This Request for Mediation has been closed.

This case was closed at 15:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC).
The reason given for closure was: Final Proposal agreed apon by remaining active parties
Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request.

Mediator's Suggestion[edit]

From discussion and reading through the various comments not just from when this case but also from the discussion that occurred before. I wanna make the final suggestion which people will be willing to put up with and hopefully can close this case and let everyone get on with it.

Lede Image[edit]

The New statesman image to be placed in the lede, (after being reminded by Bondegezou) and the image legend should try and explain the context of the image. I think this would be the best course of action for the following reasons:

Firstly it doesn't have the effect of well poisoning. It is a neutral abstract image.
This magazine not only discusses NAS but has been referred to as being NAS itself (please correct me on that one if I have been mistaken) with sources to back this up. This balances the views about whether NAS itself is an accepted idea or whether an incorrect one and makes it even more suitable as a lede image in this respect.
This image has long been the most widely accepted alternative to the zombietime image. It can be sourced which was one requirement of a lede image in this dispute, It limits any well poisoning affects from a lede image.
I believe that although this image may not be the best or the most easily understood. Everyone should be able to put up with this image. This is the aim of mediation as i have always pointed out. Having no lede image could not be universally agreed apon and is why i have suggested this.

If you could indicate agreement with this below with any further comments and a signature or if you just want to get this over and done with a simple signature will suffice.

This will be left open for one more week.

Signatures

I'm OK with this. The image legend should try and explain the context of the image, of course. Thanks for your mediating. Bondegezou (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. With regard to Jayjg's comment, I believe that our task is to find an encyclopedic solution, not to "work out a compromise" between two rival positions. This article has already seen enough in the way of bad compromises. CJCurrie (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC), amended 04:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. csloat (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So if I understand correctly, the proposal here is that the people wanting the Zombietime image out of the lede, and, indeed not wanting any image that might actually be mistaken for antisemitism in the lede, are compromising by getting exactly what they want? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the alternatives are having no lede image which isn't going to be settled apon and the other is having a lede which people feel is well poisoning, following 5 months of discussion here, numerous additional alternatives presented, plus discussion thats occured for the year or so before that. I feel that through this mediation I cannot see any other viable alternative than to settle for the more neutral image. It isnt the best solution, and i realise that it doesnt make everyone 100% happy but sometimes a mediation just needs a make do solution. Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 00:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to the four image composite that you, as mediator, offered as a fair compromise. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though I think that the people participating in this mediation should have accepted the compromises offered by you (as I did), I will nevertheless agree to inserting the New Statesman image, and moving the Zombietime image down. I must protest, however, the claim that the mediation is not supposed to achieve compromise (and not that it clearly did not achieve compromise); when views differ on exactly which image is most appropriate for an article, including which is most "encyclopedic", compromise is in order. Alas, rigidity was what was mostly demonstrated here instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be limits of what this mediation can realy form as an agreement between the parties involved. The rest that follows is prehaps more like suggestions for the future for those that have been taking part in this case.

Images brought up in mediation[edit]

Other images have been brought up in this dispute. I would suggest that for any inclusion should be placed appropriately with text they are involved in. This is also vital for the fair use claim that is used with many images on this page. Images should be used unless they can be linked to text within the article. Some of these images have been described as possibly being suitable to go in the main body of the article. If these are to be included then make sure that they are being used to enhance the text rather than to just pretty it up.

Clarification regarding policy on policy talk pages[edit]

Whilst mediating this case it seems that there are no real guidelines with regards to lede images. I am aware of at least 2 other disagreements with regards to lede images that are ongoing. In time I may draw up a proposed guideline and suggest it to the community to help clarify in this area or prehaps to improve current wordings of policy. It may be advantageous for those who were involved in this case to take part in that discussion if it does happen.