![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I do not understand where the original editor got this information from "which uses suicide bombings to facilitate the destruction of the State of Israel and replace it with an Islamic state." Non of the many listed citation talk about any of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.60.167 ( talk) 07:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
There are several posts that add nothing to the discssion but inane garbage. I don't see a need for them to remain on the page. The Talk Page should be cleaned up and stupid, irrelevant content removed. Jwwil 00:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
i'm not sure I understand on what basis this person was a "politician". He rejected peaceful democratic solutions completely and supported violence. Elizmr 15:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, where is the source for antisemitism? Bless sins 20:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It's there; please read the article. -- Avi 14:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I could offer you a pair of glasses, I guess, but I will give you a hint. Read the article and the sources. -- Avi 14:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
(<-)If you read the article, you will see that it is properly sourced. Further removal of validly sourced information may be met with actions taken to protect the project. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 02:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
(<-)Please remember that "whitewashing" is as just a severe and egregious violation of NPOV as is its opposite. Your refusal to read the article is not an excuse to remove information that is properly sourced, should you have read the entire article. As I stated long ago, please remember the definition of antisemitism. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 14:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Would it be at all possible to find a less "Saintly" photograph to post of this terrorist mastermind? - MSTCrow 15:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It is without doubt that the current image is biased in that it provokes a sympathy almost immediately. A more suitable image would make less of his disability and possess a better facial expression. For lack of a better word the current picture makes him look "simple", if not harmless and Yassin was certainly no simpleton, he was a founding father of a bloody popular movement and it would better reflect the man and the role he played in Palestinian politics if we were to seek a more flattering photograph. I agree that just because the image promotes sympathy, does not mean it should not be published, but I disagree with it being used as the main image, the image on which many users first make judgement upon. Superpie ( talk) 18:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I certainly find it agreeable. Superpie ( talk) 14:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
According to WP:OR, "That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."
Thus every source in this article should be about Ahmed Yassin. If it isn't I'm going to remove it. Bless sins 18:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Please also refrain from posthumous whitewashing. -- Avi 16:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
While saying that well-documented and well-cited information is "OR" is at best demonstrative of a complete misunderstanding of our policies and guidelines, and at worst, outright POV whitewashing violations, I agree that further explanation of Hamas, while important in understanding Yassin vis-a-vis the Israeli-Arab conflict of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, does not belong in the lead. As such, I have moved that text to the section of the article describing Yassin's role in the creation of Hamas. -- Avi 16:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:OR says "any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."
Thus every source in this article should be about Ahmed Yassin. If any content is sourced to reference that aren't about the topic of the article (which is Ahmed Yassin), then that contetn is OR. It belongs in Hamas not here. Bless sins 23:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello Avi. Can you respond to my previous point? Thanks. Bless sins 14:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
-- BozMo talk 16:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Everything in that sentence has been previously published in the sources brought. They are relevant to Yassin to explain his critical role in the Arab-Israeli conflict. You're welcome. -- Avi 01:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe you are incorrectly interpreting WP:OR. WP:OR states (emphasis added is my own):
Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.
— WP:OR
It is hard for me to understand the validity of the claim that Hamas is not directly related to Ahmed Yassin. -- Avi 03:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
...and he also decided (or, at least, approved of) the manner in which the war would be waged, e.g. bombings of civilian targets.
— The Gnome 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
And this means that he is not a terrorist because....? -- Avi 04:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Being that it is banned in Jordan (see the references) wouldn't "Western" be too restrictive? -- Avi 18:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The intro says that he was paraplegic but the "Early life" section says that he was quadriplegic. Could someone please correct whichever one is wrong? -- 212.219.230.62 ( talk) 14:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC) If he was paraplegic or quadriplegic since he was 12, how did he have children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.55.58.121 ( talk) 16:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
See Kobi Ben-Simhon , 'Israel could have made peace with Hamas under Yassin', Haaretz, 17/04/2009. Nishidani ( talk) 09:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Well, if you would like to get specific:
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.
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)
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...
For the record, I think this was a bit too hasty and I told the editor so. NickCT ( talk) 00:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I will set up an RfC shortly. First let me do some archiving. -- Avi ( talk) 17:25, 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)
This article is about Yassin not about Hamas, Yassin himself is not linked to terrorism like Bin Laden except in Israeli media only, the article should be cleaned up by removing the section about terrorism and other content related to Hamas attacks to conform to wikipedia NPOV principle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.201.202.202 ( talk) 08:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
(UTC)
Click "show" to view the RFC
|
---|
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) Previous discussion is now archived at Talk:Ahmed Yassin/Archive 2#Better picture? Opinions
Responses to RfC
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)
Break #2There is still another week left to run in the RfC, and things can certainly shift, but I believe there are multiple opinions above for each of the following options:
Is that a fair synopsis of the current opinions? -- Avi ( talk) 13:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts, mostly for technical reasons,
Sadads ( talk) 13:53, 20 uSeptember 2010 (UTC)
If we are listing our personal opinions, I'll add mine:
-- Avi ( talk) 15:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
If an editor feels that a discussion is a waste of time, then perhaps it would be best for that editor to move onto another discussion, or write a new article, or visit an art museum, or take a nap. Those are the sorts of things I do when I come to such a conclusion. Let's not get upset. Let's collaborate instead. Cullen328 ( talk) 05:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Right now there are four reasonable options for images being discussed (listed at the top of this subsection at #Break #2. Do you have a better option (where better includes information content of the image and about the image, and not just the image itself--at least in my opinion)? -- Avi ( talk) 07:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor to close, pleaseOK, the RfC has run for more than a month, and it can be closed now. If an uninvolved editor could read the above discussions and determine if a consensus has been reached and, if so, what that consensus is, we would all be very appreciative. Thank you! -- Avi ( talk) 17:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok guys, I am reviewing this situation and this very long discussion, I will try to formulate a closing statement that accurately reflects the results. This may take some time so please be patient. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC) |
(I wrote a comprehensive review of this last night, a friend dropped by right as I was finishing, I thought I saved it but apparently the whole thing is gone so I'm having to start over now) Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Well folks, I hate to say it but we are not quite done yet. It's unfortunate that the fair-use policy kinds of ties our hands on this one or we could just add more images, but we need a very compelling reason to ignore that particular policy as it can cause the Foundation legal problems. It seems clear that consensus favors the image being replaced, but as yet there is no consensus on which image to replace it with. The best way forward is probably to re-present the alternative images and have a straightforward poll on which to include. In the interest of making progress retaining the current image should not be an option in this new poll. If the image needs cropping or other adjustments it would be helpful if modified versions were available online somewhere so that the finished product can be viewed while polling is underway. It could be helpful to cross-post links once the poll is in place in order to encourage input from previously uninvolved users. I would further suggest that the images be allowed to speak for themselves and commentary be kept to a minimum, the current participants have had more than ample opportunity to make their feelings known already, anyone who wants to can read this RFC for more background. Once the poll is started this RFC should probably be archived or collapsed so that the talk page does not become too bloated. Thanks to everyone who participated, I can see that a lot of research and other effort has already gone into this discussion. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Beeblebrox, for what must have been a very difficult closing. To follow up with the decision, there were at least three options suggested in the now-closed discussion:
Malik's option would require cropping and only showing the right side. Nick's second suggestion would likely require cropping the center. Before we start a poll, does anyone have any other reasonable options? Maybe we should give it a few days for suggestions (capped at around 5 or so I'd recommend) and then poll the interested parties? -- Avi ( talk) 07:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I also prefer Nick suggestion 2, though frankly I'd push to find more images. I'm going to see if I can do some gathering tomorrow. NickCT ( talk) 23:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Nick, it seems that no one has the opportunity to find better pictures; I for one am swamped at work. I think maybe it's time to start the poll with the images above? Perhaps we should upload the three cropped versions to wikipedia, with the caveat that the losing two will be deleted after the vote. Is that allowed? I'm not 100% sure. -- Avi ( talk) 20:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The current image has been there for years; while I agree that there was consensus to replace it, I don't think there was consensus to remove it until it was replaced, especially as as many people selected that image as any one of the other images. I'll place a gallery below, temporarily, of what I think are the three options, and then we should get around to selecting one. -- Avi ( talk) 01:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I do not understand where the original editor got this information from "which uses suicide bombings to facilitate the destruction of the State of Israel and replace it with an Islamic state." Non of the many listed citation talk about any of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.60.167 ( talk) 07:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
There are several posts that add nothing to the discssion but inane garbage. I don't see a need for them to remain on the page. The Talk Page should be cleaned up and stupid, irrelevant content removed. Jwwil 00:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
i'm not sure I understand on what basis this person was a "politician". He rejected peaceful democratic solutions completely and supported violence. Elizmr 15:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, where is the source for antisemitism? Bless sins 20:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It's there; please read the article. -- Avi 14:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I could offer you a pair of glasses, I guess, but I will give you a hint. Read the article and the sources. -- Avi 14:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
(<-)If you read the article, you will see that it is properly sourced. Further removal of validly sourced information may be met with actions taken to protect the project. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 02:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
(<-)Please remember that "whitewashing" is as just a severe and egregious violation of NPOV as is its opposite. Your refusal to read the article is not an excuse to remove information that is properly sourced, should you have read the entire article. As I stated long ago, please remember the definition of antisemitism. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 14:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Would it be at all possible to find a less "Saintly" photograph to post of this terrorist mastermind? - MSTCrow 15:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It is without doubt that the current image is biased in that it provokes a sympathy almost immediately. A more suitable image would make less of his disability and possess a better facial expression. For lack of a better word the current picture makes him look "simple", if not harmless and Yassin was certainly no simpleton, he was a founding father of a bloody popular movement and it would better reflect the man and the role he played in Palestinian politics if we were to seek a more flattering photograph. I agree that just because the image promotes sympathy, does not mean it should not be published, but I disagree with it being used as the main image, the image on which many users first make judgement upon. Superpie ( talk) 18:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I certainly find it agreeable. Superpie ( talk) 14:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
According to WP:OR, "That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."
Thus every source in this article should be about Ahmed Yassin. If it isn't I'm going to remove it. Bless sins 18:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Please also refrain from posthumous whitewashing. -- Avi 16:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
While saying that well-documented and well-cited information is "OR" is at best demonstrative of a complete misunderstanding of our policies and guidelines, and at worst, outright POV whitewashing violations, I agree that further explanation of Hamas, while important in understanding Yassin vis-a-vis the Israeli-Arab conflict of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, does not belong in the lead. As such, I have moved that text to the section of the article describing Yassin's role in the creation of Hamas. -- Avi 16:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:OR says "any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."
Thus every source in this article should be about Ahmed Yassin. If any content is sourced to reference that aren't about the topic of the article (which is Ahmed Yassin), then that contetn is OR. It belongs in Hamas not here. Bless sins 23:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello Avi. Can you respond to my previous point? Thanks. Bless sins 14:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
-- BozMo talk 16:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Everything in that sentence has been previously published in the sources brought. They are relevant to Yassin to explain his critical role in the Arab-Israeli conflict. You're welcome. -- Avi 01:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe you are incorrectly interpreting WP:OR. WP:OR states (emphasis added is my own):
Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.
— WP:OR
It is hard for me to understand the validity of the claim that Hamas is not directly related to Ahmed Yassin. -- Avi 03:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
...and he also decided (or, at least, approved of) the manner in which the war would be waged, e.g. bombings of civilian targets.
— The Gnome 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
And this means that he is not a terrorist because....? -- Avi 04:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Being that it is banned in Jordan (see the references) wouldn't "Western" be too restrictive? -- Avi 18:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The intro says that he was paraplegic but the "Early life" section says that he was quadriplegic. Could someone please correct whichever one is wrong? -- 212.219.230.62 ( talk) 14:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC) If he was paraplegic or quadriplegic since he was 12, how did he have children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.55.58.121 ( talk) 16:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
See Kobi Ben-Simhon , 'Israel could have made peace with Hamas under Yassin', Haaretz, 17/04/2009. Nishidani ( talk) 09:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Well, if you would like to get specific:
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.
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)
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...
For the record, I think this was a bit too hasty and I told the editor so. NickCT ( talk) 00:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I will set up an RfC shortly. First let me do some archiving. -- Avi ( talk) 17:25, 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)
This article is about Yassin not about Hamas, Yassin himself is not linked to terrorism like Bin Laden except in Israeli media only, the article should be cleaned up by removing the section about terrorism and other content related to Hamas attacks to conform to wikipedia NPOV principle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.201.202.202 ( talk) 08:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
(UTC)
Click "show" to view the RFC
|
---|
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) Previous discussion is now archived at Talk:Ahmed Yassin/Archive 2#Better picture? Opinions
Responses to RfC
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)
Break #2There is still another week left to run in the RfC, and things can certainly shift, but I believe there are multiple opinions above for each of the following options:
Is that a fair synopsis of the current opinions? -- Avi ( talk) 13:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts, mostly for technical reasons,
Sadads ( talk) 13:53, 20 uSeptember 2010 (UTC)
If we are listing our personal opinions, I'll add mine:
-- Avi ( talk) 15:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
If an editor feels that a discussion is a waste of time, then perhaps it would be best for that editor to move onto another discussion, or write a new article, or visit an art museum, or take a nap. Those are the sorts of things I do when I come to such a conclusion. Let's not get upset. Let's collaborate instead. Cullen328 ( talk) 05:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Right now there are four reasonable options for images being discussed (listed at the top of this subsection at #Break #2. Do you have a better option (where better includes information content of the image and about the image, and not just the image itself--at least in my opinion)? -- Avi ( talk) 07:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor to close, pleaseOK, the RfC has run for more than a month, and it can be closed now. If an uninvolved editor could read the above discussions and determine if a consensus has been reached and, if so, what that consensus is, we would all be very appreciative. Thank you! -- Avi ( talk) 17:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok guys, I am reviewing this situation and this very long discussion, I will try to formulate a closing statement that accurately reflects the results. This may take some time so please be patient. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC) |
(I wrote a comprehensive review of this last night, a friend dropped by right as I was finishing, I thought I saved it but apparently the whole thing is gone so I'm having to start over now) Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Well folks, I hate to say it but we are not quite done yet. It's unfortunate that the fair-use policy kinds of ties our hands on this one or we could just add more images, but we need a very compelling reason to ignore that particular policy as it can cause the Foundation legal problems. It seems clear that consensus favors the image being replaced, but as yet there is no consensus on which image to replace it with. The best way forward is probably to re-present the alternative images and have a straightforward poll on which to include. In the interest of making progress retaining the current image should not be an option in this new poll. If the image needs cropping or other adjustments it would be helpful if modified versions were available online somewhere so that the finished product can be viewed while polling is underway. It could be helpful to cross-post links once the poll is in place in order to encourage input from previously uninvolved users. I would further suggest that the images be allowed to speak for themselves and commentary be kept to a minimum, the current participants have had more than ample opportunity to make their feelings known already, anyone who wants to can read this RFC for more background. Once the poll is started this RFC should probably be archived or collapsed so that the talk page does not become too bloated. Thanks to everyone who participated, I can see that a lot of research and other effort has already gone into this discussion. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Beeblebrox, for what must have been a very difficult closing. To follow up with the decision, there were at least three options suggested in the now-closed discussion:
Malik's option would require cropping and only showing the right side. Nick's second suggestion would likely require cropping the center. Before we start a poll, does anyone have any other reasonable options? Maybe we should give it a few days for suggestions (capped at around 5 or so I'd recommend) and then poll the interested parties? -- Avi ( talk) 07:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I also prefer Nick suggestion 2, though frankly I'd push to find more images. I'm going to see if I can do some gathering tomorrow. NickCT ( talk) 23:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Nick, it seems that no one has the opportunity to find better pictures; I for one am swamped at work. I think maybe it's time to start the poll with the images above? Perhaps we should upload the three cropped versions to wikipedia, with the caveat that the losing two will be deleted after the vote. Is that allowed? I'm not 100% sure. -- Avi ( talk) 20:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The current image has been there for years; while I agree that there was consensus to replace it, I don't think there was consensus to remove it until it was replaced, especially as as many people selected that image as any one of the other images. I'll place a gallery below, temporarily, of what I think are the three options, and then we should get around to selecting one. -- Avi ( talk) 01:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)