedia article?).

In a word, THIS [5] is what I mean for educational and documented about host desacration. IMHO a fully untrustable picture isn't.

Thanks for your time and patience, and sorry for the indelicate photo I've had to add to this post. --Fredericks (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. Finally, I would thank smial: I didn't know the work (and the international criminal records) of Peter Klashorst before. I just wonder about why this "Shaven Genitalia" work should be more interesting than a photo of my shaven genitalia: I can assure that those are as "educational" as mine. But don't worry, I will take care of uploading a photo of mine, so enhancing the "educational" content of Commons, as soon as possible :p --Fredericks (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete Not useful for encyclopedical use. --Fungo velenoso (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

another italian user very active in pages about catholicesim, recently found using sockpuppets, suspected to be the reincarnation of a user banned for an unsusteinable catholic agenda, at his first appearance on Commons... Really no effects from the call to arms... --Jollyroger (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Does the informing other users diminish the value of their arguments? --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually yes. This RfD has been "rigged" with a selective vote request, with open falsities about legality of the image, with POV arguments and with many other dirty tricks. I think people considering this RfD should know what's going on, and I feel I've do provide all the infos I have to do so.--Jollyroger (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a wonderful example for canvassing which IIRC is absolutely unwelcome on WM. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 02:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you say that you inform catholics and atheists equally? Obviously you don't. And even if some users argue on a catholic viewpoint - for catholics, as you already know, this image is really violative - the arguments, e.g. those of Fredericks, are not diminished only because he seems to be catholic - I don't know exactly. Could you please tell me why the arguments of catholics have less value than those of atheists or agnostics or protestants? --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The arguments of banned sockpuppet-using users have less value than those of other users. It's frustrating how you picked out the religion issue and left the rest alone. In any case, w:WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies here, as well; whether or not you find it "violative" isn't relevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry can you say something about the true author (still unknown) of this subject? The persons who took the picture is not the same author right, so this work is a clear violation of copyright, lacking informations, without permission and must be deleted for this clear reasons. --Nicola Romani (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Why you say The persons who took the picture is not the same author? How do you know? Is it really that difficult to buy a 3$ wooden frame, a printed paper sheet and a wafer and put them together?

I see stated author: Martin Vogel. Original uploader was Martin-vogel at de.wikipedia. Martin is a long time user, with lot of experience on his side (more than 4 year at the time of original upload): supposing he does not know the project basics is quite arrogant from you. --Jollyroger (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Because after having reverted, and having seen the use of two different cameras

• from Eva K.:
  

Produttore fotocamera NIKON CORPORATION
Modello fotocamera NIKON D300
Autore Eva Kroecher Informazioni sul copyright Eva Kroecher
Tempo di esposizione 1/25 s (0,04)
Rapporto focale f/2,5
Sensibilità ISO 1.600
Data e ora di creazione dei dati 20:53, 13 nov 2009
Distanza focale obiettivo 50 mm

• From: Martin-vogel to de:Wiki & Eingangskontrolle to: Commons
  

Produttore fotocamera EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
Modello fotocamera KODAK C340 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA
Tempo di esposizione 1/10 s (0,1)
Rapporto focale f/2,7
Sensibilità ISO 160
Data e ora di creazione dei dati 10:46, 11 lug 2008
Distanza focale obiettivo 5,6 mm

• ...we have NO informations about the location of the exposition of this work
• ...we have NO links to the previous german page on wiki, just a link to German Wiki home page.
• ...Because "selber gemacht" means "Self-made", so "Self-made" what? the picture? the Frame? the work? Than... sorry ...How was it possibile to Eva K. take a new picture to the same subject whit a different camera???Nicola Romani (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And even if Fungo velenoso is a sockpuppet, the arguments of other users aren't diminished because a contra-voter is a sock-puppet. If he is. I dunno. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

We had a long discussion on it.wiki because a Jollyroger's (whose else?) personal friend suspected Fungo velenoso to be a SP. The community rejected the charge, so Fungo velenoso is still a member who brings his fruitful contribution to the project. I am personally astonished by Jollyroger's attempts to diminish members' reputation adding that they are active on Catholicism project; since that project is one of the finest parts of it.wiki and the subject of the project is related to the topic we discuss here. --Avemundi (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

First, explain what you mean with "personal friend": it sound offensive.

Second, Fungo Velenoso himself admitted the use of a shared account and sockopuppeting.

Third, the quality of Fungo Velenoso fruitful contributions is questionable, since he has a straight catholic-POV approach. But this is not the place to discuss that.

Fourth: Catholicism project built its reputation itself. It can be called "finest part" only from someone ho has a deep interested in keeping christian POV on the enciclopedia. We see ourselves the kind of contributions from that project in this page.

--Jollyroger (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather expect an RfD discussion than a kind of Spanish Inqusition. But it's nice to watch you wildly speculating about cameras and locations and makers. However, there are some quite simple answers far from any dark secrets, mysteries and conspiracies. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 02:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think that having Blackcat as a personal friend is offensive, well, it's your business. I read on your user page you personally know him. If I were you, I'd think about my own contribution and POV before questioning anybody else's. --Avemundi (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep Subjective claims of "tastelessness" is not a valid reason for deletion. Koyos (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

@Eva K. This is not an inquisition, we just ask you to provide the lacking info requested above about the image. Is this a problem? --Nicola Romani (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete First of all I can't see any educational purpose; in second instance there are lacking infos about its copyright status. In last analisys there are two completely different versions of the same subject, that looks to be taken with two different cameras. --Krepideia § in fructus labore 23:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement "Much ado about nothing" of Eva Kroecher on the talk page of Martin Vogel administrator on the german wikipedia:

                            **************************************************************

Der Sturm der Entrüstung im Wasserglas ist ja nun vorüber bzw. nach Commons abgezogen. Wenn Du es willst, kannst Du mir das Objekt gerne mal mitbringen, damit ich ein scharfes Bild davon mache. Dann bekommt die Entrüstung erst die richtige Würze. --Eva K. ^ist böse 18:28, 3. Nov. 2009 (CET)

Translation: the tempest in a teapot is now over or rather moved to Commons. If you want, you can bring me the object for making a sharpener photo of it. Then the indignation/story will get more and the right spice -- Eva K.      ^is evil 18:28, 3. Nov. 2009 (CET)

                            **************************************************************

Das theatrum absurdum bekommt Dimensionen. Nachdem die Unheilige Inquisition der Wikipedia zusammengetrommelt wurde – Katholiken der Wikipedias aller Länder, vereinigt euch! –, wird nun wild spekuliert. Wie konnte es nur möglich sein, daß ersten ich das Objekt in der Lage war zu fotografieren, d.h. wo es sich wohl befinden möge, und wie das mit einer gänzlich anderen Kamera ging, die mir wohl zur Verfügung stand. Kann es sein, daß etwas dran ist an der Erkenntnis, daß religiöser Eifer den Logiksektor vernebelt und damit folgerichtiges Denken blockiert wird? Nur eine Frage. Grüße und alles Gute für 2010. -- Eva K. ^is evil 11:16, 29. Dez. 2009 (CET)

Translation: That theatrum asurdum gets (new) dimensions. After calling the unholy Inquisition of Wikipedia over - Catholics of all wikipedias of the world, unite! - now they speculate heavy. How could I be able to take a photograph of the object, that means where could be the object and how could this be happen with another camera, which I had it at my disposal. Could be the insight become true, that religious enthusiasm can obscure the logical part of brain and that can block logical thinking? It is only a question. Greetings and happy New Year! -- Eva K. ^is evil 11:16, 29. Dez. 2009 (CET)

                            **************************************************************

These words of Eva K. ^is evil are standing for themselves. I miss respect and understanding in this discussion. Wikipedia is no battlefield. I just wanna quote myself :It is only a discussion influenced by ideology... nothing else -- Jlorenz1 (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC) -- Jlorenz1 (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It was just an idea that you are my secret follower in that matter and would spread my words around. Bingo! --Eva K. ^{is evil} 10:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I just ask to be intellectually honest, This pics (The author of the work is still unknow...), as stated on the template, was uploaded on german Wiki by Martin Voegel with a different model of cameras, as I've demonstrated, then uploaded on commons by Eingangskontrolle, then updated (but as we can see, its a completely different image) by Eva K., and now she now stated having another cameras on her disposal... Sorry but we are not kids! --Nicola Romani (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

*LOL* Is that really a serious question for you? How about some minutes of logical thinking? --Eva K. ^{is evil} 10:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a collaborative project, and you don't seem to be collaborative, are you kidding us? --Nicola Romani (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess with over 800 photos of my own on Commons I'm collaborative enough, whatever you think. So where're your contributions beyond this discussion? To me it's more that you're kidding yourself with making a fuss about irrelevant questions for which you could find the answer yourself. Finally, this RfD discussion is about the photo's content and not about the camera that it has taken or it's respective owner. However, the orchestration of religious indignation in this discussion demonstrates clearly how strong religious lobbies try to influence the project and it's neutrality. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 14:23,

How it worked with the host

...About some minutes of logical thinking: Sorry but as stated on the template ...the pictures of the UNKNOWN AUTHOR WORKS was uploaded on german Wiki by Martin Voegel with a different model of cameras, as demonstrated, (...but nobody say who made that work...) then uploaded here on commons by Eingangskontrolle (with NO links to the previous german page on wiki, just a link to German Wiki home page), then updated (but as we can see, its a completely different image took with a different camera and obviously by Eva K.), and now you are saying to have another cameras on yor disposal... Sorry but don't you think to kidding us? That's is waht seems... you are the secondary author of this picture of somebody else work (UNKNOW). This is enough to me, This image is a DERIVATIVE WORK OF SOMEBODY ELSE WORK (BECAUSE ITS REAL ATHOR IS UNKNOWN) and this are the reasons why the image must be deleted, Religion doesn't matter to me, but seem the opposite to you! Goodbye. --Nicola Romani (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You ought to know that text in all capital letters means shouting. There's no reason to shout at me. The author/creator of the threedimensonal work on the photo, i.e. the host in the frame, isn't unknown. For your unterstanding I created a little workflow diagram, may it help. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 15:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously this graphic shows that Martin-vogel created a so-called artwork he wanted to share with the world. He thought, Wikipedia would be the right place to do so. (It then has been moved to Commons.) It's questionable if this is in the project's scope, beeing a "self-created artwork without obvious educational use". --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment We have an author for the photography and for the artwork, too, so there is no problem concerning copyrights. I'm shure that we can trust in Eva K. when she says that she is the author of the picture. The new version of the picture is better concerning quality. For this reasons we don't have to consider the older votes which are based on these problems. So the question is, if we are willing to accept an artwork, which stands in opposition to some Christian religious rules. I think we can tolerate this picture. We will get real problems if we start to judge the contents of artworks from a religious point of view. So I will decide to keep the picture, if there are no convincing arguments for deletion in the next three days. --Mbdortmund (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Well, of course this isn't a place to delete pictures because of religious offensiveness. The copyright problem seems to be resolved. So now we have to consider - as already stated - if the image is within the Project's scope. The artwork, obviously created by Martin-vogel himself, doesn't seem to have "obvious educational use". This is why I think to image should be deleted. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  It's a good example of what people will make death threats about in the modern world. I can see a place for it on w:Host desecration.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  The German site concerning host desecration can be found here. To be honest, I would not propose to use the picture of Martin Vogel to illustrate this article, because I don't like the artwork, but that is my personal point of view. The main reason for me to treat this case carefully is the fear that "educational use" and "project scope" could easily become instruments of censorship concerning religious questions. I think we could accept the picture as an element of our category Host desecration, where it demonstrates that the subject is still a matter of discussion for some people.

Addendum for the German users: § 167, if you read the text carefully, there is no legal problem concerning this picture. --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• The articles in the wikipedias mainly speak about the medieval suspection (which was not correct, horrible and cruel) of Jews to desecrate hosts. All wikipedias I know don't accept intern discussions as a proof of relevancy. I don't think Commons does (in this case: educational use). --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  Well, Mbdortmund, you know as well as I know that a lot of of Wikipedia-editors whose articles and changes are deleted or reverted speak about so-called "censorship". They may be 9/11-truthlers or moon-landing-specialists, communists as well as neonazis, people neglecting climate change or wanting to delete other theories about our climate, catholics and protestants, agnostics as well as atheists, muslims, Israel haters and lovers, capitalists and socialists. They all spoke about censorship on Wikipedia (even about blockwart-admins) hiding the truth or preferring a certain group. This is why I don't like the word "censorship", only for nations like PR China (or Iran, N-Corea) it is surely the correct term. Recently, on :de , a association of abuse-victims against blocks of Internet websites has been deleted because of irrelevancy. All of their promoters talked about censorship, although this wasn't the reason for the decision. On Commons some images are deleted because of not beeing within the project's scope. Some of them are not liked by certain social groups. But they haven't been deleted because of any offensiveness for some people (this is certainly given here, as we can see) but because of the project's rules. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)edit: 01:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

•  Delete Who proves that the host is consecrated? If it is not consecrated, it is no disgrace! Maybe it is only one easy wafer! And the whole one is a fake ... I think this picture is a better example of a desecrated host ... -- DesLöschteufelsGroßmutter (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• @ Atlan: Discussions about censorship are difficult, that's right, but nobody would care about this picture, if it would not concern religious questions.
• @ DesLöschteufelsGroßmutter: Artworks are always a kind of fake, it's no criterium if the things you see on a painting really happened or not. The picture you proposed concerns historical cases and religious legends, but the picture we are talking about, is about actual problems with religions, so it could illustrate the paragraph about the problem today. The picture was uploaded, because Martin Vogel used it on his user page in order to illustrate his position against Christian belief in miracles when I understood his intentions right, and I think this is an acceptable reason for an upload, too. --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody would have cared about the MOGIS-affair, if blog.fefe.de hadn't written about it and if it hadn't concerned a certain political subject.

There is also another section of the german penal code: §166 which could apply. But I think here we only care for US-American laws; the servers (and the WMF) are in Florida. sect. 871.04 could apply. (IANAL)

In your answer to DesLöschteufelsGroßmutter you have said that Martin-vogel uploaded the image with offensive intentions. I think this should be heeded, too.

If we use the image to illustrate the article we would violate our guidelines constating debates in WP don't mean relevancy.

The image cannot be realistically used to illustrate the article or the category, neither is there shown a typical desecrated host, nor is it proven that the crumbled bread(?) in the frame is a desecrated host. Our criteria say that original research is forbitten. The use of the image in Wikipedias would be a *paragon* of original research.

If the artwork per se was relevant in just one Wikipedia, the image could be used with a proved educational value. ATM the image only shows a artwork of an irrelevant artist, who is admin on :de. AFAIK images of such artworks normally aren't used to illustrate articles. An other educational use hasn't been shown yet.

You've said the image had been used on Martin-vogel's userpage. I wasn't able to detect such a version. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition to precedent post I'd like to add a more specific explanation about my view on point 4 of this /|\ post:

You wrote that the image was about actual problems with religions. Since there hasn't been a public debate about the Roman-Catholic Church's view of transsubstantiation for some time the image doesn't show an element about current disputes or problems with the Catholic Religion.

Finally, to use another way of argumentation, the image doesn't fit into the Commons with this title and/or in this category, it would be misplaced because the neutral, secular Wikimedia cannot declare or prove that sth is disgraced or desecrated. ("Desecrated" has as latin root the word sacer, meaning holy. (Un-)Holiness is (regarded form a neutral perspective) pure POV.) --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

First, if you read w:Host desecration, you notice that in 2008, there was a public argument over the issue, where PZ Myers got death threats over his offer to desecrate a host. Your argument about desecration not being NPOV is cute, but a little silly; we all know what we're talking about when we say "host desecration", and while the literal meaning of the word "desecration" may be arguable, not a single person on this thread besides you has objected to the phrase, despite several of us believing the underlying concept to be pretty silly. We all know what we're talking here, and there's no other clear and simple way to speak of the concept.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

@Mbdortmund&Prosfilaes ...So ...let me understand, if I will upload a picture showing a man or a woman having sex (because in certain countries is legal and US laws are differets from a State to other) or raping a minor or a babies to illustrate it on wikipedia, should be keep? Ok quite interesting, lets upload such kind of pictures!!! Will be a good reputation to Commons! ....People votes against it's value must be respected, I voted so, and I never talked about religion, just about its educational value here on commons and about its copyright status... But here it seems that if you vote pro deletion you are an a religieous affiliate, sorry but I'm not and I strongly regret this title, ....but, on the opposite side, it also now seems clear Martin voegel POV, and this POV had a great relevance in this case and it make it clear his Non Neutral Point of View... As stated before, Religion doesn't matter to me! For this reasons the image must be deleted for an irrilevant encyclopedic value and due it's Non Neutral Point of View intentions purpose when it was made and for its past use! --Nicola Romani (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - No good reasons to delete. The image was in use for a couple of months and could possibly be used again. Garion96 (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

---

• Kept in Commons:Project scope. We don't delete an image because it's tasteless, offensive or because you don't like it. Multichill (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)