Talk:Ahmed Yassin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Lack of sources

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)

Removal of Idiots

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)

Talk page archived. -- Avi 03:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Politician?

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)

Where is the source for antisemitism?

Hello, where is the source for antisemitism?Bless sins 20:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

See your talk page. -- Avi 21:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please put it here for all to see.Bless sins 17:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there no source for Yassin's alleged antisemitism?Bless sins 23:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Avraham, I will remove the category Antisemitism, unless you provide a source for it. I asked for the source weeks ago.Bless sins 20:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's there; please read the article. -- Avi 14:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you copy and paste the sentence, or the source that says this. Why can't you answer me in a straightforward manner?Bless sins 13:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you please respond to me at the "Where is the source for antisemitism?" section of this talk? Thanks.Bless sins 23:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read the article, this talk page, and your talk page carefully. You may have to check the histories. Good Luck! -- Avi 14:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So you don't have any source that claims Yassin was "antisemitic" except talk pages. If you did you would not be afraid to provide me with one. Finally, I have shown you why Hamas related material is OR.Bless sins 14:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

ROFLOL. Once again you are acting in a way which seems to indicate that you have trouble with the English language. Perhaps French is your native tongue coming from Canada, that may explain it. Regardless, your question HAS been answered before, and your re-asking of it does not invalidate the answer that was given. If you are either incapable or not-interested in looking for the answer given when you asked, or more importantly, reading the article, I feel badly for you, but that does not change the article and its supports. Good Luck! -- Avi 14:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attack my language (English), and don't judge my country (Canada). If my question has ben answered before, then why don't you simply copy and past the answer. Why are you running away form the answer? I have read the article, and have not found a single mention of "antisemitism". And save your pity ("I feel badly for you") for yourself.Bless sins 14:49, 23 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)

Can you stop making personal attacks? Now you're attacking my eyes. I have the read the entire article. Nowhere does it say "antisemitism".Bless sins 14:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I will try the Socratic method. What does Antisemitism mean? Here's a link to somewhere that might help: http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=anti-Semitism . -- Avi 21:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The only statement, made by Yasin, in the article which, as far as I can tell, can be construed as anti-semitic is the following : "Reconciliation with the Jews is a crime". In order to examine the context of that statement, here is the whole of the relevant paragraph, taken from the source which was provided in the article: "Reconciliation with the Jews is a crime ... If reconciliation means a truce and a cessation of fighting for a specified period of time, Islam allows the imam (leader) of the Muslims to undertake such a reconciliation if he believes that the enemy is strong and the Muslims are weak and need time to prepare and buildup. I single out Palestine in particular, because it is a land of holy places and an Islamic religious endowment (waqf) that cannot be conceded by any ruler, president or king. Nor may any generation concede it, because it is the property of all generations of Muslims until the Day of Judgement. As for the permitted duration of the truce, many Islamic jurists are of the opinion that it must not exceed 10 years." The Gnome 07:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear that, by the term "Jews", Yasin is referring to the state of Israel and not the Jewish people in general. Hamas and Yasin never recognized the legitimacy of the existence of the state of Israel. (Hamas and Yasin always refer to the state of Israel as "the occupiers", "the Zionist invader", etc.) Yasin, in the interview, outlines the terms of a potential truce with the state of Israel, but wants to avoid the names "state of Israel" or "Israelis"! This might be indicative of political shortcomings on his part, or also of a lack of realism. It might also be indicative of Yasin's unwillingness to negotiate a real truce, since he clearly considers it, not the prelude to eventual peace, but only the means of achieving military victory later on. (Nothing new there, really, as far as truces are concerned, in History.) Nevertheless, if we want to label Yasin an anti-semite, then clearly more is needed than that statement he made. The Gnome 07:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"It seems clear..." is original research on your part. Last I checked, Yassin had used the term "Israel" and "Palestine" in the past, and "Jews" is not a synonym for "Israel" in any language, outside of some right-wing anti-semitic skinhead and neo-nazi sites, I believe. So, are you saying that Yassin forgot how to say "occupiers" and conveniently remembered "Jews"? That's nothing more than a supposition on your part, I believe. -- Avi 04:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Am yisrael עם ישראל (the Nation of Israel) and yehudim יהודים (Jews) are absolutely interchangable terms in the Jewish vernacular (thousands of rabbinic commentaries available online evidence this fact) and I would assume that many Palestinians, in their exposure to Jewish culture, would be aware of this. 24.188.138.215 (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I'm still waiting for Avi to provide a source that accuses him of "antisemitism".Bless sins 04:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And I'm still waiting for you to read the article and sources. -- Avi 04:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

From Avi's user page;

"I am also a very strong believer in having sources in articles, and quoting them. When an article is unsourced, by nature it is suspect. If it can point to a verifiable source, it is as if it says "Go ahead, check it out." We need more articles of the latter type. There are too many unsourced, or poorly sourced articles that people may take for real research on Wikipedia."

You believe in having "sources". That's good! Now apply the second part of your creed and "quote" said sources. This isn't a private philosophical discussion between yourself and Bless Sins. It's an encyclopedia made for the public, which means the evidence for assertions made in here should also be public. And since not one of the articles quoted in this page agrees with you that Yassin is an antisemite, come up with something better.

Bless Sins, I don't actually expect any meaningful response from this guy... Whatever he put on your user page, can you put it up here and end the controversy? His assertion's actually perfectly believable, there just needs to be something solid to back it up. Thanks. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2008 (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)

Okay Avi;

WHERE is it properly sourced? The only time the word "antisemitism" appears is in the "Categories" section. It has no footnotes or anything of the sort to indicate to me *where* this fantasy came from. And examination of every source in the article reveals *nothing* about antisemitism. Is it too much to ask for you to at least point out *which* of the sources in the article says Yassin is an antisemite, as we've been asking for the twelve months? It's not bloody complicated.

"Further removal of validly sourced information may be met with actions taken to protect the project. Thank you."

Good thing it's not validly sourced information, then. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 08:59, 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)

What is curious to me is that the conversation actually exists in this very subsection. Your continued refusal to read this section further indicates to me that your interest is in posthumous bowdlerization as opposed to historical accuracy. Fortunately, wikipedia prefers accuracy. -- Avi (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Saintly" Photograph

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)

What evidence exists that Yassin was a "terrorist mastermind"? As I understood it his role in operational planning of attacks was basically nonexistent. I thought he was more of a figurehead, and more on the politico-religious side than the Izzadine Qassam side of things. Eleland 19:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We could perhaps agree that Adolph Hitler surpassed Yasin in villainy. Note, however, that we (correctly) do not shy away from publishing pictures of Hitler which flatter him, or even make him out as a saint. This pre-supposes a minimum amount of critical faculties in the reader, because, otherwise, we are back to the days of Middle Age gullibility and idolatry. A huge number of people, and especially people who have suffered from the Nazis, or whose relatives have suffered, take offense by the mere sight of Hitler's picture, I'm sure -- but this is an encyclopaedia. This is a lab that aspires to be scientific. We examine both the "good" and the "bad" strain of the virus. That picture of Yasin is adequate. The Gnome 08:19, 24 August 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)

The image is pretty bizarre. It was taken a couple days before his death, so maybe it's best moved to the assassination section? I'm going to swap the images in the entry, I hope that's agreeable to everyone. DBaba (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly find it agreeable. Superpie (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OR

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)

Well, unless it discusses Hamas, the organization he created and was the spiritual head of, in which case sources about Hamas will do. Please try to work with other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, wiki policy OR is clear about this. A source that is not in relation to the topic should not be used. Please try to work in accordance of WP:NOR.Bless sins 15:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The topic is Hamas, Yassin's organization. You can't mention Yassin without talking about Hamas, it's the only reason he's notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That may be true, but there are source that are both in relation Hamas and Yassin. Infact, all the sources I've used talk about both. Please review the wikipedia policy regarding this.Bless sins 02:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please also refrain from posthumous whitewashing. -- Avi 16:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hamas

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)

There seems little point in repeating verbatim chunks from the Hamas article. We know who Hamas is, and if we don't there are links to help us. This aside from the main flow makes the article harder to read and you might as well repeat them everytime the word Hamas appearing in a news article for example. The whole idea of an online encyclopaedia is that you can leave side notes for people who want to pursue them.

--BozMo talk 16:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hamas's being a terrorist organization is critical to understanding Yassin's role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, but I have condensed the in-article sentence and listed the various countries in the references. -- Avi 16:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Its cool well done.--BozMo talk 18:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I still disgaree. Anything that falls under original research is not permitted. I'm sorry, but I tend to be strict about OR. 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 unless the source is about the guy "Ahmed Yassin", it should not be included at all. If you think I'm misinterpreting OR, please tell me how.Bless sins 02:01, 29 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)

Do the sources say that they "explain his [Yassin's] critical role in the Arab-Israeli conflict". Yassin's "critical role" is your OR, unsupported by the sources in question. Please find sources that are actually about Ahmed Yassin.Bless sins 04:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that Yassin did not create Hamas now? -- Avi 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources certianly aren't. The sources you keep on inserting do not say that Yassin created Hamas, (although I'm not sure why you think that is an important). Please find sources that are in relation to the topic of the article [Ahmed Yassin], as WP:NOR requires.Bless sins 02:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Goodness gracious. How about you click on reference #1 and read the introductory paragraph: "Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder and spiritual leader of Hamas…" Once again, in order to maintain the possibility that you are not engaged in a pointed effort at historical revisionism, I will have to assume you have read neither the article nor the sorces, be it by lack of ability or lack of choice. Of course, it is becoming harder and harder to maintain that possibility, being that your posts on various talk pages do indicate a decent command of the English language… -- Avi 04:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, did you realize that I'm NOT removing reference number 1 (the BBC one). Once again, I'm NOT objecting to reference # 1. The references I object to are listed under #4 in this version. Do any of those references even mention Yassin? (I know only one of the references does).

BTW, Avi, do you not understand my arugment here? It seems so. All I'm saying is that eveyr source needs to be about Yassin, else I should be in this article.Bless sins 02:22, 9 August 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)

The official Israeli announcements, including the announcement of the operation that led to Yassin's assassination, use the term "head of Hamas" when referring to Yassin. The term is broad enough to imply the involvement of Yassin in all Hamas activities. However, Yassin is considered to have been the spiritual leader of Hamas - and not its operational leader. Although he was accused by Israel of "[being] responsible for numerous murderous terror attacks", his role in the activity of Hamas could only have been directional and, in a sense, strategic, (in addition to providing support for the ideological foundations of the organisation) rather than anything involving specific operations. Yassin decided if it would be war or peace -- 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 specific planning and carrying out of war operations was the responsibility of Hamas officers. The Gnome 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As of now every source, when it declares Hamas as "terrorist", does NOT mention Yassin. Why? Perhaps because they don't feel Yassin is responsible for Hamas' activities.Bless sins 04:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"It is hard for me to understand the validity of the claim that Hamas is not directly related to Ahmed Yassin." Similarly Sharon is directly connected to Israel. Yet should we mention (in his article) the allegations of apartheid leveled against Israel during his rule?Bless sins 04:17, 9 October 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)

“Western”

Being that it is banned in Jordan (see the references) wouldn't "Western" be too restrictive? -- Avi 18:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Guess so. --BozMo talk 20:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a better description for the list of countries tell me and I'll put it in (perhaps tomorrow though I'm off now). Or you could but I don't want you to inadvertently wander over 3RR and another conseq edit by me wouldn't count. --BozMo talk 20:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Paraplegic or quadriplegic?

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)

Conditions in prison, and his views as recorded by Zvi Sela

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)

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)

• Agree w/Avi, for reasons he stated.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:35, 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 Wikipedia: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)

Biased Article to only the Israeli POV

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)

We could probably close the above per WP:FRINGE. NickCT (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A reliable reference that mostly reflects the mainstream view which supports the cause can be found here it didn't link Yassin to terrorism and described behavior of Hamas as resistance against occupation. --Notopia (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2010

(UTC)

Certainly the BBC is a reliable source, so you could make NPOV edits using this as a reference. Other editors acting in the spirit of NPOV may choose to add counterarguments based on other reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should the image illustrating Yassin be changed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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 It is my opinion that the current image should remain for the following reasons: The current image is the last public image taken of Yassin, three days prior to his death. The current image is the one used to illustrate the March 23, 2006 NYT article about him. For the current image we know the date, the publisher, and the photographer and can give proper attribution. The current image is not watermarked. The current image also serves to illustrate Yassin's quadriplegia, a very important part of his life. 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. 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: 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 [1] – Previous long standing image for this article is deleted and Avraham puts the image under contention in place [2] - Avraham deletes an editors replacement, claiming copyright violation [3] - Avraham deletes an editors replacement, b/c he claims stylized imagery is undesirable [4] - Avraham deletes an editors replacement, claiming copyright violation [5] - Avraham restores image after it is deleted [6] - Avraham deletes an editors replacement, claiming copyright violation [7] – Epeefleche deletes replacement image w/ edit summary “add a picture if you like, but no reason to delete this picture” [8] - Avraham deletes my replacement, claiming copyright violation [9] – Brewcrewer deletes my replacement, claiming Wikipedia: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. [10] - Avraham deletes an editor's replacement, claiming copyright violation and blocks the editor for repeated copyright violation [11] - 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) per Wikipedia: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) 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 Talk/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¡שיחת!‎ 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 talk 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 Wikipedia. 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: 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. 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? 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. 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? 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 Wikipedia 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. 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. Again, no other images exist that can match the pixel-to-clarity ratio of this one? Nonsense. ← George talk 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 talk 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 talk 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 talk 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) Shuki, we can't add more unless someone has a free use image; that is part of the problem. -- Avi (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Here is an alternative photo that I believe satisfies most, if not all, of Avi's concerns. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC) That's not bad, actually. Shows the wheelchair, decently sized, photog info, that would be something I'd consider, although we would need to crop it so it's just Yassin,. -- Avi (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC) I have a cropped version on my PC now I don't want to upload it to imagebucket or one of the free image hosting sites as that would violate the copyright, but it has definite promise. -- Avi (talk) 21:49, 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 talk 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 talk 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. NickCT's option 5 from [12] NickCT's option 3 from [13] 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 [14] 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) Yes, there is a pic of Roosevelt in a wheelchair in the article, but it doesn't lead the article and it also doesn't trivialize Roosevelt but rather portrays him in a rather good light. My point concerning Ariel Sharon is also still valid, as far as I can tell. Now what another wiki article has as a picture of another person isn't strictly a policy-based argument for changing the picture here. Rather we should think of how to portray Yassin in a reasonable way, and IMO he should be portrayed as a person of substance as that's how he's described by reliable sources. We can think of the copyright side of things once we take the decision to change the picture (if possible due to copyright issues) --Dailycare (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC) What do you think of the image Malik suggested above? I think George and Nick have brought some other representative ones. The Malik one is the best of the options, IMO, as it has the wheelchair as well as name of photg, date of photog, publisher, the works. -- Avi (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Avi - You continue to focus on the technical issues over the aesthetic. Remember, the reason we got to this point is because of aesthetics. Malik's suggestion still presents Yassin in a none-too-flattering light. We've conceded that showing a "wheelchair" is probably appropriate. Can we not find an image that shows him looking somewhat dignified in a wheelchair (i.e. this one). NickCT (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Firstly, I do not believe Malik's image is "unflattering"; that is your personal opinion. The way this RfC is running, it is likely that will be one of the three or so images we will vote on (together with yours) after it closes. Secondly, the "technical" issues are important; we are borrowing someone's work to place, under valid claim of fair use, on one of the 5 most viewed websites in the world--we need to respect that. Lastly, the image you suggest is small, Yassin is an even smaller portion in the center, and it is also very dark. If you crop Malik's image to just show Yassin, it is bright, large, and Yassin only. But we can discuss the pros and cons of alternate images when this RfC closes. Nick, I understand you would like to have things move quickly, but consensus is a slow process. However, when allowed to move at its pace, once a decision is reached, that decision has the weight of a proper wikipedia process behind it. If we short-circuit that, we become open to being challenged (like what happened with the Temple naming discussions--we let them run for near 40 days, and the final results were ones that were different from both the original and the narrow consensus reached on the talk pages). So I'd still counsel patience. I'm pretty sure that come the second week of October, we will have a consensus image on the article. -- Avi (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Was I being impatient? I'm not sure how. I'm happy to wait to discuss alternative images. Re "I do not believe Malik's image is "unflattering"; that is your personal opinion." - Avi - I'm a little stunned by this. Isn't this the exact same thing you said to me about the current image? Isn't this what the RfC disproved? Do you keep repeating these arguments to be funny or do you genuinely not realize you're doing it? I appreciate that the technical issues are important, but they are trumped by my "false and disparaging" point. Any image that presents a "false and disparaging" image should be avoided regardless of how good it is technically. Don't ask me to quote policy. This point seems self-evident. NickCT (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC) I don't think the current image is disparaging either, Nick. Why so stunned? We are allowed to have differences of opinion. That is what the dispute resolution process is supposed to solve--creating a consensus between people with differences of opinion. -- Avi (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Avi - I understand and respect that you may not think that Malik's image is disparaging. This is a subjective issue and you are entitled to that opinion, of course. But remember, when I said the current image was disparaging, you said, "Well that's your own personal opinion". Clearly the RfC has so-far demonstrated I was not alone in that opinion. I am "stunned" that you would again say "Well that's your own personal opinion" when I say that I think Malik's image is disparaging. Can you not just assume that my opinion will be shared? It makes me a little suspisous when, of the 10 or-so images that have been offered, the two that I happen to think are disparaging are the only ones you seem to think are acceptable for WP:POLICY reasons. Obviously it makes me question whether the disparaging images just happen to also be the WP:POLICY compliant ones, or whether you are WP:WIKILAWYERing to select a "false and disparaging" image of a person you don't like. As I always assume-good-faith, I'll assume the former rather than the latter. Anyway Avi. If you're interested in compromise here, why not offer a group of images (as I did) that you think fit WP:POLICY, and I'll select from them for one I think is not disparaging? NickCT (talk) 20:11, 14 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: Consensus not to change the image 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) Comment The points provided at the top to keep provide sufficient reasoning for the image to stay. The wheelchair shouldn't be an issue. However, his expression is so unflattering that if images that meet most of the requirements come up then they need to be considered. Not using any image at all could also be considered if editors feel it is that bad. I think a FUR could be written for the image to be used in a section discussing his later life and his medical issues but on top it might just portray him too negatively. I'm on the fence but do understand the reasoning to remove or replace it. Better replacements need to be provided. If the montage idea is inline with the guidelines then that would be a good idea. I assume all 4 would need to be iconic in some way to create a viable FUR.Cptnono (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Change image I find the image bizarre and a bit disturbing, especially when compared to several of the other images that have been proposed. I am unsure whether the disturbing aspects of the image make Yassin appear more sympathetic or less, but to me the image does not convey NPOV. I believe that since we can only use a single image at this time, an image should be selected that best represents the man when he was "at the top of his game", and how he would have appeared to his public when espousing his beliefs. If that image shows the wheelchair, then I am fine with that but I don't think showing the wheelchair is essential. The article describes his disabilities accurately. Cullen328 (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC) My preference At this time, I favor *NickCT's option 5 from [15] as the most neutral and matter-of-fact, and it shows him in a wheelchair. A better one could come along, though. Cullen328 (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC) I agree, and think that NickCT's option 5 is probably the best choice of those presented thus far (including my own suggestions). ← George talk 04:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC) (chuckle) - Looking back at it, I'm not sure I like option 5! I dislike the faceless people standing behind Yassin detracting from him as the subject; however, the image is miles better than the current, and it seems like we have some small consensus developing here which I'm willing to get behind. Some cropping might make the background people less obvious. NickCT (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Honestly, just about any image suggested on this page is better than the current one. I'm actually tempted to remove the current one from the article until some consensus emerges to either keep it or change it, because short of a consensus to keep it, it's a pretty clear BLP violation. ← George talk 17:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC) With Yassin deceased, it cannot be a BLP violation, George. -- Avi (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Ah, correct you are - forgot that this guy was dead; too early in the morning here to be on Wikipedia. It's probably cool to keep it for now then. Besides, I get a pretty good laugh from that picture every time I open the page. Haha. ← George talk 18:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Break #2 There 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: Keep the current image Replacement image option 1 Replacement image option 2 Replacement image option 3 Is that a fair synopsis of the current opinions? -- Avi (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC) I think so. I don't really think any of these are really good images from an aesthetic or technical viewpoint. My sentiments on those three images are - Option 1 - Strong Oppose - Has "false and disparaging" issues similar to current. Option 2 - Weak Oppose - Just a poor picture. Figures in the background detract from Yassin. Cropping may make more acceptable. Option 3 - Weak Support - Seems to present a fair & balanced likeness of Yassin, neither as a hero or as a demon. Presents him in an environment that gives context to his position. Image is technically poor for a number of reasons mentioned above. NickCT (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Here are my thoughts, mostly for technical reasons, Option 1 - Weak Support Option 2 - Weak Oppose Option 3 - Weak Support Sadads (talk) 13:53, 20 uSeptember 2010 (UTC) Support any of the three as better than the current image. Support cropping to approximate a portrait of an individual rather ithan a part of specific group interaction. I make this cropping recommendation because the article will have just a single image. Cullen328 (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC) If we are listing our personal opinions, I'll add mine: Keep current - Support as Second choice (Image has information I would prefer to have in article, but is not as crisp as Malik's and has been the center of some controversy on wikipedia) Option 1 - Support as First choice If cropped just to show Yassin (If we are going to change, I think Malik's image is the best from a technical and informational standpoint) Option 2 - Weak oppose (Too small, no publisher, photographer, or date data) Option 3 - Oppose (Too dark, too small, Yassin only a small portion of image, no publisher, photographer, or date data) -- Avi (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC) In an an attempt to build consensus (and get this issue over with), I will narrow my opinion to Support Option 1, cropped as a portrait of the subject. Showing the wheelchair is OK with me. Cullen328 (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Am I the only one that think Yassin looks somewhat sickly and googly eyed in this picture? NickCT (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC) he looks like a retarded invalid. Everyone is focused on the wheelchair and this and that but at the end of the day the guy looks terrible in the picture. He has other images that make him look epic (which also might be a problem neutrality wise) but the image currently used is completely acceptable according to the rules. We all know it could be better. If there is something that meets the other criteria for a FUR it needs to be considered.Cptnono (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC) @NickCT It's about the same thing as is happening in #3, Sadads (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC) I think the correct venue for the discussion is Files for deletion. The current image comes from a press agency failing criteria #2 of WP:NFCC. For more information see item 7 of unacceptable uses of fair use. The picture is not iconic so the argument that the image is historical is matter of personal opinion.--Jmundo (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Wrong. As already discussed the image was prevalent in media coverage at the time of his death. Not iconic (as in historically receiving recognition, coverage, prominence) and is not the argument if you want it to be removed. Find an image that is more iconic.Cptnono (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC) That isnt true. nableezy - 03:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Go look at the discussion. When he died the image was used in newspaper articles. It is still not a good image what I agree with but shut your mouth if you are going to say something that isn't true when it is.Cptnono (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC) You really shouldnt lecture others to look at the discussion. Yes, this image was used. It was not however "prevalent in media coverage". Other news articles used a number of other images. Other images used at the time of his assassination are linked above. nableezy - 04:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC) You should really stop assuming the worst and bitching about it. Did you see above where I said there were other images that might work? Where if we did the four image montage it could work out? Where I said this wasn't the best? If you want to bitch at me do it on the talk page. We are somehow on the same page in this instance so don;t make a conflict when it doesn't exist.Cptnono (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Fellow editors, please follow the talk page guidelines and avoid comments that could be construed as insults. Cullen328 (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Please support one of the options or propose a better option. Please be constructive. Cullen328 (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I tried to be non committal but obviously that did not work. Support no change at all. Nothing better has been presented. Until then there is no eason to have this conversation. The guy looks silly. Write up a FUR on another image and move it in or dispute the FUR in place.Cptnono (talk) 04:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Please be constructive and do your best to avoid negativity and fatalism. Thank you for your efforts. Cullen328 (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC) I might be negative but I am serious when I say no better option has been presented. So in all seriousness, until someone presents a better cropped image that meets all of the needs of a FUR this conversation is a waste of time. As I have said before, the only other option is no image at all. An editor needs to go for it and write up a FUR on another image. Until someone goes for it we are wasting our time. That is not defeatist. It is the way it is. Does anyone want to go for it or not? We can cry all day about it but until someone does something we are just throwing ideas around on the talk page.Cptnono (talk) Thanks for expressing your opinion, but other editors have different opinions and are trying for consensus. I'm new to these debates and don't even know what FUR means. My opinion is that the current image has MAJOR problems and that any of 3 options is better if cropped. Let's be constructive here. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 21 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) I think it is great that you are appealing to calm but in your attempt to you are negating what I am saying. The Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is being used to justify the images use. So any other image needs to have a better fair use rationale to replace it. It could also be argued that no image is necessary. So instead of looking for sunshine and rainbows: Address the issue. Cptnono (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC) I don't think another image needs a BETTER rationale, simply an ACCEPTABLE rationale. If a consensus of interested editors agree that an acceptable image better illustrates this article, then, in my opinion, that's the image that should be used. Call me Pollyanna if you wish, but I will do my best to make my points politely, and urge other editors to do so as well. Cullen328 (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC) "Pollyanna"! That was funny stuff. No worries if your opinion differs from anyones or if you want to go about it cautiously. However, BETTER is the key phrase for another image. ACCEPTABLE is the key phrase for this image. We could ditch the image altogether if it is deemed inappropriate. But having something better would give such a decision more clout.Cptnono (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC) BETTER to illustrate the article. The non-free use rationale is a threshold pertaining to legal rights, not a ranking of the value of an image to illustrate an article. A biography should be illustrated with a neutral, portrait-like image, not one that makes the person look strange to many viewers, even if you and I dislike what the subject did when alive. That's my view of the matter. Cullen328 (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Sweet. We are kind of on the same page. My view is that he looks like an idiot in the image (we all have pictures of ourselves that are not the best) and we need a better one if it has an acceptable FUR. (you totally convinced me on he better/acceptable thing)Cptnono (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC) All interested editors, please take a look at the lead images for Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. These set a standard. They are neutral and show what these men looked like, rather than demonizing them or (heaven forbid) idolizing them. Let's reach consensus on a single neutral photo of this man, irrespective of our personal opinions about him. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 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) The images provided don't look prolific at all from a quick search. Those should not pass what is needed for a FUR since they are simply images of a guy that editors like. If we are going to use something that is not free (because we are ripping off someone's work) we have to be compliant with copyright rules. To do that it has to be an image that has some sort of play out there. Reuters has one[16] CP has one[17] but just picking something because it looks acceptable is not OK. We should be looking for something that is defining or we risk (and should risk) getting it yanked. Those images provided up top aren't even close to being as prominent as the one currently used (sometimes that image is cropped to just the face in the media it looks like). It should not be hard to find an image that is so available that it can get a reasonable FUR and is also not depicting of him in a negative fashion.Cptnono (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC) The Reuters one is watermarked, the CP one is a 1/8 profile. Neither are anywhere near as good at filling the function for which we are claiming fair use as the four above. The photo itself need not be iconic. -- Avi (talk) 07:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC) So find one similar to those but isn't watermarked. And size is often part of a FUR! What does AP have How about NY Times (oh that is the one we are using isn't it?) The ones currently provided are not seen enough in searches of newspapers and books. The one currently used sucks but it is out there. It does show who he was. You can't just rip off a photo of someone. Part of a FUR is often the importance of the image and if it has been released (even not freely) into the public. Right now, I would go with no image over ripping of the ones mentioned.Cptnono (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Option 1 is an Agence France-Presse photo, so it is "out there" as it were. -- Avi (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Looks like it is some guy's picass to me. But even it it is AFP we would need to crop it since that other dude overshadows the subject which is even more of a problem both copyright and MoS wise. If we are going to rip off someone we need to make sure it is both done with respect and inline with our standards here. Who owns this[18]? Good image. Pops up all over searches.Cptnono (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC) And has anyone even tried Wikipedia:Public domain image resources? Does the US military really have nothing?Cptnono (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC) I tried m:FIST and got nothing free. -- Avi (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Nothing on Google with filtered licensing allowing modification/reuse (outside of a copyvio already deleted from the commons); nothing from a .gov site. -- Avi (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Fair use is not a rip off. It is legal and ethical. Cullen328 (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Agreed, but I believe if we are going to claim fair use on one image, we need to pick one that gives us the best "bang for buck" as it were. We don't have the liberty of a slew of images like we do for Roosevelt. -- Avi (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Support - Cptnono's suggestion - Problem is though Cptnono that Avi is insisting any image used show Yassin in a wheelchair, which cuts down on our possibilities. I'm in two-minds on the wheelchair thing b/c 1) It's certainly fair, WP:NPOV & WP:DUE to show him in a wheelchair, but 2) It seems as though the requirement for a "wheelchair" is proving a significant impediment to our choice of pictures. NickCT (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC) There are more issues that just the wheelchair in that image. Do we know whose it is? Do we have photgrapher credits? When was it taken? If we find an image that is superior in all areas to the current choices, but doesn't have the wheelchair, I'll consider it. But none of the options listed, in my mind, is better than Malik's option 1 (cropped to show only Yassin). -- Avi (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Support a change I think all the images discussed are better than the current one to illustrate this article. Wheelchair or not - fine with me. I strongly support a change and defer to other's expertise on the details of "FUR". Cullen328 (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Uninvolved editor to close, please OK, 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) Agreed. Prefferably someone without a history of I/P editting. As a closing note, I'd say that my impression of the RfC above is that a consensus for change was demonstrated, but no clear consensus for any single image developed. I'd propose moving to somekind of poll of the suggested images to determine which is most agreeable. NickCT (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I specifically left out my opinion so as not to bias the closer. I request you delete your comments for the same reason. -- Avi (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Well, I wouldn't mind if you expressed your opinion (i.e. that consensus has developed for the most disparaging image possible). Regardless, your point is taken. You have my consent to delete any of my comments in this section you feel are innappropriate. NickCT (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Avi - On second thoughts; would you be oppossed to simply asking some mutually agreeable moderator to review? I suggest PhilKnight off the top of my head. NickCT (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I believe Phil edits I/P articles on a semi-regular basis. I'd prefer someone outside the discussion in the main who can focus more on consensus issues and not have to be actively suppressing a strong opinion one way or the other. -- Avi (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC) He does not, but to make this easier on the two of you, and so we dont have to watch as the debate about how this should be closed become more involved than that debate on the actual issue, I have posted to WP:AN asking that an uninvolved admin take a look. nableezy - 19:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC) I can be mistaken, you know . -- Avi (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks Nableezy. Your posting to WP:AN seems appropriate and helpful. NickCT (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Bump -- Avi (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Try again. nableezy - 21:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC) شكرا -- Avi (talk) 22:13, 14 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)

Closing statement

(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)

Results

• Some points were made about the usability and verification of the current image, namely that it's exact date, place, and creator are known and there is no watermark on the image
• Some users felt that the current image was added in a deliberate attempt to disparage the subject, however there is no hard evidence of this
• Several alternative images have been presented
• While some users felt that the current image portrays a "saintly" appearance, many others felt it made the subject look feeble and/or mentally unstable
• Some users felt the issue of the wheelchair is analogous to President Roosevelt, but as a U.S. President there are numerous free images of him so the analogy is less than perfect and not particularly useful in this specific situation
• While some users favor keeping the current image, a majority favor finding a different one

Interpreting these results

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image options

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 suggestion
• Nick suggestion 1
• Nick suggestion 2

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)

• Comment I reserve the right to change my opinion if other choices are presented. That being said, I consider all options superior to the current image. My current preference is Nick suggestion 2, cropped to show mostly Yassin himself. Thanks to Beeblebrox. Cullen328 (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess this means we are not going to give it a few days to find new options. :) -- Avi (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It was just a comment, Avi. More options would be fine with me. Cullen328 (talk) 15:00, 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)

I've been neglectful in addressing this. I'd appeal for another week's delay to find more images. I think we could probably do the cropping post-RfC. I don't see that that would lead to much dispute. NickCT (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me; I'm willing to wait another week if you think that will help. We've put so much time into this that we should do it properly. -- Avi (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to wait a week if it leads to a consensus result. Cullen328 (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like almost three weeks have passed, and no other images have been suggested. I still think we should remove the current image until we're able to find a better option, but I'm open to hearing what others think. ← George ^talk 00:57, 16 November 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)

Does anyone other than Avraham object to removing the current image until a final version is decided on? ← George ^talk 01:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No. I think the RfC clearly demonstrated the current image is inappropriate. As a side note, I apologize for not getting back on this topic. I spent a while searching for a free image, but could not seem to find one. After a while the issue dropped off my radar. NickCT (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)