Misplaced Pages

Talk:Ahmed Yassin: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:01, 8 September 2010 editNickCT (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,922 edits →Arbitrary break in Responses to RfC: re← Previous edit Revision as of 04:21, 9 September 2010 edit undoLibiBamizrach (talk | contribs)324 edits →Arbitrary break in Responses to RfCNext edit →
Line 266: Line 266:
::::Unless it is overwhelmingly clear, it is best that a non-respondent close the discussion. However, when we get closer and there are more opinions, perhaps a recap such as Nick has tried above would be more appropriate. Thanks! -- ] (]) 04:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC) ::::Unless it is overwhelmingly clear, it is best that a non-respondent close the discussion. However, when we get closer and there are more opinions, perhaps a recap such as Nick has tried above would be more appropriate. Thanks! -- ] (]) 04:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::I take no issue with anything in the past few comments. Pausing debates for Jewish holidays seems reasonable given it effects a large number of editors interested in this debate, and will not cause excessive delay. ] (]) 13:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC) :::::I take no issue with anything in the past few comments. Pausing debates for Jewish holidays seems reasonable given it effects a large number of editors interested in this debate, and will not cause excessive delay. ] (]) 13:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
*'''Keep current image''' Avi's arguments seems compelling enough for me. It shows him in the state he was and is better quality than any of the alternatives that someone else offer. And if someone say it is POV to show him in wheelchair, you can say same thing it is POV to show just his head without wheelchair. Actually it is worse. Because it is true he was in a wheelchair so why not show it? This is a pretty silly thing to argue about. Keep the picture it is fine like that. ] (]) 04:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:21, 9 September 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ahmed Yassin article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Middle East
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: not checked
  2. Coverage and accuracy: not checked
  3. Structure: not checked
  4. Grammar and style: not checked
  5. Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
  • | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no>
  • | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no>
  • | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no>
  • | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no>
  • | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no>
assessing the article against each criterion.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ahmed Yassin article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

Better picture?

Does anyone think we can get a better picture of this guy? Usually biopags don't use pictures which present people as invalids. NickCT (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he was in a wheelchair is an important part of his bio, and this picture has been in the article for a long time in stable fashion. Additional pictures are of course welcome.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Epee, let's cut the shinanigans. You're trying to include a degrading picture of an individual you don't like. If you really think the wheelchair thing is important, let me know and I'll find a more agreeable one. NickCT (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
As an afterthough; Franklin D. Roosevelt is perhaps a good page to compare with. NickCT (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
He is widely seen as a terrorist responsible for the death of hundreds of civilians. I can't imagine anyone making the same argument for a pic of Hitler, Stalin, or anyone else for that matter who society at large views in a derogatory manner. That being said, I don't think the pic is that bad, especially since his disability in an integral part of his life story. I may be open to moving the pic down, but I can't see a good policy based reason for its removal.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We have been through this before. The picture that keeps on being uploaded is a copyvio. The New York Times picture at least has both provenance and historical value. Please do not restore images that violate wikipedia's policies and guidelines to this article. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the file as a copyvio from islamonline.net (that file was posted there in 2002). -- Avi (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, the picture in the article now has historical significance, as it is the last picture taken of him before his death. It is also very humorous, as about 18 months ago, someone tried to delete the picture claiming it was "too saintly" and did not make him look evil enough. It just goes to show de gustibus non est disputandum. . -- Avi (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

@brew - I'm you're aware that 1) your "responsible for the death of hundreds of civilians" is something that can be applied to any historical depending on your POV. I mean heck, Obama has overseen a military occupation that killed hundreds of civilians. Does that mean we put up a bad picture for him? Or wait.... those weren't your civilians, so perhaps it doesn't matter as much. 2) Love your edit summary "policy section you cite applies to BLP's.". The implication here is that you think it is ok for an image of a dead guy to be "used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light". 3) On a more compromising note; I would be open to keeping the NYT and "moving it down" as you say, in a manner similar to Franklin D. Roosevelt.
@Avi - Obviously Avi, the same rationale that applies to the NYT pic applies to the Islamonline.net . Would appreciate it be reuploaded and that you cease wikilawyering to push your POV or we can RfC this.
As a personal note, by pushing for this new picture I don't mean to suggest that this fellow was a "decent guy". Neither do I think Stalin, Mao or Hitler were decent people; however, look at Stalin, Mao and Hitler's articles, and you will note that the lead picture is not unflattering/humiliating. This is because it's not up to us to tell WP readers that these people were bad, but for readers to decide on their own.
The NYT picture was obviously selected by a group of people trying to push a certain POV about Yassin (a fact demonstrated by the surprisingly strong response by people who hold a certain POV against changing the pic). My message to you is that a. this tactic obviously goes against the whole "neutral point-of-view" thing, and b. ultimately, it doesn't help your cause.
Of course, personal appeals for rational behavior and NPOV on I/P articles are similar to relieving oneself into the wind, but give me credit for trying. NickCT (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Nick, you are welcome to your opinion, but realize it is solely your opinion and likely based on your point-of-view cis-a-vis the larger Israel/Palestine debate. The NYT picture is the "most" historically significant picture we have, as it was the last picture taken of Yassin before his death. Secondly, it has been the picture of Yassin for over four years on wikipedia. Thirdly, see #"Saintly" Photograph above, where the argument is made that this image makes Yassin look too good. I understand that there are many people who have political agendas about Yassin, and you are one of them along with many others. There is nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with trying to remove an established and somewhat historical image for political reasons (looks better, looks worse, whatever). The only reason why not to use the NYT image, IMO, is if someone, somewhere, has a free-use image of Yassin. THAT would be fantastic. -- Avi (talk) 04:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

@Avi - Sure, perhaps the idea that biographical images ought not be disparaging is "solely my opinion". But if you don't mind, I'm going to stick to it. As to the opinion that the "image is disparaging", a number of other editors have attempted to remove it, I'm guessing for the same reasons I've given. This would suggest that opinion is not "solely mine".
I've sandboxed an RfC. Let me know if you think it's fair & balanced. If not, please suggest changes (on my talk page or elsewhere) and I'll give them serious consideration.
On another note Avi, after reviewing the edit history this appears to be one of the more blatant cases of Admin POV pushing I've seen. I don't have much experience with your edits, so forgive me if I leaping to conclusions, but I think you fail to meet the higher standards of WP:NPOV expected of Admins. NickCT (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
You are, once again, more than welcome to your opinion, but I think that despite my personal POV based on my birth and upbringing, most of the editors in the I/P arena believe that I am one of the less egregious POV pushers AND one of the biggest adherents to strict policy and guideline. Of course, that could be my megalomania talking. Regardless, I think you are letting your personal point of view blind you from both the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, as well as the spirit of the project. You have yet to bring a valid reason why the existing picture should be changed other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I have given you dispassionate, neutral reasons why the current picture should not be changed, and you still want it changed because you think it does not look nice (again, I find it ironic that the last major attempt to use a non-historic, non-free picture said it made Yassin look too good and too saintly, which is, of course, just the opposite of your opinion). Your personal feeling is not a reason to disregard wikipeida's policy on non-free images, especially to replace one which has significance as it was 1) the last public image taken of Yassin 2) the one used to illustrate the March 23, 2006 NYT article about him and 3) one for which we know the publisher and photographer, and can give attribution with one of a watermarked image where the photographer and date is unknown AND does not also illustrate Yassin's quadriplegia, a very important part of his life. If we are going to use at most one non-free image, it should be one where we can deliver the most information possible, about the image AND the man--THIS is the spirit of the project, not posthumous hagiographia or villianization. -- Avi (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Re Avi;
1)"I am one of the less egregious POV pushers....." - Perhaps so. But the tenaciousness with which you defend this image suggests otherwise.
2)" think you are letting your personal point of view blind you" - Obviously, feelings mutual.
3)"you think it does not look nice " - Look... I freely acknowledge that what constitutes a "false and disparaging" image is mostly subjective. I'm sure you'll acknowledge though that, as a group of editors who have negative POVs towards this person are fighting to maintain the image, it's likely not b/c it's flattering.
4)"reason to disregard wikipeida's policy on non-free images" - When have I done this?
5)"the photographer and.....part of his life." - I'm not arguing the image shouldn't be used elsewhere in the article.
6)You didn't respond to my draft RfC, so I presume you have no objection. NickCT (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you would like to get specific:

  1. Am I to understand that my tenacity is an indication of trying to push an inappropriate point of view but yours is as pure as the driven snow? You may wish to review the above discussion, identify whom it was that raised the specter of inappropriate editing, and review the article on psychological projection.
  2. selbstverständlich
  3. Again, you are ascribing motives to me (or anyone else who is not in agreement with you) without basis in fact. I have given you multiple neutral reasons why this image is better than the one you uploaded, in my opinion improperly, and you persist in ignoring the logical and wikipedia-based reasons in favor of an emotional response you are having to the image. A response, I continue to add, which is the opposite of others' responses in the past. The primary reason to use a particular image should never be an emotional reaction, although it does have a place in the discussion. You have elevated your personal comfort level above that of wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and mission, and that, in my opinion, is both unfortunate and inappropriate.
  4. By uploading an unnecessary non-free image.
  5. I am, as we are to limit our use of non-free images. Both the above and this bullet point indicate that you would be well-served by reviewing Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, as you seem to not have a clear understanding of our policies regarding such usage.
  6. No, I believe the RfC is both unnecessary and potentially disruptive, and should not be used, especially as the image you uploaded appears to be in violation of the Non-free content policy.
I note that you have not responded to the multiple reasons as to why the existing image is prefereable but continue to respond emotionally. Do you have any logical arguments to respond to my points? Lastly, I would like to reiterate that edits such as this one may be indications of bad faith on your part, and you need to review if your intentions here are to enhance the project or to further some other cause. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Avi, I am a bit confused by some of the arguments. Both images under discussion are non-free so neither one has an advantage in that regard. Only one should be used under NFCC (minimal use), but which one is a matter of editorial discretion. You have written that the image in use in the article has "historical significance" as it is the last picture taken of him. I cant understand how that makes the picture have any "historical significance". Looking at media reports from around his death, I dont see too many of them using this picture. The BBC uses different ones, as does The Guardian. Haaretz also uses a different image though I havent searched too thoroughly there. I personally dont care what image is used, but the arguments for this one are weak in my opinion. But I dont think this image makes Yassin appear either saintly or demonic, it just looks like a paraplegic in a wheelchair. But if it were up to me I would use the one in the Haaretz piece linked. nableezy - 20:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Hello, Nableezy, thanks for chimimg in! Below are the six reasons why I think the current image should remain.

  1. The current image is the last public image taken of Yassin, three days prior to his death.
  2. The current image is the one used to illustrate the March 23, 2006 NYT article about him.
  3. For the current image we know the date, the publisher, and the photographer and can give proper attribution.
  4. The current image is not watermarked.
  5. The current image also serves to illustrate Yassin's quadriplegia, a very important part of his life.
  6. The current image has been in use for over four years.

As we should use at most one non-free image, it should be one where we can deliver the most information possible, about the image AND the man. The current image fulfills the letter and spirit of the wikimedia project, in my opinion. I understand your response to number 1, can you respond as to why the other reasons are insufficient as to make you want to switch the picture (of four years duration), please? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have placed notices on the talk pages of the projects to which this article currently belongs to try and foster more and richer discussion. -- Avi (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Re "four years duration" - please see User:NickCT/sandbox for a two year history of Avi promoting this image and preventing its replacement. NickCT (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
There are a few mistakes in your list. For example, FPAS was the one who removed the original image as a copyright violation. You may wish to check the very edit link you bring . Also, please rememeber that preventing copyright violations is the responsibility of all editors, not just sysops or OTRS volunteers. So if I have a history of protecting the wikipedia project from violations of its core principles, I think that is a good thing, for what it is worth. As I said above, you may need to ask yourself why you seem to be willing to ignore wikipedia polices in this case. -- Avi (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
@Avi
"tenacity is an indication .... driven snow" - My position is "any neutral image. the current image doesn't seem neutral". Your position is "only this image is acceptable". That doesn't seem a little odd?
"to use a particular image should never be an emotional reaction" - As I've said Avi my primary complaint is that this picture portrays in "false and disparaging" light. Unfortunately this is inherently an "emotional" (or probably more accurately "subjective") judgement.
"you seem to not have a clear understanding" - Thanks for the instructive and civil tone.
"I believe the RfC is both unnecessary and potentially disruptive" - We've come to impass. I think an RfC seeking comment from uninvolved editors is the only way forward. I'd prefer not to do this unilaterly, but as you're not showing signs of flexibility, what choice am I left with?
@nableezy
"both images under discussion are non-free so neither one has an advantage" - I made this point several times. It doesn't seem to be sinking in
" cant understand how that makes the picture have any "historical significance". - Me neither.
"it just looks like a paraplegic in a wheelchair" - Little surprised by this comment. Obviously, as I'd said earlier, this is a subjective call and I'd admit that I could be off-base here. I do think though that this image is severely unflattering to the point of being disparaging.
NickCT (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Sure;
  1. I dont think that matters. An image from three days is as significant as an image from 3 years before his assassination
  2. ok, but it isnt the image the BBC uses, or the image the Guardian uses, or the image Haaretz uses ... . It is going to be an arbitrary decision on which image we use. My point on linking the other news sources was that there is no one defining image and we can make a choice.
  3. In each of the images linked we know that information, or I can get you that information without too much trouble
  4. This isnt really related to the article, but I have always been confused as to why we wouldnt want to use a watermarked image if we are using one from a non-free source. My thinking leads me to believe it would be better to have a watermarked image because it a. is an explicit attribution, and b. it makes it more difficult for others to violate the copyright of the image by using what they find here. But either way, the image at Haaretz (here, bottom of the page) is not watermarked
  5. That is a fair point. Though I am not sure that even needs to be illustrated
  6. Not a fair point. The only relevance that has to the discussion is if you wish to say that "no consensus" defaults to the status quo. That is true, and fine, but it has no bearing on the determination as to which image we should use.
I think the strongest point is that it illustrates the paraplegia, though I dont think that point is particularly strong as I dont see a need to have that illustrated. But to answer your final question, I dont particularly want to switch the picture. I dont have a problem with it. Im just saying if I were to choose which picture to use it would be the one in the Haaretz article linked. That isnt my choice to make though and if it doesnt happen I wont be upset. nableezy - 21:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm good with the Haaretz image. Though I don't mind finding another image that demonstrates that he was paraplegic. NickCT (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
One technical issue with the Haaretz photo is its size, it's rather small (more than 3.7 times as small than the current version) and blown up to "regular" biopic size would likely look very blocky or grainy. If that image is going to be considered as a replacement, I'd suggest trying to find a larger version. -- Avi (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be fine as we are just displaying a thumbnail in the article, and minimal use dictates we use as small a picture as we can. But we should figure out which picture we should use and then get into the technical side of which file to use. I dont want to assume anything here, but your comment almost, maybe, possibly could be read as accepting to use the Haaretz image. I dont think that is the case, but could you make the point clear? Thanks Avi, nableezy - 23:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought I was clear that I prefer the New York Times image as it is the "last" image of Yassin, it demonstrates the quadraplegia, etc. I understand that I do not run wikipedia (or I won't admit to it in public ) and so I was offering y'all a suggestion should there be a consensus to change the image, which I don't see here. I understand that the I/P area is about as contentious as it gets, so perhaps you don't usually see someone with whom you disagree offer you a constructive suggestion. I wish that happened more often. In any event, based on the discussions above, I still feel that the arguments (in the forensic sense, not the verbal battle sense) I brought above are stronger than any I have seen to change the image, and so I still believe we should stick with what we have. Thanks for asking for the clarification! -- Avi (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I was pretty sure I hadnt convinced you, just wanted to make sure. Thanks, nableezy - 00:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
And Avi, I really dont mind having this picture. I would favor the other picture just because I think it is a better picture. I just dont think there is really a strong argument for the picture, or really any picture and we should just go with either a. one that we can show is often used in a variety of sources (which would be more difficult), or b. one that people think is the best picture. If the option is b, in the 10 minutes I spent looking I say the one at Haaretz is the best I saw. nableezy - 06:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I have to quote this:

Obama has overseen a military occupation that killed hundreds of civilians...Does that mean we put up a bad picture for him? Or wait.... those weren't your civilians...

Nick, if you can find a picture of Barack Obama in a wheel chair wearing a toga, I support its replacement for the current photo. If I were a Hamas supporter, I would want the picture to remain because it portrays the character as a passive, disabled, physically-handicapped man rather than a blood-thirsty Islamist. IMO I don't like the pic because of its low-quality and would support a new, higher-quality photograph regardless of the pose. Anything but Jazz hands will work for me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
(chuckling) Jazz Hands.... thanks for injecting some light hearted humor Wikifan12345. Look, I still feel that the current image casts the subject in a disparaging light, but I acknowledge I'm not getting much support for that idea. I could be wrong, and am willing to be proven wrong with an RfC. Let's have some non-I/P editors weigh-in, and if I still don't get any support, I'll drop it. NickCT (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I think an RfC at this point is premature, personally, as we only have one person at this point who strongly believes the picture should be changed. I asked for input on five different wikiproject pages, let's see what comes of that. -- Avi (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
You forgot to mention how many people strongly believe the picture should remain. Anyways, let's give it a couple more days then. I'd really value comments from editors outside the I/P realm. NickCT (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I asked for input from WP:BIO, WP:MILHIST, and WP:TERROR (see above), so let's hope we get fresh eyes. -- Avi (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Sounds good. Thanks. NickCT (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Response to request for comment - If anything I think the image is humorous, my first impulse was to laugh at how ridiculous his positioning is. By the very nature of the picture, it think it is forcing some sort of POV, not sure which and in different people it could have the comedic, saintly or any number of other impressions. I think it might be relevant later in the article, if indeed him being an invalid in later life is important (didn't read it very thoroughly), but I think in most cases of notable people, a portrait shot, or a shot of the individual in public without a goofy facial expression is more appropriate. The image seems too casual, especially for someone noted as a political leader (putting aside his traditional depiction in the West). Can't think of good examples right now to compare it to (maybe Micheal Jackson - pictures aren't the most flattering but aren't particularly negative either. He is just as controversal in the States.). Hope the thought helps, Sadads (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in Sadads. Note, from a quick review of Sadads's edit history it is apparent he is not an I/P editor. I think as the one neutral observor who has commented so far, his opinion should carry a lot of weight. NickCT (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Yep no problem,Sadads (talk)

For the record, I think this edit was a bit too hasty and I told the editor so. NickCT (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. We've waited a couple days now, and the response has not been overwhelming. Can we move forward with an image change based on Sadads's opinion above, or should I start an RfC? NickCT (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I see no consensus to change the picture nor to start an RfC. You want to change it/start and rfC. Sadads doesnt like it, that is two. Epeefleche, brewcrewer , and myself think the picture should stay. Nableezy was indifferent. Of the responses here, if anything, consensus is to keep the image and move on. What makes you think that there is a mandate to persist in trying to change the image outside of your personal feelings? -- Avi (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I won't scream bloody murder if you set one up, so if you feel that strongly, I guess go ahead, just make sure to make the RfC neutral and supply your opinions in the opinion section :) -- Avi (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Cmon Avi, nobody needs consensus to start an RfC, the point of an RfC is to find consensus where none exists. If there were a consensus for any one of the images an RfC wouldnt be needed. If there is a dispute, and it is apparent there is one, the steps of WP:DR should be followed. One of those steps is an RfC. But I wasnt indifferent, slightly apathetic but I do have a preference. Id suggest the two users who apparently feel the strongest about this, Nick and yourself, form an Rfc statement together. If it were me it would be a simple "which one of these pictures should be used as the image in the infobox?" followed by each of you outlining your reasons for supporting whichever image you support. nableezy - 16:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
@nableezy - Obviously agree w/ your comments above.
@Avi - Frankly, I think you have already cried "bloody murder". You've put a huge amount of effort into maintaining this picture when an acceptable alternative could easily be sought. If you're going to concede a single point, at least concede that the one non-I/P editor (and hence the one likely impartial editor) to have commented so far has cast his opinion on my side.
@all - Please see User:NickCT/sandbox and let me know if you have any questions/comments/critisisms to this format for an RfC. Thanks, NickCT (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
There are a number of problems with that draft RfC. Unfortunately I am a bit busy and will not be able to address them in detail until later tonight. To begin with though, you need to stop personalizing the dispute, this isnt a dispute between you and Avi, it is a dispute over content. Argue the content not the person. You should consider removing any reference to Avi or any other editor in your "arguments" for. Discuss the content and only the content. nableezy - 17:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I will set up an RfC shortly. First let me do some archiving. -- Avi (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow Avi. Wow.... I can't believe I spent time to draft an RfC, asked you to comment (several times), then you just preemptively start your own RfC. Very hard to see this as good faith Avi. NickCT (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Because if you read WP:RfC you will see that you are supposed to "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template. BRIEF and NEUTRAL. Your draft was nothing of the sort. If you want to place your opinion above mine, by all means, I don't care, but I do care that it be done correctly. Which reminds me, I have to correct someone else. Someone just dumped an RfC template in a section above my statements in talk:Carlos Latuff, and the bot transcluded that. -- Avi (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The RfC below has ONE sentence: "As discussed above, there is a debate as to the current picture in the article. Should it be changed, and to what?" that's it. No polemics, no mention of other users, etc. THAT is how an RfC should be filed, Nick. -- Avi (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Avi - Instead of working with me to make the RfC, you simply made your own after I repeatidly asked you to comment on my draft. If you didn't think my draft complied with WP:RfC you should have told me and I would have adapted it. You acted unilaterly. Bad faith. NickCT (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sort-of surprised. If you have an issue with a one sentence, completely neutral, non-editor-referencing, non-position referencing request for comment, the only way I can understand that is if you have an ulterior motive besides finding consensus, do you? -- Avi (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Avi - I've made my point. You're trying to avoid it rather than answer it. I believe you are intentionally trying to obfuscate the result of the RfC because you won't like it. If you want to demonstrate good faith, I kindly request that you move the "rebuttal" comments you made to the "response" section below and let the "response section stand. NickCT (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you really arguing over this? Come on you two, you both have enough experience that you should remember to just Be Civil and cope with the issue at hand not silly matters of procedure. Sadads (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it's silly too. RfC notices are supopsed to be one or two sentence neutral introduction, not treatises. The treaties is saved for the opinion section where we try and sway each others opinions through reasoned arguments, application of policy, and sheer force of charisma -- Avi (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

@Sadads - Apologies, but I find it infuriating when editors try to game the system like this. Frankly, I haven't met an admin yet who's used these kinds of shenanigans quite so extensively. NickCT (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should the image illustrating Yassin be changed

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

As discussed above, there is a debate as to the current picture in the article. Should it be changed, and if so, to what? -- Avi (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Opinions

  • It is my opinion that the current image should remain for the following reasons:
    1. The current image is the last public image taken of Yassin, three days prior to his death.
    2. The current image is the one used to illustrate the March 23, 2006 NYT article about him.
    3. For the current image we know the date, the publisher, and the photographer and can give proper attribution.
    4. The current image is not watermarked.
    5. The current image also serves to illustrate Yassin's quadriplegia, a very important part of his life.
    6. The current image has been in use for over four years, and so we will not be exposing a new image to any dilution of value since this has been the fair-use image for years.
    7. The current image is of a size and pixel-count to appear clearly on the article page without being blurry
  • The alternative images raised above all suffer from one or more of the above issues, which is why I prefer the current one. -- Avi (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It is my opinion that the current image should be changed for the following reasons:
    1. The current image of Ahmed Yassin used for this article is unflattering and disparaging. It was selected likely because of the personal, pro-Israeli POV concerning this individual held by the editors supporting the image. These editors have persisted over a long period in preventing this image from being changed (see edit summaries regarding the image below).
      History of edits for this image
      – Previous long standing image for this article is deleted and Avraham puts the image under contention in place
      - Avraham deletes an editors replacement, claiming copyright violation
      - Avraham deletes an editors replacement, b/c he claims stylized imagery is undesirable
      - Avraham deletes an editors replacement, claiming copyright violation
      - Avraham restores image after it is deleted
      - Avraham deletes an editors replacement, claiming copyright violation
      – Epeefleche deletes replacement image w/ edit summary “add a picture if you like, but no reason to delete this picture”
      - Avraham deletes my replacement, claiming copyright violation
      – Brewcrewer deletes my replacement, claiming Misplaced Pages:MUG doesn’t apply to deceased persons. Oddly this is Brewcrewer’s, who in this editor’s opinion has proIsrael POV, first edit on this page.
      - Avraham deletes an editor's replacement, claiming copyright violation and blocks the editor for repeated copyright violation
      - Avraham deletes IP's replacement, claiming copyright violation
      Comment Yes, there was a history of many people uploading copyrighted images, and going so far as to claim them as their own, which is theft. Part of the responsibilities of admins on wikipedia is to prevent copyright violations from occurring, thus the history. -- Avi (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    2. per Misplaced Pages:MUG#Images - Images "should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light". Obviously this is going to be a judgement call, but I don’t think the current image is particularly flattering. Presenting a cripple, all alone, looking slightly dopey, in a room that looks like a sanitarium seems a little skewed.
      Rebuttal The above is a part of WP:BLP which does not apply to Yassin, who is deceased. -- Avi (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    3. The current image is used under a historical free-use rationale which could be applied to any number of images. NickCT (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
      Rebuttal You seem to be under a gross misunderstanding of wikipedia policy. Please review WP:nonfree to see that you are incorrect and using the image anywhere else would be a copyright violation. -- Avi (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Responses to RfC

  • Change the current image - per my reasoning above (suggest this image as an alternative) NickCT (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Change the current image - the current image does not maintain the NPOV of this article. Previous comments indicate that some feel it makes Yassin appear saintly, to me it seems invokes hilarity making Yassin look like a fool. Either way, the work does not fairly treat the subject as a political leader and activist (whether a fundamentalist terrorist as perceived by the west or a liberator as perceived by other parties). The image may wish to be included in the context of his declining health, however should not be the main lead image, Sadads (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep the current image - per above. -- Avi (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Change the current image - I agree with Sadads; the picture makes Yassin look deranged. I don't agree with NickCT's choice because of its AFP watermark. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 18:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Good point Malik. Hadn't noticed that. I'll look for another. NickCT (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Change as per Sadads and Malik Shabazz.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep the current image Aside from WP:IDONTLIKEIT, there doesn't seem to be a valid reason to change the photo. Current image seems to satisfy WP's current guidelines. In addition, watermarked images, in general, should be discouraged. --nsaum75 19:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep the current image There doesn't seem to be valid reasons to change it --DavidAppletree (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Change - The current image is clearly intended to disparage the subject; disparagement is inherently a violation of the neutral point of view. I wonder how many of those editors voting to keep the image would feel the same way about a similarly disparaging photo of Ariel Sharon following his stroke? Check your political agendas at the door, people. ← George 19:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    I brought seven reasons for why I believe the current image should remain. May I please trouble you to address those? -- Avi (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    I don't think anyone is challenging the historicity of the image, (hence my recommendation to move it to another part of the article) but instead I think everyone is concerned about NPOV which is more important on controversal subjects. Sadads (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks, Sadads. The problem with that is that all of these are non-free images, and so we need to minimize usage. Policy now allows us basically one non-free image to illustrate the person in question. Unless there is a specific reason for the particular image, the fair-use exemption will not allow us to use two. One of my points is that I think the image in question is more "information dense" than the others, in that it also illustrates the quadriplegia, and we have no allowance to use two non-free images for Yassin where one will suffice. -- Avi (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    Actually, my first reaction to the image was to have my coffee come flying out of my nose, shocked that anyone was actually arguing to use an image like this to represent a subject on Misplaced Pages. I've never heard of this guy before, but it's entirely clear that this picture was intended to disparage the subject with a straight face. I don't care how evil someone is, we don't use disparaging pictures of them (much as I might like to see Adolf Hitler's article led by an image of him in a ballerina's tutu). But regarding your points:
    1. Why prefer the last image taken of someone? What policy suggests using the last picture of someone before they died? Does Albert Einstein's article use the last picture taken of him before he died? No, it includes a picture of him that well represents him.
    2. What makes you think the image used in the May 23, 2006 NYT article is the best image of the subject available? Plenty of different images are used by plenty of different reliable sources, so why single out this one, especially when it is clearing not a very good picture of the subject?
    3. Knowing the date, publisher, and photographer are all great things. I don't see why it's not possible to find the same information for a similar image that doesn't make the subject of the photo look insane or high, however.
    4. Same as above. If you're using a non-free image anyways, why not choose a better one that also doesn't have a watermark?
    5. I'm not sure how import this guy's disability was to his life. Is that what he is most known for? There are plenty of quadriplegics in the world who are not notable enough to have Misplaced Pages articles on them, so I doubt it's the most notable thing about this guy. Would he not have an article if he wasn't disabled? And you're saying there are no other images that also show his disability in existence that don't have the disparaging facial expression? The image may be usable in a section about his disability, but it's a terrible image to lead the article off with.
    6. This is just a silly argument. We've been using a terrible image for four years, therefore we should keep it? I'm not a copyright expert, but I don't think the "dilution of value" of one non-free image is a huge consideration in this case.
    7. Again, no other images exist that can match the pixel-to-clarity ratio of this one? Nonsense. ← George 20:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    Good I am not the only one that couldn't believe that this picture was being used, Sadads (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    Also, we know the photographer and publisher of this image; we have no provenance information about the others. If we are going to claim fair use, I believe we need to give as much credit as we can to the people who hold he copyright. -- Avi (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    A quick Google Images search yields 9,360 images for "ahmed yassin". We're using a non-free image anyways, so why not choose any one of those images that doesn't disparage the subject? Your contention is basically that of those ten thousand images, this is the best representation of this person, and that none of those ten thousand images has a photographer and publisher listed? Hard to swallow, to say the least. ← George 20:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    One of the things you can do to help the situation, George, is to find another image that addresses the issues raised above. -- Avi (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    If it isn't clear yet, if you find a superior image to the one in the article now, and by superior, I mean one that addresses my issues, not one that "looks nicer", I'll be more than happy to reconsider my position. I have no vested interest in this image per se; I do have an interest in preventing the substitution of a less-useful image for solely emotional reasons. -- Avi (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    How about the one on this page, near the bottom? No watermark, doesn't make him look insane, nor does it make him look like a saint. It would be better than the current one until something better can be found, anyways. ← George 20:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) But that's tiny (170px × 187px) which means that it will look horrible unless we keep it small. Also it doesn't show the wheelchair. It seems to be a crop. Can you find a larger version which shows the wheelchair (and the photographers name, etc.)? -- Avi (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    Okay, first, my understanding of fair use is that we should intentionally favor small images. Second, why show him in a wheelchair? Franklin D. Roosevelt was a U.S. President famous for having been wheelchair bound, yet we don't start his article with a picture of him in a wheelchair. Why should we do so here? Also, can you point me to the policy that says we need an image with the photographer's name (as opposed to just the publisher)? As I said, I'm no copyright expert. ← George 20:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Both George's options seem acceptable to me.
At Avi; if you plan to blanket reject all suggested alternatives in an attempt to maintain the present image, please just say-so from the get-go. NickCT (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep the current image and add more Avi certainly makes a convincing argument, especially about the non-free/WP/legal issues. From first glance, some superficial and childish non-AGF people might say it is to 'disparage', but I tried to put myself in other's position and the way Yassin is looking up to the heavens is indeed saintly. This was certainly how the world saw him in his last years when he gained publicity. Besides all this though, more pictures should be added. --Shuki (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This "childish non-AGF" person appreciates your comments Shuki, and recognizes that they are made in good faith. NickCT (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course you'd like this one Avi. It's just slightly less disparaging than the current. I'd prefer George's suggestions, particularly as he is not facing forward in this picture. NickCT (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Here's another option. It shows Yassin talking to reporters. Copyright info, including photographer, can be found here. ← George 21:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The problem, in my opinion, George, with this image is again, it does not show the wheelchair and it is too small. I think Malik's suggestion is better. Also, you don't think it looks like he's about to kiss someone in that image? I wouldn't call it "disparaging" but it lacks the serious mien that Malik's supplied. -- Avi (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Avi, we can't have multiple non-free images? Another '+' for the 'disparage' wheelchair image is that it invokes sympathy from the reader when s/he understands that Israeli choppers attacked a seemingly helpless person. Adding a 'regular' image actually makes Yassin a more able-bodied and physically legitimate target. Something the 'remove' editors should address. --Shuki (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The accepted practice is that we must minimize the usage. We can have more images if each one adds something to the article that the others could not. I learned this in the Undercover Mosque discussions, where the result was that only one screen-capture was allowed, and not the 3 or 4 that were there originally. At first, I thought we could have multiple images of the hate speech image captures, but that was forbidden as there was nothing extra that the images could provide that could not be explained using the text. Since the video was copyrighted, each image was non-free. It was decided that one image was allowed to show the crowd and illustrate the video, and that is it. Same here, if in one image we can capture both the visual appearance of Yassin and his quadriplegia, I do not think we have the right to show two. Between two given images, I prefer the one would give "more" visual information than less, since we are constrained. The current image does that; Malik's image may do that, the other options so far do not. -- Avi (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I personally, think the first one that Malik is suggesting solves many of the problems. Showing him in a wheel chair isn't sympathy pull in this case. Actually, he rather looks like the stereotypical old man, which is much better than the current image which pushes POV, at least this one has some subtlety to it. Sadads (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Avi - I'm actually okay with Malik's suggestion; I don't find it disparaging (the fact that the person had a disability is not in itself disparaging). However, a few questions:
  • Again, why should we favor pictures showing the wheelchair? I'm not disagreeing, I'm just asking why, when articles about other famous wheelchair bound people (such as the Franklin D. Roosevelt article I mentioned above) do not. The reason I ask isn't because I'm opposed to including a picture of his wheelchair, but I just think we should go with the clearest image, regardless of if it shows the wheelchair.
  • Again, my understanding is that lower resolution is better than higher resolution when using non-free images. I know this is true of some images (such as logos), but may not be true of all of them. Do you know which policy would govern this?
  • As an aside, I'm actually concerned that none of these non-free images should be used. I started looking at Wikipolicy, and read in the unacceptable use of images section of the non-free content guideline that we shouldn't use images "from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article."
There are actually hundreds of images of this guy that are AFP licensed, but yeah, he's no beauty pageant winner. I'm wondering if we shouldn't pass whatever image we decide on past some copyright experts to make sure its usage is kosher. ← George 23:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, George, thanks for the reply. Some responses:
  • We do have an image of Roosevelt in a wheelchair in the article (File:Roosevelt in a wheelchair.jpg in both the Franklin D. Roosevelt#Paralytic illness section and the Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness article. However, we have much more leeway there since all the images are free, so we don't have to lead with it, and can pepper many images throughout the article. We have a fair-use issue here, because there are no known free use images of Yassin.
  • Yes, but it's preferable to have an image of a certain size. I'm not talking about multi-megapixel images here. However, the current image is 200px × 317px or 63.4K pixels (much less than the 1MP usually considered a cut-off). The one you suggested before is ~31.8K pixels. If we blow it up it would be more than twice as blurry and if we leave it small, it just doesn't look good.
  • We usually allow ONE non-free image when we have no other option of illustrating someone - See {{Non-free fair use in}}. Otherwise, yes, we are not to use such images merely because they were released by a press agency.
  • As above, we usually allow absolutely minimal usage of one image from anywhere as fair use. If there is a second image which contains visual information that is neither found in the first image nor can be adequately substituted for by text, we allow that as well. I don't think we have that here. Do you?
-- Avi (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break in Responses to RfC

@all - I'm opposed to Malik's contribution b/c I think it does little to address the whole "false and disparaging" light thing. Avi seems intent on showing Yassin in a wheelchair, which I don't think is entirely called necessary, but it is at least a defensible position. After talking through some options with Avi, we narrowed down two below as possibly being mutually acceptable. Comments from others would be appreciated.

Thanks, NickCT (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I prefer both Malik's and the current to both of those, as both fill more of the seven reasons I listed above than either of the ones above. Please, let us allow the discussion to continue. Maybe someone will find the perfect image 14 days from now; we can only hope! After the RfC has run its course, we should have a pool of images from which we can select, I hope. -- Avi (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Although, I would place your option 5 in the pool with Malik's and the current, especially if you can find the name of the photographer and the date of the photo, both of which we have for the current and Malik's photo. -- Avi (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment from outside editor responding to RfC. This is an aesthetic judgment, but I think that NickCT's third option is the best alternative. The current photo trivializes the subject, and this is not a trivial man whatever one thinks of him. Figureofnine (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • RFC Comment: The present picture is technically of poor quality and does seem to trivialize the subject. The comparison to Roosevelt's picture makes sense, and why not have a look at the Ariel Sharon page too, while we're at it. That's not how Sharon looks nowadays and I wouldn't advocate changing that one for a picture of a vegetative Sharon. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Please see response to George above. Roosevelt in a wheelchair appears in the wiki article on Roosevelt. However, we have a slew of free-use images of Roosevelt so we can afford to be selective in what appears where in the article. We, unfortunately have NO free-use images of Yassin, so uf we are going to pick one image, it should carry as much information as possible. -- Avi (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • RFC Comment: Change. Humiliating, unsettling, and downplays his significance. Somewhat prejudicial in his favor as it's difficult to look at this guy and see him as a threat of any sort. Sol Goldstone (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I count the following -
8 for an image change - Figureofnine, Dailycare, Sol Goldstone, George, NickCT, Sturmvogel 66, Malik Shabazz & Sadads
4 against - Shuki, Avi, nsaum75, & DavidAppletree (the recently blocked editor from the Jewish Internet Defence Force)
Three apparently "non-I/P" editors weighed in (Figureofnine, Sadads & Sturmvogel 66) all in favor
@Avi - Can we close this RfC w/ the conclusion that the image should be changed, or do you want to squeeze a little more time out of this? NickCT (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The RfC should remain open until at least September 30th, per standard RfC's which run for 30 days, at which time we should have one of the following outcomes:
  1. Consensus not to change the image
  2. Consensus to change the image to one of a small pool (of 1 to 4 images, I hope not more)
If we end up with no consensus, I guess full formal mediation ala WP:MEDCOM is next. However, ending an RfC early is never a good idea, Nick. It is a step in the dispue resolution process that needs to be respected. I would counsel patience, Nick, and let the process move to completion properly. -- Avi (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
On a personal note, I'd lobby to extend the RfC to October 4, as September 30-October 1 are Jewish holidays and the Sabbath.
Also, Nick, involved parties should not close RfC's unless the answers are so overwhelmingly clear (and 80 to 4 would be overwhelming -- even 25 to 4 -- but not 8 - 4 a week into an RfC), so neither you nor I should close it anyway. -- Avi (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Apologies Avi.... I was hoping against hope you wouldn't want to drag this out. I'm guessing your not going to respect the results of RfC should it not match your POV. Perhaps MedCom is inevitable..... NickCT (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Avi in that we need to let it sit for right now (a week or two at least RFCs don't draw enough traffic for it to be conclusive after a week), however I would object to extending the RFC past the 30 days because of a religious group's preference (that doesn't matter here, where (theoretically) they had a month to respond), Sadads (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
That is fair, Sadads, however, it should be noted that if there is any uncertainty as to the consensus, and a change is made when a significant portion of the respondents are disenfranchised for reasons beyond their control, that would not be appropriate. Hopefully, by that time, we'll have a really good idea about what the consensus is, or will be. The way I see it now, there are three-to-four images which are in the discussion, and no consensus for any one of them. There is no consensus to change either (8-to-4 is too small) but I'm hoping that over time, we'll get enough people to weigh in one way or the other so that we can come to a decision. -- Avi (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
To me clear consensus is 80% when no recent major arguments/contentions are raised. That is when I would suggest closing early, however, for right now lets just see what happens, (66% is not close enough), Sadads (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me; I already dropped notices on the five wikiprojects in which this article is listed, and it is on the RfC list as well. Any other allowed method of publicizing this come to mind? -- Avi (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Not that I can think of. Haven't done very many RFCs though, so not the best source for advice on this, (though I will gladly mediate/give opinions on matters), if major issues arise (though I am favoring a change so probably not the most neutral mediator), Sadads (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Unless it is overwhelmingly clear, it is best that a non-respondent close the discussion. However, when we get closer and there are more opinions, perhaps a recap such as Nick has tried above would be more appropriate. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I take no issue with anything in the past few comments. Pausing debates for Jewish holidays seems reasonable given it effects a large number of editors interested in this debate, and will not cause excessive delay. NickCT (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep current image Avi's arguments seems compelling enough for me. It shows him in the state he was and is better quality than any of the alternatives that someone else offer. And if someone say it is POV to show him in wheelchair, you can say same thing it is POV to show just his head without wheelchair. Actually it is worse. Because it is true he was in a wheelchair so why not show it? This is a pretty silly thing to argue about. Keep the picture it is fine like that. LibiBamizrach (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Categories: