Report prepared by –xeno^talk

Disclosure: I came to the article on May 14 with an eye to making a call on the RFC. Taking 7 days to review the history, I made the call on May 21. On May 22, I engaged in some limited discussion on the talk page at Talk:Rorschach test#Other pages with controversial images. I also made this comment (annotated thusly) in another thread regarding my degree of involvement and began preparing this report shortly thereafter. This is discussed further in the body and footnotes of the report and subsequent to this report in #The discussion and #The addendum. —This statement added at 18:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue: For two years, Faustian (talk · contribs) and Ward3001 (talk · contribs) have argued for removing or suppressing^[1] the image (by deleting it, removing it, hiding it, replacing it with a fake one, or moving it below the fold, for example) on the Rorschach test article to prevent possible damage to the results a hypothetical future psychological test the reader might take.

Being the top two contributors to both the article and the talk page,^[2] they have been the most active participants in a debate over whether to hide the image somehow (to prevent harm) versus those that felt it should not be hidden in any way. Recently, many have been calling for a convenient display of the Rorschach inkblot image in the lead section. Wikipedia's guideline on images advises editors to display images "relevant to the article that they appear in" that are "significantly related to the article's topic." The article is about a test involving the viewing of inkblots, not Hermann Rorschach, thus the inkblot image is entirely appropriate for the lead section.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its first and primary goal is the distribution of information and spread of knowledge. Wikipedia has both a content disclaimer and a medical disclaimer. I note also that this statement was recently removed from the article, having been uncited since at least April 2008. Thus, no one has even been able to provide a reliable, third-party source^[3] proving the test's integrity will be diminished by prior exposure to the images. Even if they were able to produce such a source, the psychological care of our reader is not within Wikipedia's remit and we should not make information harder to come by because of uncited theoretical damage to the integrity of a test most readers of the article will likely never take.

The issue first came up as the very first section on the talk page (untitled) in early 2005. The main argument being used then was copyright, which was eventually dismissed as the copyright on the image has expired. See also Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 1#My $0.02, for the opinion of a psychologist that stood without reply. Though he has problems with the Rorschach test itself, he "more of a problem when articles in WP are contentious" and thus argued for compromise in using a non-Rorschach inkblot image.

Then, there was a discussion started in November 2006, entitled "Outrage" where a "student psychologist" was "outraged by this page" stating

Faustian (talk · contribs) weighs in on the issue some months later in March 2007:

In May 2007, Ward3001 (talk · contribs) joined the discussion entitled "Keeping the inkblots secret" where he argued from reasons of copyright that the images should not be displayed, and should be deleted [8]. In July 2007, he expressed concern that viewing the image could do "serious damage" integrity of the Rorschach test [9]. He would later go on to clarify

One (presently inactive) user explained in June 2007 that

One more discussion occured in the infancy of the page -

1. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 1#Which image.

    

   Later in 2007 the issue arose again ... and again... and again:

    

2. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2#No reason to hide images
3. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2#Should the image of the first pic of the Rorschach inkblot test be hidden? (the start of an RFC that was dominated by Faustian and Ward3001, that ran into the other sections listed below)
4. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2#Thank you for clarifying
5. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2#We could have a consensus here if.....
6. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2#Another problem with posting the picture
7. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2#Enough!
8. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2#Even the International Rorschach Foundation themselves are showing all ten images on the web
9. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2#Please stop editwarring

    

   Archive 3 (November 2007 thru March 2008) is also filled with discussions regarding the image:

    

10. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3#Question on Reaching Resolution
11. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3#Copyright
12. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3#The question of the display of the picture and Wikipedia Censorship (a lengthy section that included an RFC on replacing the inkblot with a fake one)

    Ward3001's position seems best summed up here, "The "organization" would be the American Psychological Association, and secondarily the various state licensing boards (in the USA) that usually fall in line with APA's ethics code. (...) another set of blots with equivalent psychometric and clinically useful properties does not exist, and is extremely unlikely to exist in the next few decades. Secondly, APA's ethics code already requires a psychologist, as much as possible, to use tests that do not have compromised reliability and validity; to consider a variety of other test and non-test data (when possible) in making decisions (thus often more than one test, procedure, or source of data is used), and to exercise informed, prudent judgment in interpreting test results. Because there are no perfect tests, and no psychologist has absolute control over the many variables that might influence human behavior, conformity to those ethical principles has some gray area. Most of us do the best we can with what we have. But we can't do the impossible. (...)
    
    And here's something about a point that has been raised several times on this page but non-experts seem to be having much diffuculty grasping (that's not a personal attack, just an observation). There is a huge difference between collecting norms and developing a clinically useful personality test. If you gave me several million dollars, I probably could come up with some norms on a new inkblot test in a year or two. But what you would then have would be a set of useless norms; nothing else. Getting the norms is just the starting point. The norms tell you nothing about what the scores mean. Test scores do not interpret themselves. That requires research, and lots of it. Exner developed norms for the Exner system of scoring, and then spent the next thirty years (along with many other researchers) figuring out how the data from those norms should be interpreted. Norms are essential for most tests, but norms alone are useless. Ward3001 (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)"

13. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3#why is there an image hidden in breach of policy on NPOV, discliamer, censorship etc? (included a straw poll that came out 15 to 6 in favour of not hiding the image)
14. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3#Wikipedia Guideline Review
15. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3#Poll: Who is willing to go to mediation? (they never went)
16. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3#Stop the Edit War

     

    and much of the same in Archive 4 (March through August 2008):

     

17. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#A more general discussion ?
18. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#What about the article itself ?
19. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#Outrageous straw man for the straw poll
20. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#The image is already public
21. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#Unhide Picture
22. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#Straw poll on mediation (7 to 3 in favour, informal, didn't seem to take)
23. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#scroll
24. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#Rorschach Images have been in public domain for 50 Years
25. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#New lead image (wherein Hermann makes his handsome appearance)
26. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#Image Discussion
27. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#It is wikipedia policy to remove images arbitrarily

     

    And of course, the current talk page (December 2008 to May 2009) is pretty much still all about the image placement (with a rare, but heartwarming, moment of agreement wrt the article's title):

     

28. Talk:Rorschach test#Location of the inkblot image (now archived)
29. Talk:Rorschach test# RFC: Top Image - Hermann Rorschach or first card of the Rorschach inkblot test? (now archived)

    It was on the back of this RFC that I made this edit on May 21, 2009 and commented in the edit summary that "consensus seems to exist to move the more descriptive image, being the first inkblot, to the top of the page".

30. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test#Interpretation of discussion (now archived)

    Chillum points out that Ward3001 and Faustian are still the only ones arguing against the images placement at the top of the article. I note, however, that Martinevans seems sympathetic to the position of "heed[ing] the reservations of the relevant professional body (APA) and protect[ing] the images". Nevertheless, three editors do not consensus make and Wikipedia is not bound by APA codes of practice.

31. Talk:Rorschach test#What is Consensus? (now archived)

    An example of Faustian attempting to frame consensus.

32. Talk:Rorschach test#Another compromise (now archived)
33. Talk:Rorschach test#Other pages with controversial images (now archived) (This discussion was my first experience with the talk page and editors in question. It should be reviewed with an eye to judging my level of involvement prior to drafting this report. I have only included comments from this section that occurred prior to my first comment and have not included subsequent discussions in this report, though they may be discussed in #The addendum)
34. Talk:Rorschach test#New consensus has emerged (now archived)

Faustian and/or Ward3001 have commented at length in nearly every single one of the above-linked discussions. I must admit their opinions are not entirely synthesized in the below, however, I have attempted to capture the essence of their arguments in drafting these results.

The below is based solely on talk page edits as found in the archives and current talk page, ending at this revision.

Editors who have argued for removal, or otherwise suppressing the image

i.e. expressing a desire to delete it, hide it, replace it with a fake one, or move it below the fold for reasons other than compromise

1. Faustian (talk · contribs) (as above, numerous arguments starting in March 2007)

   This edit seems to indicate^[4][5] he is a practicing psychologist

   (22:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC) "The test, like many psychological tests, requires that the person taking it is unfamiliar with the stimulus presented to him/her. For example in IQ tests subtests require analysis of pictures or construction of shapes using blocks (thank God those test materials are still under copyright so that such tests aren't spoiled gratuitously). In the case of the Rorschach it requires getting a first, immediate impression of what the person sees. Responses to subsequent cards often depend on the unspoiled impressions of the first inkblot. The test norms (see more info here: [12]) were built around this approach to the test, meaning that we can't compare someone's results to the norms and get an objective reading if the person has taken a test not in accordance with the way the normative sample did. So the image is inherently harmful because viewing it makes the viewer incapable of using it. And as noted elsewhere in the discussion page, this test is considered useful in the field." (12:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC) "The article is about the test, not the inkblot. Placing the inkblot in the front of the article perpetuates the false idea that the test is all about the inkblot, when it is all about the administration, analysis, relationship, etc. Does the article on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale include cubes from the block design subtest on top? No - indeed none ofthe test materials are pictured in the article. How about the Thematic Apperception Test which also uses cards. Again, no. And no images of the figures of the Bender-Gestalt Test either. The article on the SAT shows an example of an essay which is included an appropriate place in the body of the article, not at the top of it."

   In March 2007, engaged in a protracted edit war^[6] with a few IPs and one user who did not participate in discussion, attempting to make a change in the status quo (citing this discussion) to implement a black-on-white retouched image of the inkblot rather than the the true shaded image. This edit war ended when a compromise was reached to use a collapsible table to hide the true image, with a disclaimer.

   Comment from Faustian to Xeno regarding his placement in this section: (16:09, 28 May 2009) "I believe that I ought to also be in the compromise section. This is what I have been doing consistantly. Along those lines, I object to your characterization of me as "argued consistently for over two years to keep the image as suppressed as possible as the climate of consensus changed." This seems to be putting an inaccurate negative twist on what I have been doing. I have been arguing to integrate ethical concerns with the need to provide good information. While arguing against those who would have the image in the lead, I have argued for ways of integrating their views with ethical concerns." (in light of this concern, the below paragraph was amended)

   For some time, rather than strictly arguing from the irresponsibility of showing the image as he did in 2007, he has participated in lengthy talk page discussion with the ultimate goal of brokering compromises to balance the concerns of preventing potential harm with that of providing encyclopedic access to the image. More recently, has argued that Wikipedia's notion of consensus demands that we necessarily compromise in deference to a minority viewpoint, even where no such consensus to compromise exists any longer.

   Further to the above, he wrote at Xeno's talk page (14:49, 29 May 2009) "that we seem to have reached the point where no further compromise seems possible because there is nothing left for the minority to agree to other than a version that it 100% in the majority's favor. I thought consensus was compromise, not changing the goals posts every few months until in the end it's just majority preference with no minority input."

2. Ward3001 (talk · contribs) (as above, numerous arguments starting in May 2007)

   Claims^[5] to be a practicing psychologist. Does not deny he wishes the image suppressed to prevent theoretical damage, in fact, this often forms the bulk of his argument.

   (04:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC) "My opinion was (and still is) that there should be no image of an inkblot anywhere in the article, but that point of view did not prevail in a very heated and difficult consensus that was achieved. So, given that consensus, my position is that if an image of an inkblot must be in the article, it should be in the most logical place: adjacent to "Test materials", and H. Rorschach's image is more appropriate adjacent to the discussion of overview and background, as I have repeatedly pointed out above. (...) The issue here is not whether there should be an image of an inkblot, but rather the most appropriate place to put it."

   Was the subject of a recent AN3 report [13], albeit filed by the other party who had made just as many reverts at the time of filing. The result of the report was an agreement brokered by an admin not to revert the disputed item for one week which was amenable to both parties.

3. Goingape (talk · contribs) 21:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   In response to the first edit to the talk page noting that "Psychologists prefer that the general public not see them so that it will not skew results when the test is performed": "As a pscyhologist, I have to say, that I agree ... I wish Wikipedia would honor the ethical requirements of the only professionals who have access to this material."

4. Annalisa579 (talk · contribs) 05:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC) "I was shocked to see this image on Wikipedia (...) there's been decades and decades of blood, sweat, tears into testing the cards, norming data, running statistical analysis that are unimaginable to anyone outside of the field. (...) I spent years studying and administering it (...) Making images available on the internet will make it obsolete and we will have lost a helpful tool. (...) I encourage the person who posted that image to substitute [a non-Rorschach inkblot] in order to renew the sanctity of test"[reply]
5. Teenyshan (talk · contribs) 17:06, 2006 Nov 7 (UTC) "student psychologist" and initiator of the "Outrage" thread examined above. It was the user's only edit. "Regardless of whether or not these inkblots are copyrighted has absolutely no bearing on the ethical issue at hand"
6. Monnicat (talk · contribs) 15:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (Ph.D.^[5], is a mental health clinician and researcher, the retired user who quoted the APA ethics code above) I deleted the image of the blot the last time I visited this page, but it was restored. I will continue to remove it every time I visit. Placing the image in a public forum compromises the validity of the test for all the reasons previously discussed.[reply]
7. Plskmn (talk · contribs) argued [14], especially from reasons of copyright, but also for reasons of restricted access; 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC) "I work for one of the named companies, am a licensed professional, and--for several decades--have had specific responsibility for reviewing customer documentation when restricted tests of these kinds are ordered." (17:32) "It simply puts Wikipedia in a fairly radical stance regarding materials used by mental health professionals. It is a problem regarding tests in general--for example, IQ tests, achievement tests, aptitude tests, etc. These all rely on evaluating tested individual's responses to materials under similar conditions--that is, in the absence of prior knowledge and exposure." (17:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC) "It seems to me that the public's right to understand what the Rorschach is about can be easily satisfied without our venturing into explicit exposure of material that publishers, researchers, and professional groups all agree has a legitimate reason to be provided in a professionally restricted manner."[reply]
8. 193.65.1.44 (talk · contribs) (11:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC) "Definitely agree with Faustian" who wrote that [start of comment by Faustian] (21:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC) "By placing the inkblot on the page you don't give anyone the choice - as soon as they go on the wiki page they see the image. There is already a link to those images on the page, so if someone really wants to invalidate the possibility of seeing the test for themselves, they can choose do so by going to the link. Placing the image on the page removes that choice. So, the image is inappropriate." [end of comment by Faustian] "In addition, copyrights are violated. I removed picture."^[7][reply]
9. Dela Rabadilla (talk · contribs) (formerly anon) was a user whose entire editing history is an extremely vocal four month period beginning in December 2007 during which time they edited almost entirely on talk pages^[8] within the Rorschach area of dispute^[9], even initiating a MedCab case in late March 2008 in which all three responding mediators agreed that Wikipedia policies supported displaying the unhidden image. (07:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC) "The reality is that this test is used by many psycologists, who have reason to beleive their efficacy in providing their much needed services is compromised by having these images available. (...) I find it completely contrary..." [to Wikipedia's goal to] "...promote knowledge and to benefit human kind ... to neglect the currect use of images for mental health by thousand of professionals. If anything Wikipedia should embrace psycologists that wish to censor this information." (17:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC) "Several people including myself have stated that the display of rorschach inkblots interferes with the practice of the mental health community, and therefore should be considered harmful and should be avoided."
10. Kaldari (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 00:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC) "This seems more akin to hiding the punchline of a joke before someone has read the question than censorship. If I was going to be taking a Rorschach inkblot test in the near future and I decided to check out the Wikipedia article, it would be nice to be warned before I actually saw the images. I certainly wouldn't object to the images being available, but it would be nice to not ruin the test for people."[reply]
11. Anakin101 (talk · contribs) (14:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC) "I would have been bitterly disappointed if I'd glanced at the image before being able to read about it. Hiding it for a moment made it more interesting, and made the article about the inkblot tests make more sense. (...) Those who cry WP:NOT#CENSORED are missing the point – it's not frigging censorship. Censorship is unfairly burying or removing relevant information because somebody else doesn't like it. But here, we have the image box perfectly visible, with a note about what it is. All it takes is one quick click to make it visible. I also think that as a disclaimer, it's a fairly trivial one. I honestly do not think it matters that much whichever way it's done, though my preference is keep it hidden when the article first appears."[reply]
12. AAA765 (talk · contribs) (formerly Aminz) (02:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC) "The main purpose of wikipedia is to provide information to the users, nothing more. Hiding the images will not deprive the readers from seeing it if they want to do so. Another point is that the very hiding of the pictures provides some extra information (the fact that seeing it will influence the test)."[reply]
13. Martinevans123 (talk · contribs) arrived in March 2008 and his initial talk page contributions seemed to support open display of the image. However later comments indicated he believes we should "err on the side of caution". As at 21 May 2009 his position had changed significantly. (19:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC) "I'm not sure about the `harm may arise' argument anyway. Presumably this is harm to the purety of a psychometric test. But seemingly this would arise only in the case where a candidate for assessment, consciously or unconciously, sees a real ink-blot here, self-elicits their own responses, remembers them and then remembers again when actually assessed in order to give deliberately different responses (all the while not knowing how the responses are interpreted). This seems a little far-fetched." (17:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC) "The argument of "may impact peoples care" stlll seems extremely far-fetehed to me (my logic above) and I suspect that the only consensus you would find would be amongst those practitioners who use the test on a regular basis (for monetary benefit, I am guessing). (...) I'd argue that the Rorschach ink-blots are somewhat in a class of their own, their novelty being the very reason they ever became useful." (19:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC) "I would not underestimate the pervasiveness of Wikipedia, however, copied as it seems to be onto countless echo websites. Just because people have disregarded possible harm in the past does not mean that we also should be careless. But then again, where is any EVIDENCE that harm has OR HAS NOT resulted over the past 50 years? I suppose it's a question of how significant one thinks Wikipedia is, compared to what has already been published. Maybe we are all psychologists already these days." (11:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC) "At the risk of setting the debate back a step, I would remind (...) that there were plenty of editors who had doubts about there being an ink-blot image in this article at all. This has all been through dispute, edit war, protection, informal voting and seeking consensus. The current postiion was seen as a compromise." (18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC) "I fully agree with Ward3001, Faustian (and others) and for exactly the same reasons. In the original consensus I had (and still have) great difficulty in understanding exactly how scientific evidence could produced to show one way or another that displaying an image here could compromise the effectiveness of the test. But if we were to err on the side of caution, we ought to heed the reservations of the relevant professional body (APA) and protect the images. I also suggested that if the point of an image was simply to be illustrative, then a novel new ink-blot could be created for use here. As neither of these points seemed to be agreed upon, I saw the current positioning as an acceptable compromise. Since then, however, more convincing arguments over use of test materials in wikipedia articles have been made." (21:14) "I still think APA guidelines have relevance to this discussion - it seems a little churlish to dismiss them so glibly. Maybe wikipedia can show me how to produce scientific evidence of whether harm is produced or not - but if it cannot, then it should not be making a judgement here but erring on the side of caution, and I will prefer to take the advice of those who actually use the test for real, that's all." (21:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC) "I believe in my arguments, not in whether or not I am in the minority or the majority. I have seen nothing that persuades me that the image should be shown. But Ward, and others, have made a number of very sound arguments for why the image should not be shown at the top and I support them in those. I also believe that good arguments continue to exist even though they may not be constantly repeated." (20:05) "I don't want it to be lead image because I don't want it here at all. I haven't changed my position to now wanting it to be a non lead image."[reply]
14. Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs) 14:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC) "Coming late to the discussion. I think it's fairly obvious that there should be an inkblot at the top of the page, as that is the most iconic image people have of the test." (16:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC) "For purposes of illustrating what the test is about, I see no difference between a random inkblot, and an inkblot made by Roscharch. I would actually prefer a black and white inkblot at the top, as it is more iconic of the test. I still hope that a compromise can be reached, but if it can't, I see no concensus here for a change from status quo. The image of Card 1 as it is currently used should be in the criticisms section." "For what it's worth, some images on the page on Bahá'u'lláh and on Muhammad are also controversial. The current consensus on those pages (see Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo and Talk:Muhammad/images respectively), is to keep the images, but to set them further down the page so that those who do not want to view the images have some forewarning, and can make a choice in the matter." 04:07, 22 May 2009^[10] "For what it's worth, some images on the page on Bahá'u'lláh and on Muhammad are also controversial. The current consensus on those pages (see Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo and Talk:Muhammad/images respectively), is to keep the images, but to set them further down the page so that those who do not want to view the images have some forewarning, and can make a choice in the matter."[reply]

    Comment from Lawrencekhoo: (14:12, 2 June 2009) "I would like it emphasized that my position now is, consensus on this page should not be considered in isolation from consensus on other pages with controversial images. Wikipedia should have a reasonably standardized policy on controversial images. As it stands now, consensus on Wikipedia appears to be, to include clearly relevant controversial images, but to place them further down the article so that readers have some choice in the matter."

Editors compromising

i.e. those that acceded to some form of suppression in the interests of of compromise

1. Rsugden (talk · contribs) (in the unreplied-to "My $0.02" thread) (31 August 2005 (UTC) "Sorry to return to the issue of having card one shown in this article. It seems unnecessarily provocative to post this, especially when there is a suitable non-Rorschach card to be in its place. And the issue is not copyright. I guess this doesn't matter in Wikipedia as long as someone wants to do this, no amount of appeal will prevail. (...) And as I psychologist, I have problems with the Rorschach. However, I have more of a problem when articles in WP are contentious. (...) Maybe I will add to this article but not if it is going to stir up the passions of the anti-Rorschach people. It's not worth an "editing war"."
2. Saxifrage (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 22:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC) "I am a student of psychology as well and I disagree with the dissemination of the inkblots in general, but while at Wikipedia I leave my bias behind as much as I can and edit according to Wikipedia's rules. One of these rules is that Wikipedia must remain neutral by not choosing sides in real-world disputes such as this one. Speaking as an editor, I think using a silhouette of only one of the inkblots is a good compromise between the camp that believes the inkblots should be known to all and the camp that believes they must be kept strictly secret."[reply]

   Comment from Saxifrage: (23:51, 2 June 2009) "For what it's worth, I no longer hold the view expressed in my original comment. The inkblot in question is already extensively disseminated (Google Image Search). There is no prospect of putting this egg back into its shell, and it would be absurd for Wikipedia to undermine its editorial integrity to preserve a secrecy that is non-existent." (00:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC) "The [clarification] categories are mostly about placement, which I don't have an opinion on. Rather, I just don't think the alleged secrecy of the image should be a factor in placement. I wouldn't "object" to it being put elsewhere than the lede so long as it was on grounds other than hiding it, so I suppose the best fit is prefer the lede, but I'd rather see the dispute end."

3. Blue Leopard (talk · contribs) 18:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC) "I like the option of being able to chose to see the pics in the current state of the article."[reply]
4. Diego (talk · contribs) initially 02:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC) "Keep the picture. Don't hide it. (...) Showing one inkblot from the test will do no serious harm to the results should someone happen upon the picture prior to taking the test, since the results themselves are much more likely to be influenced by the interpretive whim of the examiner. If we are going to have an article mentioning inkblots, I think it is a good idea to show readers what an "inkblot" looks like." but later acceded to compromise 5 October 2007 (UTC) "Posting a picture of a symmetrical inkblot in order to show readers what an inkblot (not necessarily a "Rorschach inkblot") looks like does not violate WP:OR. The inkblot need not be an "interpretation" of the important features of a Rorschach inkblot. The caption could be written to make it very clear that it was just a picture of an inkblot, with no direct relation to the Rorschach. The important point is that it would look roughly and qualitatively similar to an average viewer. I think the proposal is an elegant solution that should satisfy those who seek to develop a multimedia-rich article and those who, due to ethical concerns, wish to keep the actual Rorschach image hidden."[reply]
5. Runa27 (talk · contribs) 17:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [15], 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [16], "as someone who has a neutral opinion on the Rorschach ink blot test, I can perhaps provide some perspective, and will attempt to do so now: I LIKE the way it is now. It is both logical, and considerate to our readers. (...) it is considered to at least partially invalidate the test if one views the blot before they take it - but then still gives you the option of viewing the image, which is only of the first card."[reply]
6. MarkAnthonyBoyle (talk · contribs) initially 14:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC) "I actually don't see any problem with using the blot." (01:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC) "When I come to WP I want information. Having the blots is information." later (21:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC) "The compromise of hiding the image with a warning that vieing it may invalidate a test is a very good one. I don't have a problem with that."[reply]

Editors who disagreed with the suppression of the image

i.e. did not see a need to delete/remove/hide/replace/move the image below the fold

1. DreamGuy (talk · contribs) 18:10, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC) "All in all it appears to me to be yet another company trying to distort copyright laws to protect things that can't be protected. And, hell, even the ones under copyright can be used via Fair Use rules for comment and criticism."
2. Wikibob (talk · contribs) 01:05, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC) "I agree that the copyright claim is spurious, is there a source for the claim? As you say, if the author was Hermann Rorschach and he died in 1922 April 2, then they are in the public domain, both United States and EU."
3. 190.30.98.233 (talk · contribs) 07:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC) I think the inkblots should be available for anyone who wants to see them and understands the fact that he or she won't be able to take the test effectively after seeing them. The pretention of keeping them secret is like reserving the right of applying it to someone against his/her will: if someone wants to keep the chance of taking the test, they just won't look for the inkblots in the internet. They won't look for any kind of information about the test! (this argument was seemingly made while users were adamantly keeping the image off the page entirely, instead providing an external link to view the image)[reply]
4. Spindled (talk · contribs) 05:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC) "I think fair use would probably apply in this case... also, i personally do not think that knowing about the inkblots, how they look, or thinking of what they might resemble will affect anything, as the psychologist would be looking at your impulsive responses and the way you respond, and not what you already know about the pictures. just my $0.02"[reply]
5. Geni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 21:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC) "The images are pd since Hermann Rorschach died in the 1920s. So life +70 has expired." (14:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC) "I would argue that there is little point in haveing both images since one is simply a blacked out version of the other. I would favor haveing the shaded one since it accuretly depicts the blot" (03:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC) "There is no reason why wikipedia should be concerned about any percived damage to the test." (04:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC) "A psudo-Rorschach inkblot does not convey the same information as a real Rorschach inblot." (15:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC) "This is wikipedia. We are not censored for the benifit of professional codes or principles." (23:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC) "The views of various academics and trade associations should of course be recorded in the article but beyond that are not something that really applies to us."[reply]
6. Mooleh (talk · contribs) 22:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC) "I congratulate Wikipedia on publishing this inkblot"[reply]
7. Halo (talk · contribs) 01:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC) "Wikipedia is not censored, which is a policy and you are trying to censor Wikipedia. See censorship: "Censorship is defined as the removal and withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body". How exactly have I missed the point?"[reply]
8. Drugonot (talk · contribs) 15:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC) "damage? what are you talking about?!? wikipedia isn't under psychologists or psychiatrists censorship. There are no damage at all by showing a couple of pictures! (...) I'll not censor (by hiding) a picture, because it may damage your unscientific work. (...) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is a good encyclopedia. Inside every good encyclopedia you'll find the REAL and ORIGINAL images, not a fakes or censored one!"[reply]
9. The Merciful (talk · contribs) 12:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC) "==No reason to hide images== So i unhid it. See Wikipedia:Spoiler for comparison. (16:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC) "(...) Quite frankly I fail to see a reason for hiding the image that is not plain silly. It is just an ink spot, after all. It is not Rorschach images are hard to come by, but the current image has the added value of authencity, and should be shown openly, as is Wikipedia's purpose. However, it is not Wikipedia's job to cater, bend etc. to demands, aesthetics, morals etc. any particular group."[reply]
10. HaeB (talk · contribs) (formerly High on a tree) 18:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC) "I don't see such a consensus" (to hide the picture through Javascript) "I personally think that "let those people just have their way, even if their reasons are wrong" is not a good motto for writing an encyclopedia. It amounts to bowing to whoever is arguing most vociferously instead of basing the decision on the best arguments." (14:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC) "I think we should go back to the solution from a month ago, before the edit warring started: Include Image:Rorschach1.jpg without the JavaScript code. As noted above, this is already a compromise solution, since from a purely encyclopedic perspective it would be desirable to show all ten cards (and also describe some exemplary responses and their evaluation)."[reply]
11. Itub (talk · contribs) 08:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC) "This is an encyclopedia, and its purpose is to be informative, neutral, and uncensored. It is not bound by the norms of any professional organization, religion, or nation (...) This test does not need to be "protected" (...). Wikipedia already has a general disclaimer (...) Finally, regarding the [show] button, I don't think it's a good solution because it has accessibility problems (it doesn't work without javascript, for example), and IMO goes agains the spirit of the no-disclaimers-in-articles policy." (13:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC) "Some people have argued that the Rorschach test is actually harmful when used in forensic an occupational settings (among others) because such an questionable test may end up determining people's lives (for example, see [17]), Therefore, one could argue that exposing the inkblots actually helps people by invalidating the test. I don't expect Wikipedia to decide what is "good for the people". We just provide the information."[reply]
12. Publicola (talk · contribs) 23:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC) "If all ten of the 1921 blots were not so easily available in full colour and high resolution from a few minutes of web searching, I might feel differently, but given the current state of affairs I see no reason to censor any of these images. If the members American Psychological Association wish to follow the spirit rather than the mere letter of their ethical guidelines, then they might advocate that a new copyrighted set of blots be normed for the test rather than clamoring to censor public domain information that any schoolboy could find in minutes."[reply]
13. mike4ty4 (talk · contribs) made some astute observations and raised some interesting questions at "The question of the display of the picture and Wikipedia Censorship" (21:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC) "It raises an important issue, namely whether or not Wikipedia should appeal to interests outside of itself, or censor or semi-censor certain things." He "wonder[ed] about the interapplicability of the various solutions. For example on this article about the test, it is hidden. Should the same be done on other articles like that about those cartoons...? Also, how does this jive with official policy that Wikipedia is not censored?" While he didn't explicitly reveal his personal feelings on the matter, he argued at length with Ward3001, Faustian and Dela Rabadilla, perhaps in an attempt to cause them to expose flaws in their own arguments. He later asked (02:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC) "where does one draw the line on what to censor and what not to? In the case of the religion, regardless of whether or not we agree with that religion, one has to take into account the _feelings of the people_ who follow it. Should those cartoons be "censored" ... or not? What about the Rorschach tests? Should they be "censored"? (...) Furthermore, we still have the issue of Wikipedia vs outside interest: should Wikipedia bend to outside interest or not, and if so, where is it appropriate?" (20:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC) "...viewing the Rorschach image does is not damage the person themselves, it damages the usefulness of the test on that person (...), a test they may or may not be required to take. Since we do not know who is on the receiving end of the pictures, what they believe or may believe, or what they will do or have to do in the future, one cannot predict when real harm will actually occur with certainty. This therefore raises the question of whether or not the mere potential to cause harm, to even some individuals, is enough to warrant partial censorship, or if WP:CENSOR should be taken to the letter and these concerns thrown right out the window." (21:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC) "See, that's the rub -- we don't know oif they will or won't take this test. Should we defer to that risk there?"
14. 88.65.139.108 (talk · contribs) (responding to mike4ty4's straw-man suggestion that the Rorschach decision be extended to other articles) (22:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC) "If you take that step, where does it end? If we delete something to help the psychologists, then why not delete something to help everyone else? I think publishing the images is a service to an extent, because the test is already spoiled because you can get all the images elsewhere on the web. Who knows how many people have? The fact that nobody knows means that the test is spoiled. The sooner this gets in to the heads of the people who don't want to bother with another set of blots that can be kept more secure, the better." (IP's only edit)[reply]
15. MilesAgain (talk · contribs) 16:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC) "Hundreds of editors have weighed in on the question, and the clear consensus is that Wikipedia is WP:NOT#CENSORED. Not for this, or any other article." 21:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC) "I have to agree with the others who have pointed out that trying to censor the images is tilting at windmills. Why do you choose to advocate hiding the images rather than the creation and normalization of another set of blots which would be subject to copyright and trade secret protections that the ten 1921 blots lack? Is the effort of normalizing another set of blots really more, in your estimation, than the effort it will take to keep the current public domain blots hidden?"[reply]
16. Someguy1221 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 13:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC) "Anyone who would Wiki those psychological analyses he plans or expects to undergo has likely already invalidated them. And so I don't see a compelling need to censor the images here." (00:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "it's not our job to protect the accuracy of this test. We don't plaster these images all over the encyoclopedia, ruining the test for hapless bystanders; these images are displayed on the article on these very images, and if someone is already trawlling the internet for info on the Rorscharch inkblot test, I don't think shielding his eyes serves a purpose." (19:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "Having the images present in no way forces people to see them. If they don't want to see the Rorscharch inkblots, they shouldn't have navigated to this page." (20:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC) "If the bigger group did what it wanted to, the inkblot image would still be at the top of the article. Also, I don't quite see any encyclopedic purpose of placing the creator's image at the top of the article, aside from helping maintain stability of the article." (04:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC) "The other articles that have been listed as examples of tests that don't put an image at the top are irrelevant. Only one of them even has an image at all, and that image has too much text compressed into it to be readable as a thumbnail. That said, this is an inkblot test. Seems perfectly rational to have a picture of an inkblot at the top." (02:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC) "It's still boils down to the fact that we have one image that benefits a reader's understanding and recognition of the subject, and one image that doesn't, unless a person wanted to know what the inventor looked like. And also let's keep in mind that this putting a picture or Rorschach himself at the top arose pretty late in the main dispute over a year ago, and the main reason for moving or removing the inkblot was based on the unverifiable claim that it was medically harmful."[reply]
17. Chillum (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [formerly Until(1 == 2) ] 17:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "If someone lookup up the test at the library they would see the same picture. If people are specifically trying to learn about the test then that is their choice and if that invalidates the test then that is the cost of the research they have done. We can't hold back information from people because we think them knowing it will harm them somehow, that is for them to decide." (20:06) "The suggestion that an image illustrating the topic causes harm does not seem credible to me, if the person chose to research the test then that is the cause of any harm, not the information source that has the pictures. If a person looks the test up at the library they are likely to see a similar image. It is up to the doctors to decide if the test is effective, not us. We are an illustrated encyclopedia, not a pop-up book. We also must not be giving medical advice, that is a big no-no, so even putting our dislike of disclaimers aside we could still not do it." (17:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC) "Even with the hide template the image still flashes up on my screen for a moment, that near subliminal flash may do more damage than it showing steady. But as an editor that is not my determination to make, just as other editors should not be deciding if the image should be hidden or not based on their opinions about the test. We should just show the image and stop taking these strange measures. I understand the motives as sincere, but this is a place to present information, not obscure it." (17:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC) "To put my point more succinctly, we should be documenting psychological practice not following it. Just like when we document a religion we should not let that religion's taboos influence our content. When documenting a school of thought we cannot follow that school of thought as the basis of our article. When we decide to let the precepts of the subject dictate our editorial actions we are committing original research and deviating from a neutral point of view. This is not something a scholarly work with the goals of this project should be doing." (02:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC) "People can use the information on Wikipedia to invalidate almost any test out there, that does not mean we should hide the information away. Policy is clear and I see no overwhelming reason or consensus to hide the image." (14:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC) "It should not be hidden. Almost any test can be invalidated by having access to Wikipedia, I am sure I could have aced, and invalidated, many of the tests I have taken in my life if I had access to Wikipedia, that is hardly Wikipedia's responsibility, nor should others be inconvenienced to avoid this. I have no objection to having the image lower on the page for stylistic reasons, but please understand this is not to prevent people from seeing it." (15:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC) "There is a pretty strong consensus to show the images. While a few people have stuck to the idea of hiding them, they simply do not represent the opinion of the community at large here. We don't hide the information we intend to present, we show it in an unadulterated fashion. The idea that this test is accurate is a belief held by some scientists(I assume at least as I have not seem a citation) and not held by others. The belief that the test can be invalidated by viewing the images is supported even less universally. It is a belief by a group of people, we should not let it effect our content." (00:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC) "Consensus can change. I suggest we put it right up at the top. Right above the picture of Mr Rorschach would be consistent with how we do most article. That is to say leading with a picture of the subject." 14:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC) "It is only natural to make the lead picture of the subject of the article. Not sure why there is any question." (16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC) "consensus can change. Just because a compromise was worked out before does not mean it is the perfect solution. We can still change that decision."[reply]
18. Luna Santin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (on replacing the image with a false one) (22:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC) "I suspect it'll still be a point of contention in a case where we already have a "true to form" image freely licensed." (09:52) "would any old picture of a car do for the Honda Accord article? As long as it's a similar car, say another Honda, it's pretty much the same thing, right? It seems quite obvious that showing a "clearly different" automobile and describing it as a Honda Accord does not "convey the same value of information" -- how is this case different?" (21:41) "So a completely different car is acceptable because...? What, because the uninformed reader won't know the difference, anyway? That's quite an approach to take to academic integrity." (00:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "you haven't demonstrated that the image produces actual harm in a situation where the image is already available freely and widely, saturating the public awareness in a way that publishing this image is nothing new." (23:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC) "I for one have seen the inkblot in Image:Rorschach1.jpg dozens of times previously, even before ever coming to Wikipedia. I'm of the opinion it's already pretty much saturated on the net and in general culture, and that's it's been plastered all over the place to most anyone who goes looking for the test." (00:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum. Clearly we've decided to have an article on the test; clearly the image is relevant to that article." [Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles is] (21:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC) "a guideline which has years of respect (and even what you might call "enforcement"), including at the Foundation level. One major problem with in-line content disclaimers is that we'll then have to start justifying our failure to place them left and right, all over the place where people might find objectionable content -- not just in an editorial "why" sense, but also potentially in a legal sense. Calling this "just a guideline" is a bit like calling Evolution "just a theory" -- it entirely misses the point, as I see it. Is there an explanation for why we're intentionally violating this long-standing and well-respected community norm, beyond "it's just a guideline"? You say there's consensus for that on this particular page; given recent debate, it's clear that's disputed." 23:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC) supported the straw poll option Image should not be hidden & have no disclaimer (22:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC) "where's the evidence seeing the image potentially causes significant harm? It keeps getting mentioned, yes, but I notice the answers become evasive or repetitive when I ask for evidence." (01:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC) "That's one reason I keep asking for evidence of actual or potential harm. Then we move from a bunch of random people quibbling into actual professional opinion on the matter. And I'll take this opportunity to once again point out that you've yet to provide any evidence of that sort, despite my having asked for it numerous times. "[reply]
19. hmwith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (20:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC) "I tried to remove even simply the disclaimer (not even the hide box) and I was promptly reverted. Wikipedia has no disclaimers. The policy doesn't need to be cited. It's the entire policy. It is a disclaimer, and Wikipedia "has no disclaimers", therefore, it needs to be removed." (21:07) "The one I am specifically talking about is Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. However, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, Wikipedia:Not censored, and Wikipedia:Options to not see an image are all relevant." (21:44) "All articles are covered by the five official disclaimer pages." (18:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC) supported the straw poll option Image should not be hidden & have no disclaimer ([hiding / disclaiming images is] "in breach of Wikipedia guidelines & policies") (20:02) "If one wants to actually take the test without knowing anything about it, he/she shouldn't research it on an illustrated, uncensored encyclopedia." [on new voices calling for unhidden display of images] (23:07) "it's better to have new, unbiased people voice their opinions rather than people with personal feelings on the subject matter."[reply]
20. Garycompugeek (talk · contribs) (21:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC) "Hiding the pictures sets a dangerous precedent. If we allow it on this article we must allow it on all articles. It is understood why you are doing for respect for the test but in reality you are censuring the picture unless it is clicked on." (01:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC) This precedent will not stand. Consensus doesn't appear to favor hidden images. Policy clearly dictates against it. Why the revert? Your admins. Enforce policy." (20:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC) "I feel the entire article would be damaging to anyone who would be taking the test therefore hiding an image should be pretty moot." (23:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Once again since the image is all over the internet, why is Wikipedia hiding it? (14:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC) I feel current page violates numerous policies which could be rectified by unhiding the image." (20:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC) "This matter has been talked up and down the pike. Consensus and policy clearly lean towards unhiding picture. I move that an admin unhide the picture." (15:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC) "Consensus does not mean 100% agreement. Arguments are made and weighted accordingly." (17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC) "I sympathize that seeing the images before the test may damage test results. Certainly if Wikipedia was the only place one could easily see the test images the above arguments would have much more weight but that is not the case. Not only have they been in the public domain for a very long time but are lambasted all over the internet. Trying to track down these images and having them removed or hidden seems virtually impossible and going to one particular site like Wikipedia (IF we were to remove or hide them) would also seem a pointless and thankless task. My point is the damage has been done and we cannot put the genie back into the bottle." (21:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC) "I would say consensus in this matter has changed (it has been talked up and down) to show the ink blot on top of the page (and maybe move Herman's picture to history section) and would say that a majority of us feel this way. I respect everyone's opinion who has commented on the matter regardless of whether or not I agree with you. I am moving both pictures but will not edit war and revert this change. The next step would be arbitration but before anyone goes there think on this... if you cannot convince us then I doubt they will prove different for this seems an unbiased group of seasoned editors."[reply]

    Was the filing party of a recent AN3 report [18] in which he was the other reverting party, the result of which was an agreement to not revert over the image for 1 week.

21. Fredrick day (talk · contribs) (00:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "I don't see any consensus that the images are to be hidden - I see lots of argument about it, so I have removed the disclaimer and remove the hide - because if this page is in dispute, surely we default to (as noted by Luna) the long-standing and well-respected community norm. Otherwise, I think we'll have to get involvement from the wider community." (20:22) "The article has a disclaimer that breaches the spirit of our policies on disclaimer and I'd argue also breaches "no medical advice" - we have a general disclaimer for such matters. More broadly, there is NO consensus on this page to hide the images and therefore we fall back on accepted community thinking on such matters - images are not hidden." (00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC) "moving it based on a "scroll" argument is bogus because we have no stats on resolution, screen size, dimensions etc - it's based on an assumption, I see the image as soon as I log-on. So if you move it to cover landscape editors then you are making special allowances for groups of users - strictly prohibited by policy."[reply]
22. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk · contribs) (05:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "You can add me to the list of people who believe the image should not be hidden. There appears to be a consensus emerging. Unless a lot of editors suddenly decide to support keeping the image hidden, the recent conversation here clearly indicates the picture should be unlocked." (23:00) "This image should clearly be openly available as per WP:NOTCENSORED, unless there is consensus to hide it per WP:IGNORE. The consensus emerging is to unhide the image, and I concur strongly with that sentiment."[reply]
23. Schutz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "I am strongly against hiding the image, and I am against a disclaimer (but not as strongly). (...) Are there really many people who would be looking for information about this test and would not want to see the image ? (...) There is also another factor that makes me think that the hiding is useless: I have never taken the test, and I have never searched actively for the images of the cards; however, I could have described pretty accurately at least the first card of the test, because I have seen it countless times in movies, comics, etc. To me, it is public knowledge, and I don't think it makes any sense to hide it. (...) Wikipedia pages should be written so that they are as versatile as possible; hiding the image under a "show" button does not help very much if the article gets printed" [as the image] "is hidden by default (...) However, I am entirely in favor of adding to the article and to the description of the image a (sourced) note indicating that some people believe that viewing the image beforehand may invalidate the test; this is an encyclopedic piece of information that I think is very interesting; it should not, however, have any influence on our policies and the way we present this topic." (17:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC) "I feel that you have incorrectly reversed the burden of proof; we are building an encyclopedia, and we want it to be as comprehensive as possible, so by default, we are here to provide information. This test is an encyclopedic topic, and the image is without doubt of interest in relation to this topic (I don't think anyone disputed that); from this starting point, I believe that people who do not want the image are the one who must provide the definitive argument. I have read these arguments, and I think I understand them, but to me, given the evidence presented, they do not carry enough weight to go against this basic principle of providing the information. There will never be an opportunity to reach a conclusion (and I don't see how any objection has been proved wrong, on one side or another); I think all the arguments have been presented, and different people will take them into account in different ways and will make their mind accordingly." (19:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC) "Wouldn't the article itself be at least as damageable to a potential patient than the description of the test ? (...) A patient who has read this description would probably be very careful about not saying anything until he had thought long about it; would it be any less damageable than seeing the image itself ?" (06:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC) "...the scientific community has no business telling people (...) what is good for them to see or not (if only because the scientific community can not pretend to know that)."[reply]
24. Bryan Derksen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (08:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC) "IMO it's ridiculous. Anyone who has enough interest to actually examine the inkblot in detail will do so, and those without the interest probably won't be "tainted" in any meaningful sense by glancing over it. But regardless, we shouldn't be making special exceptions to our standards based on the sensibilities and opinions of tiny minorities like this."[reply]
25. Oahiyeel (talk · contribs) (10:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC), supported the straw poll option Image should not be hidden & have no disclaimer ("Agreed.")[reply]
26. MasonicDevice (talk · contribs) (02:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC) "Agreed. Don't censor/disclaim to benefit movie studios or medical field or religions."[reply]
27. Jmlk17 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (10:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC), supported the straw poll option Image should not be hidden & have no disclaimer ("No way. Can't believe this is even getting this much delay honestly.")[reply]
28. Black Falcon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (14:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC) "In addition to the various arguments noted above, "the lack of the disclaimer on certain pages as opposed to others might open Wikipedia to lawsuits" (quoted from WP:NDA). Moreover, the arguments used to justify the use of this disclaimer could justify the presence of a disclaimer on virtually any medical article. After all, one could argue that an encyclopedia article discussing the symptoms of a disease could be "fuel for the fire" for a hypochondriac. Should those articles have disclaimers? Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles is unambiguous: no disclaimers in articles. No exceptions." (00:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC) "I find it implausible that someone visiting the article and wanting to know about a test would not expect to ... well, actually find out about what the test involves." (06:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC) "Since hiding the image constitutes a major deviation from established practice and policy, the burden of forming a consensus rests with those who advocate that the image be hidden, not vice versa."[reply]
29. Prolog (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC), supported the straw poll option Image should not be hidden & have no disclaimer ("Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in psychology. Policies cited above are quite clear on this.") (23:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC) "...the image should be shown inline per usual practice. ((linkimage)) was a template with a function identical to the wikitable currently used in this article to hide the image. The result of the TFD and the resulting DRV was that the "show/hide" system should not be used anywhere in the project."[reply]
30. Jahiegel (talk · contribs) (04:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC) , supported the straw poll option Image should not be hidden & have no disclaimer ("One is spared my usual verbosity here, as Black and Bryan, inter al., put the case quite well.")[reply]
31. Rossami (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (14:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC) ==The image is already public== "I have to say that I think this whole dispute is a tempest in a teacup. That image is already widely known and universally recognized as part of the Rorschach test. It's in pretty-much every Psych 101 textbook and in a vast number of pop psychology articles and books and has been for decades. To the extent that prior exposure to the image compromises that part of the test, any theoretical damage was done many years ago. Having the image on the page adds so little incremental exposure that the damage, if any, is in my opinion trivial. It's certainly not enough to deserve this level of debate and dissent among well-meaning Wikipedians."[reply]
32. Resolute (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (03:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC) "...looking over the recent debate, I tend to agree that consensus currently is to show the image by default. I will unprotect and unhide the image shortly, though I would not be surprised if warring over the image resumes." (15:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC) "those opposing hiding the images have policy and guidelines on their side: WP:CENSOR, WP:No disclaimers in articles, WP:Content disclaimer, etc. Those wishing to hide the image are relying on a medical reason that is without merit under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That isn't to say that I don't understand the concern from your end. (...) However, after reading the debate, including the archives of the previous debates, I am of the opinion that consensus has changed, and that the image should be displayed until a better alternative is agreed upon."[reply]
33. Clpo13 (talk · contribs) (10:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC) "It's one picture in a test that is widely considered to be pseudo-science. Even so, I still fail to see how the picture is a problem at all. I've looked through the talk page discussions and the only thing I can gather is that some people are worried that readers of this article will see the picture, note that the caption says something about a bat and a coat of arms, and then be influenced by that in the rather unlikely event that they take an inkblot test sometime in the future. If that's not correct, then it might be handy if someone outlined the problem so that newcomers to this discussion will know the whole story without having to go hunting for it. At any rate, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of certain groups. When your livelihood depends on images that are in the public domain, you have to expect that people are going to come across them. If not on Wikipedia, then somewhere else. The image illustrates the topic, and thus it should stay in full view in a position in the article where it is in context."[reply]
34. Dendodge (talk · contribs) (21:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC) "The images are neither shocking nor explicit. (...) There is no way they will be deleted. There is much more (relevant) policy to support keeping the images than removing them."[reply]
35. Consumed Crustacean (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (03:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC) "The hell with that. The image positioning was the result of months of bickering between people who support the Rorschach test and believe that Wikipedia was somehow tainting the test, and people who realize that Wikipedia doesn't care. Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. Just because a large number of people can bully their version through on this mostly unpopular article does not mean it should be so." (04:33) "The removal of the image from the lead was done because the image was seen to be "objectionable or offensive" by a certain group of editors. That is specifically what WP:NOTCENSORED is about. There is no scientific or even ethical reasoning behind its removal. A fringe pseudoscience is not a legitimate justification for the modification of a Wikipedia article in a detrimental fashion." (05:12) "I think this is bullshit. If someone can provide me a peer-reviewed journal stating that there is damage if someone sees an inkblot, I will support this wholly." (01:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC) "When a person thinks "Rorschach inkblot test" they think, and immediately care about the actual inkblots. The face of Mr. Rorscach is not immediately associated with the test, nor immediately relevant. It's not impossible to include an image at the top and in the relevant section, either." (02:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC) "What does the head of Rorscach have to do with years of research? The only image we have that is relevant to the test itself, and quite relevant indeed, is that of the inkblots used within it."[reply]
36. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk · contribs) (01:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC) "Another article's failings are not a good basis for decisions on what to do in this article. The inkblots are emblematic of the Rorschach test, recognizable to far more people than could even remember the name. Wikipedia articles tend to provide an opening image which helps illustrate, in the best fashion possible, the content of the article. On this article, the most helpful image to begin with is not that of the test;s creator, but that of an example of the centerpiece bolts used on the test." (01:27) "The best image we can provide, therefore, is one of the inkblots, without which the test could not be carried out. Your argument about them being part of the methods and therefore not worthy of being at the top does not hold water, because the blots would be included because of their value as iconic images without regard for their status on the test. It is like claiming that the main article on Windows XP should not have a screenshot at the top because Windows XP is so much more than the graphical interfaces and that you do not begin an article with specifics about GUI. The point for both that image and the proposed move of inkblots to the top, of course, is NOT to illustrate specifics before their due but to illustrate, in the best manner possible, the subject of the article, even if by doing so one happens to illustrate specifics as a side effect." (02:17) "If someone stumbles into this article without recognizing the name and glances at the picture of Rorschach, s/he is no closer to knowing what the article is about, but if you put the image of the blot at the top, chances are the average reader will immediately recognize the test. That's why the blot should be the top image." (19:29) "We should hold to WP:CENSOR. It is not Wikipedia's job to safeguard the sanctity of the test; it's job is to provide informative articles on the subject. This article can be improved by having a picture of an inkblot at the top, and that is all that should matter, not potential "harm" that can be brought upon people who may hypothetically take or would have taken this test at some future point in time. APA guidelines are for it's member psychologists to adhere to, not encyclopedias." (23:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC) "Even if the images cause "harm," wikipedia is not in the business of protecting it's readers from potentially harmful information. Even if we err on the side of caution and assume this test is very important, that showing the image renders it useless, and that every single reader who stumbles into this article wished to take the test at some point in the future, it would all be as irrelevant as APA's ethical guidelines. We are here to distribute information in the best way possible (where Wikipedia's guidelines and policies have been established by the project as what it believes is "the best way possible"). There is no guideline against moving the image to the top and it would be an improvement to the article."[reply]
37. Apoc2400 (talk · contribs) 18:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC) "The blots, particularly the first card, are quite iconic. Having it at the top helps readers identify that they found the right article. Put the picture of Hermann Rorschach just below." (22:56) "Yes. People aren't going to go around reading articles about various psychometric and projective tests unless they want to learn about and compare such tests. Our job is to provide the best possible information to those to seek it." (14:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC) "The idea that having an inkblot at the top makes readers think the test is only about inkblots still makes no sense. Also, we are not here to avoid editwars, but to create the best article possible." (09:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC) "Consensus is not just about counting votes, but it also does not mean that you can ignore anyone you disagree with. If we were sockpuppets or people who were recruited to vote a specific way, then you could ignore us, by we are not."[reply]
38. Shadowjams (talk · contribs) 21:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC) responding to the RFC on the lead image: "The article is about the test not the creator of the test. The blot is a better representation of the test than an image of the creator."[reply]
39. Mangojuice (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (17:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC) (responding to RFC) "Support the inkblot image as the first one. It's iconic, and it is the image a user would most expect to see. The caption can be used to direct the reader away from misconceptions... but I think that whole exercise is somewhat ill-informed: Wikipedia is not the place to right wrongs, it's just a place to convey basic information. Surely, the best way to remove misconceptions is to get the reader interested in reading the entire article, and the best way to do that is to make it clear the reader is at the right article (by starting with the inkblot image) and then encouraging them to read it by not having a preachy caption. This is not an article about Rorschach the man, also -- so an image of him first seems rather out of place, given that we have a more natural choice." (23:51) "It is the natural image to represent the test. I know test is more than the blot. But it does a good job visually representing the test, much better than a portrait of Rorschach."[reply]
40. HarryAlffa (talk · contribs) (16:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC) "My first thought was that if it's about the test, then the inkblot image is the one to use. If this was an article about the man himself, a biography, then the obvious image to use is of the man. In a biography you would surely use an image of an inkblot somewhere, and in skimming the discussion I gather that one image is considered by some to be iconic? I would guess this would be the butterfly one? Well they all look like butterflys! There can be no argument that a biography would use a portrait image, conversely then an article about the inkblot is about the inkblot, so better show an image of one of those please. Use a portrait later on. Why not have both images in the article?"[reply]
41. See #Additional voices

The call

Based on this revision of this page. Additional comments based on amendments and new voices are noted at #The addendum

As I stated above, I came to the article with an eye to making a call on the RFC. Starting around May 14, I took what time I had to review the lengthy history on this matter. Then, on May 21, feeling sufficiently confident of community consensus, made this edit with the edit summary: "consensus seems to exist to move the more descriptive image, being the first inkblot, to the top of the page". I later engaged in discussion on the talk page, starting at Talk:Rorschach test#Other pages with controversial images, a section began by Lawrencekhoo. He moved the image back the next day. Garycompugeek reverted him, and was reverted by Ward. A brief edit war [19] erupted which led to an AN3 report, at which time I felt it necessary to draft this report to demonstrate that consensus is clear on the matter. The initial "consensus" discussion began in May 2007 when Ward joined Faustian and a few other psychologists in demanding the suppression of the image. At that point, it was basically even, 6 mental health professionals arguing with 6 disinterested parties (4 users, 1 anon, and an admin). In the two year period that followed, users regularly edit warred over the images, causing the page to be protected 4 times [20]. During that time, only 7 additional voices^[11], came out in support of suppressing the image. On the other hand, 37 additional voices (23 users, 13 admins, and an anon) agreed that suppression was inappropriate. The ideal place for the Rorschach inkblot image is unhidden, in the lead of the article. Consensus was actually clear as far back as March 2008 (36/12/3) after the failed attempt at using MedCab to enforce suppression. Yet somehow the words of a few interested parties continued to inform our editorial decisions despite the numerous objections (42/13/3) of disinterested editors.

I have no doubt that psychologists do good work.

Editors come from all walks of life including mental health professionals. However, they are all asked to check their biases at the door and edit with an eye to making the encyclopedia as informative as possible. The image is in the public domain, and germane to the article's subject.

Ward pleads, "do read the archives carefully so we don't have to repeat the same points again and again, as Faustian and I have had to do several times above. And of course consensus can change, but thus far it has not."^[12] Indeed, Ward and Faustian have written many hundreds of kb's on the subject. Their arguments are often repetitive, and each has been refuted by disinterested parties.^[13] The burden of proof lies with those wishing a consensus-other-than-the-norm.^[14] The norm is to show the most descriptive image we have available in the lead.

It is clear that many disagree with the suppression the image in any way, shape, or form. It is also clear that it is a very vocal minority, perhaps acting out of deference to their personal and/or professional ethics,^[15] who continue to suppress it. "Consensus does not mean 100% agreement."^[16]

Consensus is built upon the voices of the many, not the voices of the few (or the two) - especially when half^[17] of those few freely admit conflicts of interest. We must not compromise our ethics as encyclopedists for the ethics of an exterior body.

I agree with Ward that consensus has not changed. Consensus has been the same, all along. Based on this exhaustive review, and my understanding of Wikipedia's pillars, policies, and guidelines, consensus is clear to this heretofore uninvolved^[18] admin that the true inkblot image should appear unhidden in the lead of the article.

–xeno^talk 02:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archived from Talk:Rorschach test#The discussion. Additional discussion should be initiated at Talk:Rorschach test.

In this section, I will note clarifications requested and/or made to the review after posting, as well as any additional comments that I noticed after the cut-off revision of the review.

If there is anything in the review that needs clarification, please leave a note at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum#Clarification requests.

Degree of involvement

An important clarification request to address is with respect to potential involvement. The question was raised by Ward at #The discussion (a), and Faustian at my talk page (reproduced below). As such, I added a disclosure note above the review.

The report was also posted for review by neutral parties at the Administrators' noticeboard. It remained there for close to a week, and the conclusion was supported with no concerns raised as to the manner in which it was reached.

Changelog

• [37] Minor changes within 2 hours after transclusion. Grammar, formatting, plus a few dates.
• [38] Fixed Martin's entry as he was in the compromise section in an earlier draft.
• [39] Clarifying header and description.
• [40] Amend per Talk:Rorschach test#The discussion (permlink) cf. Faustian #2 & my reply .
• [41] This change came after Faustian noticed a few missing voices and made note by editing the review directly.
• [42] Added comment from Faustian per request below.
• [43] Per clarification request below.
• [44] Disclosure note as discussed above.
• [45] Per clarification request, added LK's statement in a thread I had initially excluded, with some additional commentary re: involvement.
• [46] Per clarification request, expanded on the AN3 comment to make it clear it ended in mutual agreement.
• [47] To clarify the position of the IP added in change 5.
• [48] Minor clarification plus date of comment, importing proper formatting and linking from original quote.
• [49] Moved table info to footnotes and transcluded addendum.
• [50] Per clarification request, split a section and clarified that the edit war was an isolated incident.
• [51] Also made it clear that Faustian's approach has largely been one of brokering compromises between the two sides.
• [52] A caveat about word choice and making it clear that the dispute has been a civil and rational exchange of opinions, fix a typo.
• [53] Adding further comment from LK per clarification request. Minor format fixes.
• [54] Adding further comment from Saxifrage per clarification request. Added difflink to LK's.
• [55] Fixed one user from rename, added links to now-archived discussions.
• [56] Added permlink in disclosure statement and transclude now-archived discussion about consensus review iteself.

Additional voices

In the original report, I cut off my review at revision 291659328 as after that point I had made comments. However, that doesn't mean additional voices should not be heard. I will note them below and add placeholders in the original report.

• Jmh649 (talk · contribs) commented at Talk:Rorschach test#Arbitrary break: (13:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Having looked at some of the literature I think the image should be moved to the top and the rest of the images should be added aswell in an image gallery at the bottom. (23:30) My comment about placement of the image in the lead is what I feel is correct per Wikipedia. We do not need convincing argument to put the image in the lead we need convincing arguments not to put it in the lead. I have not been convinced of the legitimacy of the above argument.[reply]

The clarification requests

Since I have signed the report, I would appreciate it if no one edits it directly; however, I welcome suggestions for amendments brought up either on the article talk page, but preferably below (make each request on its own line prefixed with a *bullet and signed individually) and I will incorporate accordingly. –xeno^talk 17:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you just want to make a quick clarification or affirmation of your position, see below at #The clarifications.

• (none currently)

The clarifications

Below you can make a quick clarification or affirmation based on your current position towards the placement of the image. Simply add your name to the list. Brief commentary is acceptable, but for longer statements, use the clarification requests section.

I feel the image belongs in the lead and would object to it being moved.

• Extensive explanation of my point of view is in the archives. Chillum 14:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ditto. My opinions are in the archives (see a summary here.) hmwithτ 15:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It's been a long time since I was active on this page, but the same principle applies: we do not censor images out of deference to false copyright claims, or concerns that the info will somehow invalidate tests (info on other articles could change results on other tests), or because some people want to protect something related to their occupation. DreamGuy (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• My position is as demonstrated at Talk:Rorschach_test/2009_consensus_review. We can not possibly hope to accommodate every editor's personal viewpoint, and to try to do so would result in this project becoming utterly worthless. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) in the cylindrical shape of the neuron..[reply]
• Xeno accurately represents my position, which remains absolutist, in his review. Joe 17:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• [57] You summarised my position correctly and put me in the right group. Thanks, Schutz (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accurate. In principle, I don't mind moving the image "below the fold" so long as we have an image at the top that is clearly appropriate, but since I object to the portrait, an outline, or a fake inkblot, I can't think what image could possibly satisfy me. I had indicated at some point that I was amenable to including an outline at the top but honestly I don't feel comfortable with it, and was saying that only to try to get the conflict resolved through a lot less effort than Xeno put forth in this review. Mangojuice^talk 01:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Xeno has summarized my position well. I have watched this page for years. First to get the image unhidden (was amazed we were actually hiding an image) then extensive debates to relocate it to most relevant location. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I am of this opinion. I came to this page after the compromise of having the page below the fold was already enacted, and still argued on the talk page for want of seeing it lead the document. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The image definitely belongs in the lead, a group of experts wanting to suppress the image in the public domain is not sufficient justification to hide / replace with a fake / etc. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Someguy1221 (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• All the ten official inkblots should be shown, with at least one of them in the lead section. Prolog (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Halo (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm a bit late to the party, but I still stand by my earlier comments that the image belongs in the lead as it is a suitable depiction of the article's subject. --clpo13_(talk) 08:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to other options, if convincing arguments were put forth for moving the image, but presently feel it belongs in the lead.

• My position is as expressed here and here, and as summarized by xeno. I would not object to moving the image to the "Methods" or "Test materials" section as long as that move was supported by a good editorial reason (i.e. better illustrating the text content of the section) and not just a desire to suppress the image. Having an image in the lead is desirable but, in my opinion, not essential. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Longer explanation in the archives but this argument by Black Falcon summarizes my position well. Rossami (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the image belongs in the "Methods" or "Test materials" section.

• This follows wikipedia policy regarding consensus which calls for synthesizing the diverse opinions of various editors and reaching a compromise, taking into account the opinions of editors (not a tiny minority, but 1/3 of those involved) who feel that image ought to be limited for various reasons and those do not want it limited. Otherwise, consensus is reduced to just a vote, which is contrary to consensus policy. Plus, the article is about the test not inkblots and the materials or methods section is the most strictly accurate place for them.Faustian (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the image should not be shown in the article at all.

• I believe that no real Rorschach inkblot image should be shown in this article, for the reasons I have already given. But if this is not possible I would support an image only in the "Methods" or "Test materials" section. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• When psychologists administer this test, the results are based (in part) on the persons spontaneous reaction to the blot. If they have seen it before (like on Wikipedia) that may well influence their response when taking the test. Therefore that person is then deprived of the opportunity to receive the best possible test results, compromising their mental health care. Monnica Williams (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• I believe that, even as unexpected as it may sound, in this case the images should not be displayed. There are precedents, and it is contrary to the humane reasons why people gather knowledge in the first place. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am confirming my position in the original report

• Hi xeno, thanks for letting me know about your review of the Rorschach discussion. I just write to confirm that I agree with your summary of my position. --Itub (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like you classified me correctly. You may also be interested to note that there's been a bit of a history of attempts to delete these images from Commons, too: Commons:Talk:Rorschach inkblot test. Not sure how relevant it is as far as English Wikipedia is concerned but it involved pretty much the same reasons. Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no preference where the image should be placed. My opinion being that as an encyclopedia, the image should not be removed/hidden for the sake of censorship. - oahiyeel ^talk 15:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I prefer the image in the lead, I am willing to accept placing it elsewhere for the sake of compromise in order to accommodate other editors' opinions and bring an end to the dispute.

• 

Other quick clarification

• 

from Faustian

• I believe that I ought to also be in the compromise section. This is what I have been doing consistantly. Along those lines, I object to your characterization of me as "argued consistently for over two years to keep the image as suppressed as possible as the climate of consensus changed." This seems to be putting an inaccurate negative twist on what I have been doing. I have been arguing to integrate ethical concerns with the need to provide good information. While arguing against those who would have the image in the lead, I have argued for ways of integrating their views with ethical concerns. In fact, one of the compromisers, Diego, compromised with exactly the version that I proposed: [58]. Faustian (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't disagree that you have been recently arguing from a position of compromise for some time, however your actual position was made clear with your earlier edits. I have included your comment below your listing. –xeno^talk 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If you look at my history I have been calling for compromise on this article for a very long time, not recently. It's always been central to my approach of editing on any article and I've even been awarded barnstars for such behavior on other topics (just scroll down my user page). I've always valued the collaborative approach and have tried my best to be collaborative. This is why I take issue with how I was characterized.Faustian (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  An approach to be admired no matter the dispute. When things settle down and I get through your other requests, I'll take a closer look at this. –xeno^talk 18:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, please do. I consider collaborative editing to be very important and do not wish to be mislabelled. Although I do feel that it is irrespionsible and unnecessary to show the images, I have consistently for years worked on crafting compromises that take mine and other positions into account. Describing me as "Has edit-warred[5] and argued consistently for over two years to keep the image as suppressed as possible as the climate of consensus changed" seems to ascribe to me motivations of bad faith and I hope that this can be reworded. Let me help you by diggin up examples of my consistent attempts to forge consensus through compromise:

  By September 2007, I went from my original position of preferring simulations of inkblots to defending a compromise version that someone else had created, in which the images are hidden and require a click: [59]. Here [60]in October 2007 I expressed openness (albeit with reservations) for a further compromise by another editor involving unhiding the image but placing it further down, although I continued to advocate for the previous compromise of keeping the hidden image:

  Not accepting hidden pic. Will accept pic placed down the page with warning at the top as long as warning flows with the text of the article.Geni 16:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  A pic further down on the page with a warning is better than one on the top with no warning. It at least doesn't automatically force anyone looking up Rorschach on wikipedia to see the image. It allows them the choice of not reading the rest of the article in order to avoid the image. But the fundamental problem is still there. By placing the image farther down, you are still not giving those who choose to read the entire article the choice of whether or not they would like to see the image. Shouldn't readers have the right to read the entire article without being forced to see the image?Faustian 18:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  Yet another agreement to a proposed compromise solution, a few days later:[61]. In March 2008 I agreed to the unhide but compromised by moving the image further down: [62]:Oops, my mistake. :-) That said, would you object to moving the image to the "Test materials" section? In that section, the image would illuminate a number of points including: "the basic premise of the test is that objective meaning can be extracted from responses to blots of ink which are supposedly meaningless", [s]upporters of the Rorschach inkblot test believe that the subject's response to an ambiguous and meaningless stimulus can provide insight into their thought processes", and "recent research shows that the blots are not entirely meaningless". Black Falcon (Talk) 01:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC) That would work, too, and I will move it there.Faustian (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC) And with that latter compromise the page was stable for about a year, until the current bickering. I will note that we seem to have reached the point where no further compromise seems possible because there is nothing left for the minority to agree to other than a version that it 100% in the majority's favor. I thought consensus was compromise, not changing the goals posts every few months until in the end it's just majority preference with no minority input.

  Back to my point, again, I feel that given my history I ought to be in the compromise category. Hopefully the background I found for you will help you make a change sooner than later.Faustian (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  As for my edit warring, in the example you linked to I was reverting an anonymous editor who made changes without going to the talk page. My 2+ year history of involvement on this article has few edit warring incidents, so I feel it gives ann unfair impression of me when in my description one of the first said about me is that I "edit-warred". I request that you reword my description.Faustian (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Done [63] I believe I have addressed your above concerns, but let me know if I missed anything.

  Faustian, it is my honest opinion that you are in the appropriate section. The "Editors compromising" section is for those who, preferring open display, are acceding to some suppression in the interests of compromise/diplomacy/avoiding edit wars/etc. You, on the other hand, admit that you have been acceding to (increasingly open) display since editors, over time, no longer wanted to accept whatever form of suppression was in place. That is, your starting position is "prefer not to show at all". The fact that you broker compromises is to be commended, but doesn't change this fact. Am I wrong? –xeno^talk 18:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Your description is absolutely correct (although my preferred position has shifted to wanting the image hidden with a click to see the actual image, although we have moved beyond that). I just feel that compromise can work from both directions - some compromise from the position of let's show it completely, others compromise from the opposite direction.Faustian (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on this: [64]MarkAnthonyBoyle (talk · contribs) also needs to removed from the "Editors who disagreed with the suppression of the image" and placed in the compromise section: "Umm, look, I think I've made myself clear. The compromise of hiding the image with a warning that vieing it may invalidate a test is a very good one. I don't have a problem with that." Faustian (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Done –xeno^talk 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  ThanksFaustian (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In future edits, for the sake of accuracy, if you must use only 2 numbers I suggest you place compromisers together with no "suppressors". Incidentally, we seem to have a ratio of about 1/3 to 2/3. Is there any way of coming together or do the 1/3 people don't count when the actual article content is considered?Faustian (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If I refer to numbers in the future, I will use all three numbers. I don't think we can lump compromisers cleanly into either polar side, some lean one way, some lean the other. Your question (does the minority not "count") is a good one, but beyond the scope of my report and probably best taken up at WT:Consensus#Is consensus compromise? and sometime in the future, when things settle down, I will try to compose my thoughts on this in further detail. –xeno^talk 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And you probably should have included Lawrence Khoo's clearest comments: "For what it's worth, some images on the page on Bahá'u'lláh and on Muhammad are also controversial. The current consensus on those pages (see Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo and Talk:Muhammad/images respectively), is to keep the images, but to set them further down the page so that those who do not want to view the images have some forewarning, and can make a choice in the matter." LK (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC).cheers,Faustian (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Done [65] I had initially not included this section as I had participated, but as this comment occurred prior to that, it should be fine. –xeno^talk 19:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks!Faustian (talk)

• Thanks for including my comments. Could you recategorize MarkAnthonyBoyle [some redundancy redacted] and could you remove Black Falcon from the list? Thanks....Faustian (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem. Already  Done and  Not done per above and below, respectively. –xeno^talk 19:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wrt BlackFalcon

• Based on his comments here: [66] in which he indicated no specific preference (and thus he cannot be categorized) Black Falcon ought to be removed from the list. Faustian (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  As I read Black Falcon's clarification, it seems to me sufficiently clear that he disagrees with suppression of the image strictly in deference to the potential harm argument. He is willing to entertain the moving of the image for editorial reasons ("if there is a reason to do this that does not rely solely or primarily on a desire to suppress the image"). –xeno^talk 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, however prior to May 22nd he did support placing it in the test materials section and since then he hasn't made a decision. Therefore he shouldn't be lumped together with those wanting it in the lead.Faustian (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  In March 2008, he disagreed with the hiding (via collapsible table) of the image which was the issue at the time, so I think he is appropriately placed. However, if he tells me that he does not belong in that section, I will move him. –xeno^talk 19:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  His solution to the hiding was to place the image in the test materials section, unhidden. If he feels that it truly belongs there his catgory should be swiitched. If he is unsure of where it belongs he should not be in any category.Could you ask him if he prefers being in either section or in no section as an undecided?Faustian (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I will ask him. I am also pondering a suitably neutral way to contact all the editors I've counted to make sure I haven't misrepresented them. –xeno^talk 05:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As both of you have correctly noted, my position was and is that the location of the image should be determined based on where it best fits the text, regardless of whether that is above or below the fold, with the ultimate purpose of improving readers' understanding of the subject. I am not so much concerned about not having an image for the lead as I am about letting a desire to "soft suppress" affect the decision of where where the image is placed.

Part of me thinks that it may be worth, at this point, to compromise for the sake of compromise itself, just so that this dispute can be over. I do not doubt that most parties on both sides have pursued it in good faith, but I also think that it has largely run its course, in that there is little or nothing new to be said about the issue (desirability/undesirability) of suppression. Regardless of which particular column my name is added to, there is at least a two-thirds majority opposed to the very principle of suppressing the image. To me, this suggests that any continuing discussion about the placement of the image should leave alone the issue of suppression and focus on standard, editorial reasons. One mark more or less in a particular section won't make much difference.

By the way, I know that most of the discussion so far has considered the options of placement in the lead and in the "Test materials" section, but I would like to offer a middle-point: the "Methods" section, which starts with the following text:

There are ten official inkblots. Five inkblots are black ink on white paper. Two are black and red ink on white paper. Three are multicolored. After the individual...

I think that this could be a fitting location for the image—i.e. the place where the image best serves to illustrate the text. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. However, I don't think it should be moved because it could harm readers. hmwithτ 15:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So would you be willing to accept the image in the test materials section rather than in the lead?Faustian (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there was consensus that was where it fit best in the article and there wasn't a better image of the test. However, at the current time, the inkblot is the best image to use, so it should go on the top right (per WP:MOS). I can't think of an image that would be better in the lead, besides perhaps an image of the test being given, but if someone did find one, that new image could go at the top. This article should be treated no differently than any other article. The best image of the topic in the lead, others in relevant sections. Normal procedure. hmwithτ 17:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Ward3001

• I'm sure "Rorschach" is your least favorite word right now, and understandably so. Let me reiterate my appreciation for all your hard work. I know you have your hands full right now, but when you get a chance I would appreciate your considering a point I wish to make here. You mentioned the AN3 report on me (Was the subject of a recent AN3 report), which I think is acceptable, EXCEPT you have not mentioned that Garycompugeek is as guilty as I was of edit warring. I don't think it is sufficient to simply provide a link to the AN3 report without mentioning our mutual guilt in edit warring. I'm not asking you to accuse him of anything, but I think it is only fair if you mention the report about me, there should be some statement as to his involvement. This is not a vendetta against him, just a desire to have a fair and balanced reporting of the situation. If you feel it best not to bring him up in relation to that issue, I think you should remove any mention of it whatsoever. If you disagree, I would appreciate an explanation. Many thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your comments Ward. I hope you, as well, realize I am attempting to remain as neutral as I can throughout this and am certainly willing to look at any instances including this one where you feel I may have fallen short of the mark. I would also like to re-iterate that I have no problem with professionals/experts editing Wikipedia articles in their chosen fields (it only makes sense... I edit video games - perhaps the only thing I can consider myself an expert on ;>). As to your clarification request:  Done [67] [68] Is this better? –xeno^talk 20:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite acceptable. And I fully understand your comments about experts. I personally think that Wikipedia should have some degree of editorial oversight by established experts for some articles, but that's a much broader issue that goes beyond any disagreements (or agreements) between you and me. Thanks again for all your efforts on the Rorschach issue, including this most recent request by me. Cheers! Ward3001 (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From others

From Lawrencekhoo

I would like it emphasized that my position now is, consensus on this page should not be considered in isolation from consensus on other pages with controversial images. Wikipedia should have a reasonably standardized policy on controversial images. As it stands now, consensus on Wikipedia appears to be, to include clearly relevant controversial images, but to place them further down the article so that readers have some choice in the matter. LK (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done [69]. –xeno^talk 14:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Saxifrage

• For what it's worth, I no longer hold the view expressed in my original comment. The inkblot in question is already extensively disseminated (Google Image Search). There is no prospect of putting this egg back into its shell, and it would be absurd for Wikipedia to undermine its editorial integrity to preserve a secrecy that is non-existent. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  So, just to clarify, do you fit into any of the above pre-written statements? (If not, I'll just indent your section and include this comment below it) –xeno^talk 23:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The categories are mostly about placement, which I don't have an opinion on. Rather, I just don't think the alleged secrecy of the image should be a factor in placement. I wouldn't "object" to it being put elsewhere than the lede so long as it was on grounds other than hiding it, so I suppose the best fit is "prefer the lede, but I'd rather see the dispute end." — Saxifrage ✎ 00:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. Based on the above, you don't move from your spot in the review, but I'll add your comments below your line item.  Done [70] –xeno^talk 00:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]