Question. Other than appearing in the First Chechen War article, what evidence is there to suggest this is the case? The photo has no image description whatsoever and no date. If we take it that it is from there, then I assume it's a scan of a film image, given the war took place from 1994 to 1996 - I'm not good at telling whether images are scanned or not if it's a very good scan, especially at this size; can anyone else tell? This may help prove its age. Also the 'author spam' should be removed from the captions in the articles in my opinion (even if the author apparently has a Wikipedia page, it's not relevant to the articles the photo is in and just seems like a bit too much self-promotion, as the file is also named after him; the link could go in the non-existent description). But before worrying about anything else I'm struggling for encyclopaedic verifiability given this complete lack of information from the uploader/creator. --jjron07:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It is scanned, either Neg or a print. There were no real digital cameras in 1996 and there are a few scanner artifacts in the picture: A white dust, or scratch in the center about a third from the bottom, and some other dust... -Fcb981(talk:contribs)19:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Support It's a fine image, as good as any free-licensed photojournalistic work we have. There's only ever the photographer's word for the authenticity of images like this, which the shot has in the form of a short caption. Pre-digital shots are impossible to date accurately (I agree this is almost certainly a scan) and although a little more info would be nice (like where exactly that fire is coming from) the fact that the image was posted by its creator at First Chechen War is enough for me. --mikaultalk16:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Question Do the buildings look like they're falling over? Tried fixing tilt on edit. Possibly too much, or maybe tilt fix isn't even necessary. Opinions? tiZom(2¢)19:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose First, there is no proof that the uploader's claims are true. Second, it does not show anything special about that conflict or at least conflicts in general.--Svetovid17:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)