Jump to content

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nicolas Maduro on board the USS Iwo Jima (cropped).jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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:Nicolas Maduro on board the USS Iwo Jima (cropped).jpg

[edit]

Contrary to the Third Geneva Convention (article 13: « prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. »). On top of that it is very likely that Maduro's consent wasn't obtained. Factsory (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just Security, a law and policy journal, claims that Maduro “might also be considered a prisoner of war” [1] --Factsory (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]
  1.  Keep does not fall under military status or prisoner-of-war status. A.BourgeoisP (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning the deletion requester is mixing the Third Geneva Convention with the Fourth Geneva Convention. So, that argument falls to the ground. This photo, shows also, in the right side, a partially view of an DEA agent, and, as a paralel with slightly more then 36 years, there is an image of Manuel Noriega with agents from the DEA. Not to speak that this photo, or derivatives of it, have been published by several media outlets all over the world. Tm (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Similar deletion request, by same deletion requester and deletion rationale, was closed as kept in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nicolas Maduro on board the USS Iwo Jima.png Tm (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Tm: Could you please elaborate on why Maduro is not a POW? How doesn't he fit the definition you show? Could you also elaborate on how this doesn't fall into Commons:DIGNITY? Thanks. --Factsory (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
LOL ! What dignity does a criminal deserve who ordered armored vehicles to run over protesters? Go away! A.BourgeoisP (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Answering to below comment of Manuel Noriega being considered an POW and so Geneva III applied to him, Manuel Noriega was the Commander of the Panamanian Defense Forces, not the (acting) President of Panama who was Francisco Rodríguez. Maduro is\was the President of Venezuela and a politician, making primarily a civilian even if he is\was the Commander-in-Chief of the Venezuelan Armed Forces. So Geneva IV, not Geneva III, is the applicable Geneva Convention — unless facts show he was acting as a combatant and\or directly participating in the conflictin a way that makes him a combatant/POW. This legal classification as a combatant\pow therefore depends on concrete factual and legal findings, and none of that ocurred, at least as presently known. And, speaking again of Manuel Noriega, that did not stopped the US Armed Forces of taking several photos of him with DEA agents (in similar way as to this photo of Nicolas Maduro), like File:Manuel Noriega with agents from the U.S. DEA.jpg, and more of the same persons being preserved by NARA, like this, this, this (uploaded to Commons in the filename above), this, this and this. Tm (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1.  Keep Nicolas Maduro is not an POW, he's a simple person under arrest. He did not refuse to be filmed afterwards.--Jean-Paul Corlin (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jean-Paul Corlin In similar circumstances Noriega was considered a POW: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/808/791/1478382/ --Factsory (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Keep There is no war between Venezuela and the United States, so Nicolas Maduro is not a prisoner of war.Guallendra (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guallendra In similar circumstances Noriega was considered a POW: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/808/791/1478382/ --Factsory (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1.  Delete 1/ The image comes from a primary source, without verification of its authenticity by an independent media, so, I suppose, without any license information (COM:CV) ; 2/ Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people : "Commons requires photos to respect the legal rights of the subject in all of the following countries: (a) the country in which the photo was taken". Which country is this? 3/ COM:DIGNITY : "Commons also respects the moral rights of the subject, even when not legally required to do so. […] Respecting these rights involves applying common decency and respect for human dignity". . Maduro's status not established, could be a POW ([2] : "Following his sentence in 1992, a federal judge ruled the former dictator was a prisoner of war"), [3]) and to be displayed as “blindfolded, gagged, or masked,” could be offensive to his dignity ([4]) --Fabius Lector (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    1/ The image comes from a primary source, without verification of its authenticity by an independent media, so, I suppose, without any license information (COM:CV) No. The image comes from the presidential social media account. That's an implicit government source. 2/ Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people : "Commons requires photos to respect the legal rights of the subject in all of the following countries: (a) the country in which the photo was taken". Which country is this? On board a US Navy vessel, United States law applies, which does not require consent to be photographed—especially if you are a prisoner. Maduro's status not established, could be a POW ([1] : "Following his sentence in 1992, a federal judge ruled the former dictator was a prisoner of war"), [2]) and to be displayed as “blindfolded, gagged, or masked,” could be offensive to his dignity ([3]) So? -- Veggies (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    So, for John Walker Lindh, there is licensing information and references for the context, questions about torture etc. to know how to use the image. Whith Maduro, it's only primary source relaying the message of the tormentator exposing his victim on social media. But of course, not everyone has the same standards when it comes to morality and respect for human dignity. Fabius Lector (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    So, for John Walker Lindh, there is licensing information and references for the context, questions about torture etc. to know how to use the image. References are not required for images on Commons. That would be absurd. You do have licensing information. It's literally on the image (as well as copies). What else were you looking for? Whith Maduro, it's only primary source relaying the message of the tormentator exposing his victim on social media. And? This is a question of images on Commons, not a political soapbox. Either make a Commons-centric argument or go somewhere else to talk politics. -- Veggies (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    So, what is the meaning of COM:DIGNITY : "Commons also respects the moral rights of the subject, even when not legally required to do so [...] Respecting these rights involves applying common decency and respect for human dignity"? Political soapbox? Fabius Lector (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    DIGNITY simply means Commons is not going to host upskirt and other such photos (especially from countries where that kind of voyeurism isn't explicitly illegal). There's plenty of photos of prisoners or people who have been otherwise stripped, arguably, of their human dignity on Commons. -- Veggies (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Veggies He might be a prisoner of war. Please read: https://www.justsecurity.org/127981/international-law-venezuela-maduro/ --Factsory (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Factsory Who cares if he is? How about addressing my arguments instead of making non sequiturs. There's plenty of POW photos on Commons. We have entire categories and subcategories full of them. -- Veggies (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Veggies Publishing pictures of prisoners of war is in opposition to the Geneva Convention. I think we should care about it. Don't you? --Factsory (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I don't. -- Veggies (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For Human Right Watch or the International Committee of the Red Cross, a prisoner displayed as “blindfolded, gagged, or masked” could be offensive to his dignity ([5]) but for you, it's "upskirt and other such photos". Perhaps it's a cultural issue. Unless I'm mistaken, Factsory and I both came from the French Wikipedia, and perhaps there we find a more widespread sentiment that "common decency and respect for human dignity" are as much linked to images of this kind of violence as they are to sex. Fabius Lector (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Go away, dude. I've already addressed this absurd points. Commons is not subject to the Geneva Convention. -- Veggies (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    From COM:DIGNITY:"In extraordinary cases, a photo's moral issues may be outweighed by its educational value. Commons may apply this principle in the same way as quality newspapers may apply a "public interest" test."
    I'd argue that the capture of a head of state by a military superpower is, in fact, an extraordinary case. And the educational value of the picture clearly outweight the moral issue we could have.
    Also, reading source about what the Geneva Convention say about all of this, while the sharing of the picture by the U.S. authorities is probably illegal, the Convention doesn't apply to us, as we are not involved in the conflict. Wikimedia Commons is not subject to international humanitarian law. [6].
    May I also remind everyone that Wikimedia Commons is not censored (see COM:CENSORSHIP). This picture contain "legitimate educational content" and WC would not break any laws. We shouldn't censor that picture despite the legitimate debate on whether it should have been taken and/or shared in the first place. Cosmiaou (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For anyone who might be interested, I started the discussion on the French Wiki, to see if we can regulate the use of this type of image, to know if there is really an educational interest or if we are approaching an unhealthy voyeurism with regard to the violence and humiliation, curiously well understood for prisoners of war but apparently not for civilian prisoners. Fabius Lector (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the license, I missed that it was indicated outside the description table, based on the assumption that it would be in the public domain because it was published by the armed forces. Let's assume this issue is resolved, although I wonder what this implies for all the images that government media might broadcast on their networks. Are we simply assuming by default that they own the rights to the images? Fabius Lector (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we simply assuming by default that they own the rights to the images? At least as far the United States, yes. If US government employees take the photo as part of their duties, the image belongs to the government and is, thus, public domain. -- Veggies (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: clear consensus to keep, and invalid rationale, Maduro is not a prisoner of war. --Abzeronow (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Nicolas_Maduro_on_board_the_USS_Iwo_Jima_(cropped).jpg&oldid=1144030882"