Talk:Ahmed Yassin/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Image selection for the Ahmed Yassin article

{{rfctag|bio}}

The three options for a replacement are below, suitably cropped to focus on Yassin. They will be sized to the current image's width:

Options for a replacement image for this article:

Once one is selected, the other two, together with the current image, will be deleted from wikipedia's servers. Please note your support in the appropriate subsection below. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Option 1

  • Support Highest quality, most information known about (date, photographer, location, etc.). -- Avi (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment This one is better than the one now in the article, but he looks pretty sickly here. Cullen328 (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree strongly with Cullen328. I think this image presents him in "false and disparaging" light. NickCT (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Option 2

  • Support ← George talk 01:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - Ok image, but not as good as image 3. Note - I'm voting twice to indicate I find 2 images acceptable. Avi, if you ain't cool with this feel free to delete this vote. NickCT (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support This is the best of a bad lot. At least he appears aware he was being photographed. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - Best capture of subject IMO, but perhaps over-emphasis on the chair. BG seems to offer a sense of his place or position Note - I'm also voting twice, 'cause I'm not thrilled with either option. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I prefer this image to #3, which is of the lowest quality of the three. I would want to see information about this image though (when, whom, where). My tineye searches don't lead me to anything, but I cannot read Arabic, so perhaps someone else can dig up the provenance of this image. -- Avi (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak support This one over-emphasizes the wheelchair, but it's OK. Cullen328 (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Option 3

  • Support - Note - I don't think any of these images are particularly "good". Unfortunately, as a compromise, we've been forced by Avi to select an image that includes Yassin in a wheelchair. This image seems to be the best there is. NickCT (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - De-emphasises the chair, but weaker capture of subject IMO, & I find BG suggesting something too institutional, to "sanitized". Not thrilled with either option. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Best of the group, in my opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Option 4

None of the above.

  • Weak support Option one makes him look "sickly" according to one editor which touches on the concern with the current image. The other two lacking information on who took it and when make writing a FUR that much more of a problem. The one currently in is not great at all but it fits the prerequisite of showing the wheelchair. It also has a fine FUR with previous publication being not only met but the precedent of prominence being exceeded with more play in the media. I'm not sure if I prefer using the image in now or none at all but I do not see enough value in switching to any of the three provided. Other options were provided but the wheelchair thing is a concern for some. Anyways, I can't fully get behind any of the three suggested above.Cptnono (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - While I think Avi's point about using an image that includes a wheelchair has some value, I don't want to sacrifice a good non-wheelchair image for an ok/poor wheelchair image. With the current 3 options that appears to be what we are doing. NickCT (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
@Cptnono - As a side-note here, we may simply want to accept a change-of-image to one of the above for now, then address selecting a non-wheelchair image? NickCT (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - don't like 1 + 2 and 3 don't have enough information to satisfy a FUR. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Other discussion

Should we allow ranked voting with lowest score winning, or pure majority vote for the top options? -- Avi (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by ranked voting? Like we pick a #1, #2, and #3, and the lowest average score wins? Don't think I have a preference between the two, though I'm not sure if "score" based systems will work as well if editors don't vote on all three images. ← George talk 01:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes. We can always consider a non-vote as either a 3 or worse. If a non-vote means "I don't want it under any circumstances; I'd rather any of the others", there is some theory about what to use; something like 6 which is the sum of three votes. Or we can keep it simple, or even have the top two run off against each other. -- Avi (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with either. If it comes down to a score vote, my order of preference would be #2, #3, then #1 (feel free to update my vote above accordingly if you decide to do a score vote). I'd consider any of them better than no image, and no image better than the current one. Thanks for organizing this Avi. ← George talk 01:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm hesitant to use anything without the author being known. Doesn't look like it is forbidden on Wikipedia but not sure how OK it is.Cptnono (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Cptnono - If you can find a credited image, showing Yassin in a wheelchair (due to Avi's insistence), please offer it. NickCT (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
We do have a credited image of him in a wheelchair (option 1). Personally, I disagree with Avi's insistence and would prefer and image that is more prolific without a wheelchair. I think having to use an image of him in a wheelchair cuts out too many better options.Cptnono (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that the wheelchair is important; I'm also just one person. All the non-wheelchair images that were brought were faces only, likely because he was always in a wheelchair. Isn't that important? Shouldn't the one image we will use reflect that? I wish the situation was like Roosevelt, with umpteen free images, but we need to work with what we have. -- Avi (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
For what it is worth, as George pointed out above, we waited 3 extra weeks for people to suggest alternates after the RfC was closed. -- Avi (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I suggested my alternatives before that but the wheelchair thing is a deal breaker for some people. So if option #4 is none of the above then it has my !vote.Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
We need an image; an integral part of learning about a person is their image. This is the reason why we allow a fair-use claim for biographical articles. In my opinion, Yassin's paralysis is an integral part of his life and image, and I think we would do wikipedia a disservice and not fill our educational mandate if we deliberately suppress something that was so fundamental to the man. -- Avi (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
We do not need an image. An image is always fantastic, though. We also do have an image with a wheelchair already in the article. As I have previously detailed, I care more about the FUR than trying to suppress or highlight one aspect. Mind if I add "none of the above" as an option? Consensus might totally be against me so there should be no worries.Cptnono (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I'd prefer you didn't, but as I said above, I'm one person. As you say, I think consensus is to take one image and use it under the fair-use doctrine of the US, which includes use for (per wikipedia) "…commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship." -- Avi (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that we should restrict our comments to what we support and why in the sections, and save opposition and other discussions for this section. Is there a reason why to start re-hashing the RfC discussions in the vote? -- Avi (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, stop pushing for images that make Yassin look like a fruit cake and I'll stop re-hashing the RfC discussion..... No, but seriously, I'm rather opposed to that first image for aesthetic reasons, and I just wanted to register my concerns. I understand you want to keep the RfC clean, and I won't comment further. NickCT (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Firstli, Nick, I do believe your characterization of my "pushing" for a bad image is not accurate, obviously. Secondly, I don't think any of the current three make Yassin look like this, this, this, or this, but we have agreed to disagree on the æsthetics. As we know de gustibus non est disputandum -- 15:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(chuckle) - Love the images Avi. Thanks for a laugh.
Well, at least we can agree that we are continuing to agree to disagree. NickCT (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it could be argued that there was not consensus for the change. Squeaked by !vote wise but that is all. Of course, if it prevents some bickering then it might very well be a good thing.Cptnono (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Moved. see below
It could be argued, which is why we had an RfC, and we (wll most of us) accepted the judgment of the closing editor, even if we may have disagreed with it. Progress on wikipedia is often comprised of many stages of compromise and acceptance. -- Avi (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Results?

It has been a week. I think that it is clear that option 2 is the selection. If there are no major concerns, I'll take care of it over the next day or two. I would feel more comfortable if we had the author/date/publisher information that we have for both the current image and Option 1, though. NickCT, as you suggested #2, can you please find out however much more information you can? -- Avi (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Avi. By the way, I got a kick out if the images of the three pastries and the frog. Cullen328 (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
1) Ok.... I'm going to have to reveal that I'm technically incompetent here, but I can't seem to find the page on http://www.palestine-info.info/ that actually uses this image. I thought one could do this by googling "link:http://www.palestine-info.info/arabic/spfiles/yaseen2/y1.jpg", but that doesn't seem to working for me. I basically can't figure out where I got this image to start with. Anyone got any idea?
2)Thank you Avi for consenting to the result of the RfC. I had accused you earlier of attempting /wanting to subvert the process for POV reasons. It appears now that you are operating in good faith and with due diligence. I consequently apologize for and retract my previous comments. I might note though, I had suggested weeks ago that you and I simply settle on this image. We could perhaps have saved a few people some time by having come to agreement ourselves. NickCT (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Nick, it would not have been proper for either of us to unilaterally have decided on the image. While the wikipedia process may be slow, at this point, we have engaged a cross-section of interested editors, we all had the opportunity to make our arguments, and we can safely say we have a consensus to use this image. And as an aside, I found some provenance on an Australian newspaper's website that the photo is attributed to Reuters and is vintage 1Q 2004. Not as full information as what we had, but definitely better than unknowns! -- Avi (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Re "I found some provenance on an Australian newspaper" - Could you possibly link to that?
Re "unilaterally have decided on the image" - The other "interested editors" were only "interested" b/c we sought comment from them to resolve a disagreement. Had there been no disagreement (i.e. had we come to consensus ourselves) we would not have had to have sought comment. Regardless, I'm glad we can end this debate. Though I'm only semi-satisfied with the image.
We should perhaps conclude with a note to future editors; If anyone can find an image that 1) has more information available about it (i.e. photographer/date/place etc) and 2) doesn't present Yassin in a "false or disparaging" light, please propose it. Few people are 100% happy with the image we concluded on. NickCT (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Nick, if you look at the image's file page, you will see that it is already linked to the Australian newspaper, and not palestine-info. As for involving others, perhaps this was your first time, but we once had an issue with the proper names for the three temples in Jewish tradition, and we came to a consensus on the talk pages and had the pages moved. However, because the discussion was solely on the talk pages, the move was contested with the claim that the reached consensus was based on too narrow of a group, and that the moves should be reversed and a full RfM/RfC be held. That was done, and two out of the tree moves were approved, and the third was denied. The lesson is that when there may be a disagreement, it is worth going through the longer, slower process of involving as many people as possible using talk page notices and RfCs so that when a consensus us reached, it is a consensus of a wide-enough group that it may stand. Neither you nor I have any "special" claim to this article, and even if we agreed, we would have been wrong for making a unilateral change against an existing consensus of the image in the article at the time. Lastly, you and I did not agree on the image, and therefore we followed the proper process, and reached a consensus. While the consensus selection is not the one I would have chosen, as a member of the wikipedia project, I respect the process and the decision. Bottom line, patience and adherence to accepted policies and guidelines, whilst not very high on the instant gratification list, is the time-tested and best way to resolve disputes. -- Avi (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to post this comment in this section: I think it could be argued that there was not consensus for the change. Squeaked by !vote wise but that is all. Of course, if it prevents some bickering then it might very well be a good thing.Cptnono (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC) In response to Avi, being prevents you from being able to close the discussion. Like I said though, if there is not anymore bickering I am not going to rock the boat on this one.Cptnono (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
@Avi
Re Neither you nor I have any "special" claim to this article - Well, I think one might argue that we had "special" claim as the "most interested persons".
Re I did not agree on the image - I thought we had both said that we might be able to live with it?
Regardless, lets move on....
@Cptnono
Re if there is not anymore bickering I am not going to rock the boat on this one - Ditto
NickCT (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Reaction to assassination

Yassin was assassinated. This act was illegal under international and Israeli law. It was condemned by international organisations and countries. Most reaction was clearly negative. It was praised, predictably, by the USA. So is it accurate to say that it "precipitated both criticism and praise of Israel"? That suggests are far more mixed response than actually occured.203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ahmed Yassin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ahmed Yassin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency Between Al-Jura depopulation description in the Al-Jura article and here

There it says Israeli forces planned to expel the residents to Gaza, but they had fled prior to the operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemocraticLuntz (talk • contribs) 20:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2021

Please change "He and his entire family fled to Gaza, settling in al-Shati Camp after his village was ethnically-cleansed by the Israel Defense Forces during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War." to " He and his entire family fled to Gaza, settling in al-Shati Camp after his village was cleared by the Israel Defense Forces during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War."

"Ethnically cleansed" is inaccurate, subjective, unsubstantiated, inflammatory phraseology and the source cited has been disputed and proven rife with errors and outright falsehoods (even the title of the source does not reflect factual data). The 1948 Israeli War of Independence was a DEFENSIVE war, the new and legally established state of Israel having been attacked from within and without by multiple hostile forces. Populations are displaced during times of war, with the intent being perceived differently by each side. For the victors in a defensive battle, the intent is typically to remove a hostile force from within its midst. To imply a racial motivation to the actions of a nation defending itself from attack is simply false.

Wikipedia must rise above political squabbles and reflect facts and maintain those facts. Taking sides in a regional dispute is not aligned with Wikipedia's mission or purpose nor in its best interest. Moreover, the perpetuation of demonstrably false information only serves to damage the credibility of the perpetrators of the falsehood. DPBF58 (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The current sources says "ethnically-cleansed" verbatim. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 03:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@FormalDude the current source does indeed say "ethnically cleansed". However, this violates Wikipedia's policy on impartial tone, since the idea that Israel ethnically cleansed Palestine is hotly disputed. Moreover, the source comes from Ilan Pappé, whose scholarship is often deemed partial, biased, and inaccurate. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Papp%C3%A9#Critical_assessment for examples of critical assessments of his work.) The proposed change above would render the phrasing neutral. 2A0D:6FC0:C67:F400:EC67:CDDF:B6D2:697A (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

In the Early Life section, where his birth date is mentioned, please put that one of the possible birth dates is June 1936.2600:100C:A203:B48D:9080:AA40:80E1:BADA (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC) https://www.albawaba.com/amp/news/sheikh-ahmad-yassin-1936-2004

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Per WP:DOB we only add a birthdate if it is widely covered. We also don't add possible months of birth based on a single source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2023

Change bith place to "Occupied Palestine" 27.5.56.134 (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: His birth place is already listed as Mandatory Palestine, which was the entity controlling the area at the time. Tollens (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 October 2023

Please edit the formatting in the bibliography section so that the Ilan Pappe reference is properly indented with an asterisk like the other cited books. wwklnd (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Liu1126 (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Statistics

This article claims that during the Davidka Square bus bombing 21 people were killed, while the the article about the attack says 17 people were killed (18 if you count the perpetrator). Furthermore, this article claims that during the 2004 Erez Crossing bombing 4 civilians were killed, while the article about the attack claims that at least 3 of them were soldiers. Should be fixed. Admiral90 (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ahmed_Yassin/Archive_3&oldid=1210732980"