Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-25 International reaction to Fitna

What's going on?
There is significant disagreement (spanning not only this article but in WP:FLAG) wherein the usefulness of flagicons is contested. The minority opinion points to Wiki policy/guidelines regarding the usage of flags and flagicons, noting that they are not useful to the article in question, and are in fact a "dumbing down" of the article. The majority opinion (in the article discussion, at least; the majority is outnumbered 3:1 in WP:FLAG) feels that the flagicons are useful in navigation, etc. This disagreement has been the sparking point for incivility and edit-warring.

What would you like to change about that?
Cearly, a consensus based upon the policies and guidelines - and not one driven by POV - needs to be instituted. Also clear is the need to preserve the equilibrium of the article by keeping the edit-warring out.

Administrative notes
Given this dispute is somewhat all or nothing, that is either the flags are included or they're excluded, you could find an article content rfc more useful, because I'm not sure that whether a compromise is possible. PhilKnight (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Do all parties accept mediation? Prom3th3an (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Accept. StaticGull  Talk 15:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (Moved from talk page by Prom3th3an)


 * Accept. (Hypnosadist )  10:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Accept. Kapowow (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, Well lets start. Who wants to talk first? The objectives of this are to find out what each party wants in regards to the flags, and to come to a way of solving the issue.... So the question is what do you want and what would have to change for you to compromise? I'm just spitballing here but is there a way the flags be kepu and also look pretty?Prom3th3an (talk) 09:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As I suggested the mediation, I will introduce the issue context, originally presented in WP:FLAG here on 15 April, 2008. At the time, heavy discussion was occurring (little of it actually polite) regarding the usage of flagicons. The link above provides an overview of the issue; I will present them again here, addressing the same points used in the summary of WP:Flag for any flag usage:


 * 1. Flag images should be useful to the reader, not merely decorative.
 * Flagicons are often not that useful, as they are too small to be effectively distinguishable between countries. For example:


 * 🇦🇺 Population 30 million and Population 3 million''
 * vs.
 * Australia: Population 30 million and New Zealand: Population 3 million.


 * Because they are demonstrably unnecessary for comprehension, they aren't as useful as simple text and in effect are indeed decorative.


 * 2. Flag icons may be appropriate as a visual navigational aid in tables or lists provided that citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand, such as comparison of global economic data or reporting of international sporting event results. They should always be accompanied by their country names at least once.
 * As indicated earlier, they are not necessarily aiding navigation (ind indeed, due to the smallish size of them, are effectively impeding navigation). Also, because of their small size and the similarity with other flags (like the above example or those of 🇮🇩 and 🇵🇱 or 🇮🇹 and 🇮🇪 - Indonesia and Poland, Italy and Ireland, btw), there is little in the way of intimately tying "citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction" to their usage.


 * 3: Flag icons should not be used in general prose in an article.
 * The article's current version (courtesy of ) displays the article without any flagicons and in prose format. Before this edit, the article was mainly composed of bullet-point-like pieces of information. Now it relates smoothly, as a wikipedia article should.


 * I also pointed to at least one study, wherein it was determined (and agreed in WP:FLAG by other editors) that comparing the "Recall of Information Presented in Text vs. Multimedia Format", text without images was absorbed better.
 * This is not to suggest that all images in Wikipedia are bad; they are most certainly not. Most of the images used in Wikipedia help to explain the subject matter they are illustrating. Most other articles in wiki-en that contain images have them expressly illustrate a point being made in the text. Flagicons, by their very nature of diminutiveness, actually serve to confuse matters instead of streamlining the article flow and absorption.
 * While the issue of when its appropriate to use flagicons is a matter that needs to be reworked in a larger forum, consensus for change (as those that drove/initiated the alterations in WP:SPOILER and the Fair Use image use criteria) often begin in articles. As we have a current version that clearly demonstrates that the flagicons are not vital to comprehension in the article, it is my belief that they do not need to be there. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you tried Rfc to get the view of the wider community? Prom3th3an (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I had not, as the consensus in WP:FLAG was that the usage as used in the Int'l Reaction to Fitna article) was better of w/out the flagicons. Do you think it would be served by such? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you should try WP:RFC with a simple "With flags or without" and just put a simple explanation of your view (not a four paragraph rant cause no-one will read that :-). However WP:RFC will only work if you accept peoples opinions and if a concensus is formed either way both parties must cut thier losses and accept that wikipedia is a concensus and that in most cases concensus overrides guidelines (see WP:IGNORE). What do you think? Prom3th3an (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would be wise to transfer this subject to WP:RFC. StaticGull  Talk 13:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Kapowow (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Can someone please open a RFC at RFC then, It MUST be written with a Neutral POV (un-biased). Prom3th3an (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)