Talk:The Spirit of '43

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing bogus public domain claim

I'm re-removing the bogus public domain claim from the article. Not only is it factually wrong, but the Internet Archive is not a reliable source for information about copyright status. Anyone can upload videos to the Internet Archive and claim anything they want about the copyright status. It's the equivalent of citing Wikimedia Commons. Kaldari (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

reverted for the second time; i find nothing in the wiki info which you cited about reliable sources to indicate that the media collection @ the internet archive is an "unreliable soutce". in fact, the only thing i can find is a wikipedia help page about how to use the wayback machine @ the internet archive, in citations. to me, this suggests that the i.a. is considered a reliable resouce.

the item has been listed as PD @ the internet archive, which is a major online resource, for at least 5 years, WITH download links. considering this is a disney film, i'd think that the i.a. would have recieved a takedown noticed by now, if disney had any valid legal claims.

since we're not going to agree on this, shall we go to dispute resolution now?

because, right now i'd say you are in the "contradition" section of the pyramid... xD

Lx 121 (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Neither is even remotely close to a reliable source for this rather extraordinary claim. All information under question is contributed by users with no credible editorial control or oversite. These individuals do not qualify as reliable sources, according to our policies. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"All information under question is contributed by users with no credible editorial control or oversite" -- really? it's been in the article since at least 2009, & dozens of users have edited it since that time. so you're saying all of them are incompetent? Lx 121 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

@Lx 121: I've initiated a discussion at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Kaldari (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

just to be clear here, my issue is NOT with whether the film is public domain or not, i'd say the point was arguable.

MY ISSUE is with your arbitrarily removing properly sourced" information from any article effectively, "because you don't believe it", & that is what this amounts to. you have not done any research, & offer no sources to dispute the point. you just don't think it's right, & so you ignored the sources & deleted it. AND you did this in order to support your arguements in a deletion debate @ wikimedia commons.

that last part, i find particularly objectionable. it is DEEPLY inappropriate to go & manipulate material on one wikimedia project, in order to win a debate on another wikimedia project. & if you are going to be an admin, you should know better, & have a better respect for the rules & the process.

you should also have WAITED & put in the effort to establish whether spirit of 43 was or was not public domain, before acting on this. simply saying "i am going to remove this because i don't like the sources" doesn't cut it.

if we need to have a big community-wide discussion and/or arbitration, to finally settle the question of acceptable sources, then so be it. because right now, this reliability of sources crap is being used as a blunt tool to remove anything & everything; & the debates usually come do to who has more friends supporting them and/or who is better @ rule-puking.

Lx 121 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

User generated sources like the IMBD are specifically prohibited by our sourcing policy, WP:RS. IMDB is specifically mentioned as an example of an unacceptable source. The matter has already been settled, and you would not get anywhere with disputing this. If you have a problem with this, the only thing you could possibly do is to get our policy changed, and good luck with that.

Second of all, the burden is solely on YOU to find reliable sources for material you want added or restored. It is not anyone else's responsiblity to do your work for you. See WP:BURDEN.

Third, and finally, please read WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA. You comments above were quite rude. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The Spirit of '43 was made for the Treasury Department and all non top secret works made under contract for the US government are public domain by definition.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/5687051 Here's a significantly better source for that claim than the random library database currently cited on the page Wertercatt (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• The Spirit of 43-Donald Duck.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)