I removed the top image, which showed an advanced case of RA in an elderly patient who did not have access to the medications we have today. It is no longer reflective of the disease and its progression and its placement on this page means it's one of the first images that pops up when you search for RA on the internet. I can tell you from personal experience that's a very upsetting thing to see, so why subject people to it when there are more representative images to use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisnotnpov (talk • contribs)
You have a point, but the image can be highly illustrative. I agree that severe deformity is now unusual apart from in those who somehow do not receive timely treatment. Nevertheless, for most of history this was the ultimate fate of someone with RA. Medical textbooks contain similar images. If anything needs improving it is the caption under the image - this should emphasise that severe deformity is now the exception rather than the rule. JFW | T@lk 21:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
So keep the image in the entry, but not make it the top image? Why make the worst case scenario of a disease the illustration of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisnotnpov (talk • contribs) 23:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
This image does not show the condition. It is just a drawing and IMO is not as good.
People who do not have access to modern treatments still end up with significant deformity. We do not want people believing that RA is not serious. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Disagree. The drawing shows how the disease works, whereas the photo shows its effects on one person who is not reflective of all sufferers of the disease. The photo is still in the article, it's just not being used as the image that represents the disease. Please stop reversing my edits because you want to catastrophize an illness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisnotnpov (talk • contribs) 21:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
It is a serious condition. There is no rule that says the lead picture must represent all forms of the disease. For young people, who can afford proper treatment, yes the disease is not as severe any more. This is not the global or historical reality. We are not just writing for young wealthy people. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with "young wealthy people." This is about showing the most representative image of the disease. Showing the mechanisms of it is obviously much more informative as to what it is and does than a deformed hand. Your comments indicate that you do not know much about the reality of the disease beyond one potential outcome that you insist on presenting for shock value. Please stop changing the header image away from an informative diagram of how the disease works. Again, the hand photo is still in the article for you to gawk at; just not at the very top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisnotnpov (talk • contribs) 20:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The RfC is closed with a consensus for image 1. This is an RfC for which the choice to be made is largely a matter of personal preference. The primary arguement against image 1 is that it depicts an extreme stage/presentation of the disease not usually reached with modern treatments. On the other hand, the caption makes clear that this is the case. Image 1 may be upsetting but not shocking per my reading of MOS:IMAGELEAD. I also observed some reported issue with rendering of image 2 on mobile devices.
There is merit in option 4 as a means of reaching consensus. However, it did not garner sufficient comment to achieve consensus. There was a clear consensus for option 1, while there was no consensus for option 2. There was also insufficient comments for the other options to achieve consensus.
Closing an RfC formed this way, with competing options requesting a support/oppose response can be challenging, particularly when other options are then added. I would suggest, for future reference, that the comments request a preferred option. This allows commenters to indicate an order of preference.
Posting neutral comments to project pages is not canvassing. However, I would remind editors that there is a fine distinction between collaborative, constructive discussion and WP:DISRUPTION - it is much like that between art and pornography.
Support This is a clear example of the condition and still unfortunately is relatively common. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Support with the changed caption. This kind of picture will be found in every medical textbook and reflects the potential harms of untreated RA. Only until recently this was the fate that someone with RA could expect. JFW | T@lk 09:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose for the reasons I stated below.--Shibbolethink(♔♕) 21:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - See below. But retain in the article.Jschnur (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - As this is merely a possible outcome of the disease and an increasingly less common one at that, I believe this image belongs in the body of the article but should not be the lead image that essentially represents the disease. Thisnotnpov (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Support given the two choices. The diagram shows poorly on mobile, and won't be easily understood to those who don't recognize a cross-section of a joint. Also, it can't be translated because it's not svg and labels are over the diagram. Image 1, even though extreme, is easily recognizable, and still common enough (esp globally). I'd favour making a diagram like this. Happy to help with the design if there is consensus on what is best suited. Ian Furst (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Support per Doc James. It's an extreme example of the condition - but textbook examples are often extreme, because a striking image generates interest in the subject and helps readers remember the signs of the condition. The diagram isn't easily understandable to a lay reader unless they have already read through the lead, so it shouldn't be the first thing they see when they open the article. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
As Doc James is recruiting editors to vote his way, these support votes should not count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisnotnpov (talk • contribs) 02:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Support Image recognizable and understandable by non-experts at a glance. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Support Textbook example of sequelae of rheumatoid arthritis. Cynistrategus (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Support Lede image should be as general as possible and be informative to as many people as possible. Image 1 classical sign of RA, understandable to the general public. Image 2 is a presentation of the anatomical pathology of the disease, it summarizes only one aspect of the disease. The same goes for image 3, which is an awareness ribbon, which is not related to the core problems of the disease. I am not aware of any medical textbook hosting this specific image, so I do not see the reason we place it at the lede. Images 4 and 5 are far too complicated. Cinadon36 19:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I honestly fail to see what is "far too complicated" (or for that matter more complicated to any degree) about presenting the two images together, especially considering I have already done the legwork on compositing the images and thus the work would be no more complicated than sticking in the image, same as with any other one of the options here. That said, so long as the relist leads to a consensus for any of the images here, it will have done its work: I'm not particularly attached to my proposal (which was just an attempt to break the deadlock that existed here otherwise) and option one is perfectly suitable as far as I am concerned. Still, as a pedantic matter, I don't see the objection raised to option 4 in this !vote holds any water. Snowlet's rap 14:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose as lead image. If it did not have RA written it in, it would not be clear what they are trying to express. As such it is not ideal for the lead IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. Not suitable as lead image, as it contains information much more relevant to other sections of the article. Preference would be for an image without text and ideally not a diagram either. JFW | T@lk 09:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Support - I don't think image 1 is bad, and it should probably go into the article but image 2 definitely strikes me as more informative. Jfdwolff - re "Preference would be for an image without text and ideally not a diagram either" - You mean your personal preference? Your comment made me wonder whether we have any kind of policy on this topic (i.e. are diagram or images better in lede). After a little searching, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Images was the closest I got. That policy doesn't seem to give clear guidance, beyond saying that the lead image shouldn't be "shocking". NickCT (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
NickCT This was my personal preference I was referring to and not a policy. I disagree that this image is "shocking" but in someone with arthritis symptoms it may be unsettling - hence my adjustments to the caption. JFW | T@lk 08:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Jfdwolff - Thank you for clarifying. For the record, I personally don't think the image is shocking, but I do think it's possible that a reasonably minded person might find it shocking. NickCT (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I have the disease and I can tell you with great certainty that Image 1 is shocking. When I got my diagnosis, one of the first things I did was look it up. This Wikipedia entry with that lead image was the first thing I saw. It was extremely upsetting and ultimately (according to my doctor) not actually informative given the remarkable advances in disease treatment. The image is reflective of someone with a severe form of the disease who has been untreated for decades. Thisnotnpov (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The thing is, the article is not meant to be exclusively (or even necessarily primarily), about the progress of the disease for those who are lucky enough to receive preventative care that halts or stalls the typical progression of the disease without treatment. I assure you, there are many many millions of people in the world whose extremities look like this (or worse) due to age, lack of access to necessary treatment, or because the typical prescribed treatment is counter-indicated or partly ineffective for them--and there will continue to be such people for the foreseeable future. I sincerely hope that your own treatment is as completely effective as is possible and that you never have to face the outcome that was previously typical of many individual cases, but to the extent that you do manage to avoid such outcomes, your case (and that of most people in affluent western nations) will not be indicative of the typical course of the disease but rather a medically-averted progression to that stage. I do appreciate that the image, previously lacking a caption, led to unnecessarily extreme concern on your part--and I think we should all be grateful that you took the time to point the issue out. But I do think that the caption now addresses that issue, and that the image still continues to serve as an illustration of what the disease does, as a matter of gross pathology, when untreated. Which I think is of immense value to anyone coming to this article to understand the topic as a clinical/empirical matter. Snowlet's rap 03:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
A lead image that shows how the disease works on ALL sufferers is obviously more informative than one showing a possible outcome of the disease for some. The image of the hand is in the article so nothing is lost here. There are many other articles about diseases that do not use an end-stage untreated victim as the lead image, so I see no reason why we should do so in this one.Thisnotnpov (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Support - I think the diagram (image 2) is a useful lead image and is a great overview of what we know about rheumatoid arthritis and its pathogenesis. I think image 1 is also useful to illustrate the disease and its consequences, and should remain a part of the article. I just think #2 is a more informative pic and a better overview of the subject matter.--Shibbolethink(♔♕) 17:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Support - Given that the deformity shown in image 1 is now much less common than in the past I think it is more valuable to show the mechanism of the disease. That said, I like the idea of both being included.Jschnur (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Support - For the reasons I stated above. Thisnotnpov (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - see my explanation under Image 1. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
All votes after July 3 will not count here as they are the result of Doc James recruiting editors to vote his way. There were several weeks for editors to weigh in here and they did and voted that Image 2 should be used as the lead, so that is what we will do.Thisnotnpov (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
oppose Too technical to decipher. Must be in a section which explains all its detail. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
oppose Fine for the article as a diagram of the pathophysiology, but not a particularly good demonstration of what the disease looks like. Cynistrategus (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
It has now been more than a month, nothing has been decided, and the default is keeping Image 1 up even though it lost the initial vote. To switch it to the image that got the majority vote is apparently considered "edit warring." As I am all about compromise, I have found a third way. This is an RA awareness ribbon. Disease awareness ribbons have been used as the lead image for other diseases (check the HIV/AIDS entry). Can someone tell me how much longer I am supposed to wait before the inevitable conclusion that whatever Doc James says is right? Then I can go to all the other disease articles and propose to change their lead images to the disease's worst case scenario in order to keep Wikipedia consistent. Thisnotnpov (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose: I can appreciate the perceived need for a third alternative, but placing this ribbon as the lead image would represent far, far less educational value than either of the other two proposed images. Snowlet's rap 00:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Adds very little value. The deformed hand and/or the diagram are much better, Jschnur (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Support Wikipedia uses awareness ribbons for other diseases so I'm surprised to see editors arguing that such an image does not have "educational value." I assume you will be changing these image on those entries, too? Thisnotnpov (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose as completely useless for understanding of the topic. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
As has been noted above, this discussion has exceeded the 1 month threshold and is in fact about to enter into sixth week terrirory, with no further comments in the last two weeks. I think the only reasonable outcome a closer could arrive at from the rather obviously deadlocked support for the two options above is "no consensus", which would leave this issue in limbo. Thisnotpov has proposed a third option above, but I think it is likely to get even less support than either of the previous options. So I am going to take the time to promote an idea I floated in discussion below to a formal proposal, hoping that this middle ground solution might be something both groups of editors can get behind, since it preserves much of the utility of both images. Specifically I propose that we merge Image 1 and Image 2 to allow the two to reinforce one-another's strengths. I have created three separate versions of the combined image for consideration for this potential use:
Rheumatoid Arthritis - Combination Image - gross pathophysiology and diaggram of internal joint pathophysiology v1.jpg
Rheumatoid Arthritis - Combination Image - gross pathophysiology and diaggram of internal joint pathophysiology v3.jpg
(Note that I imagine with the and first and third variations, we would just combine elements of the caption with the current caption under the image on the presently live version of the article, which provides the caveat that the photograph is of a late stage presentation often avoidable with modern treatment. I can also adjust the content of the internal caption if it is felt this will improve option 4-2)
Support (as nom): I believe this may be a case where the first two proposed images being utilized together, reinforcing one-another (from differing levels of scale and forms of representation) is a better option than either one is alone. Snowlet's rap 00:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Support Thank you Snow rise for your efforts. 4.2 now has my support as a compromise that attempts the best of both worlds. Jschnur (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Jschnur. :) I should probably reiterate at this point that I can (and probably should) add the word "advanced" or "severe" to in-file caption for 4-2; the out-of-file caption might be eliminated if consensus adopts this version, in which case it would be helpful to add some of the caveat about swelling this severe being avoidable for many patients benefiting from contemporary treatments, in order to address Thisnotpov's concerns. I believe I can strike wording that adds this point without adding more than 20% more words, thus keeping the middle panel the same size and the over-all profile of the combined image the same. Snowlet's rap 07:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose If you're going to use Image 1 then just use Image 1. I have made my reasoning for changing the lead image clear above. Using an image that shows one possible outcome of a severe form of the disease is not informative as it does not happen to everyone who has the disease. If editors insist that a deformity be the lead image for everyone to gawk at then just do it. Embrace your ableism and stop pretending this is about showing how the disease works or ensuring that the image with the most "educational value" represents the disease as its lead image. Oh hey, I just noticed that paralysis doesn't have any lead image; shouldn't we change it to a quadriplegic person? The AIDS/HIV entry's lead image is a red ribbon, which does not show the progression or mechanics of the disease at all. The Crohn's disease entry has the unmitigated gall to use a diagram as the lead image. I could go on. No one seems to have an answer to this question despite my having asked it several times now. Very telling. Thisnotnpov (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
"If you're going to use Image 1 then just use Image 1" You need to try to avoid viewing this from exclusively your own position: you are clearly endorsing Option 2 (or Option 3, or whatever will work) out of a desire to not see Option 1 adopted. While policy does not prohibit that, it is clear from the comments here that every other editor is weighing the options against one-another based on relative positive merits of each option, not just an effort to game one potential outcome. So the hybrid version may very well address the concerns of the other editors: we shall see, but at a minimum, this discussion is not a zero sum conflict for the rest of us, as it appears to be for you.
My "zero sum" conflict here is that I do not think an image of one outcome of the disease is the best use of the lead image spot and, in this case, gives the reader the inaccurate impression that this is what RA looks like for everyone who has it by virtue of its placement as the lead image of the article (which is why I do not object to its use, just its use as the lead image). So of course I would not support an image that includes it for the same reason I don't support the original one. Moreover, I do not believe the image is necessary to explain what the diagram is showing nor does it improve on the diagram. I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to "game" here, as this has been my position from the start and is literally the reason I am here. Thisnotnpov (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
As to it being "telling" that people have stopped engaging with you over your concerns, it absolutely is, but the story being told has nothing to do with others here having no response to your argument and much more to do with the fact that we are becoming increasingly exhausted with the needlessly WP:battleground/WP:disruptive manner in which you are approaching discussion here. However, since you want a response to your comments about how various other articles have approached their lead images, I will try to make the time to respond to you as soon as I may in the discussion section below. Suffice it to say, the problem with your arguments is that they constitute WP:OTHERSTUFF objections that do not hold up when we compare them to the context of this content issue in this article. Snowlet's rap 20:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Thisnotnpov (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Support this seems to answer the reasons why some people didn't like Image 2 (it was a drawing and not a photograph, not immediately recognizable, etc.) whilst being a better example of what RA "looks" like for the vast majority of its sufferers than Image 1. It is also, as Ian said, the type of image one sees on many sites about the disease so there is precedence for using something like this. I support keeping Image 1 as an example of a more severe/untreated case, but within the body of the article. Thisnotnpov (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose This is just someone rubbing their hands. Not specific enough for RA IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Is that even rheumatoid arthritis? Cynistrategus (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
It has been several weeks and it looks like the editors support using the diagram as the lead image. I've updated the article to put the diagram back into the lead image spot and moved the photo of the hand into the article as an example of joint damage the disease can cause. Thank you for weighing in! Doc James, I hope this ends your personal crusade to put disease worst case scenarios front and center on Wikipedia. Thisnotnpov (talk) 04:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
How about we edit a version of image two wherein we remove the top portion--which is fine for contrast, but is not ultimately essential for understanding any of terms in the bottom half. We then format the width of the remaining (bottom) section of image 2 (the description of the various pathophysiological elements of the disease as it affects joints), and then increase it's width to that of image 1 (while keeping it's aspect ratio constant). Then we place the remaining portion of image 2 under image one--which I agree is the best image overall for giving the reader a sense of the presentation of the disease. But I'd like to suggest that this is a case where two images in the lead together reinforcing one-another from differing levels of scale and representation are probably better than either one is alone. Just a thought. :) Snowlet's rap 09:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Seriously? Several editors have already voted that Image 2 is the best image to use as the lead image. Image 1 is IN THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE. Frankly it's starting to seem a little bit ableist that some people are insisting that an image of the most severe and late stage form of the disease is front and center for you to gawk at. Hey, why don't we go over to MS section next and put up a photo of Annette Funicello in her last days as the lead image? I can't help but notice that the lead image for AIDS is a red ribbon. How about we switch that out with a photo of David Kirby? :) Thisnotnpov (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate that you are new to the project, but please try to understand that there is WP:NORUSH here: the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can take time to formulate. Nor is there really much consensus to speak of here to begin with: you have two !votes in support of one option, and four !votes for the other, which your typical closer is unlikely to view as conclusive enough for a closure opting for one option over the other. I think this is a false choice personally and urge the consideration of other reasonable middle-ground solutions, but if I had to choose between the two options, it would be image 1, diminishing any absolute consensus further. What's more the discussion has been open just barely three weeks, and the earliest a close will typically be considered is typically 30 days (some RfC discussions will go twice that or more). This is very much a topic which can stand some more discussions.
Lastly, please try to keep your comments focused on the content itself rather than ascribing nefarious/bigoted/ignorant motives to the people whose perspectives you disagree with. This is a WP:MEDRS topic about a form of disease: it's perfectly reasonable that some editors would see the ideal image as one which represents the clinical representation of the disease in gross examination. It's also reasonable to think that a particular image represents a more extreme case and should be avoided for that reason: ironically enough, I've seen DocJames make that very argument himself on another, not all-too-different article. But equating the difference in opinion over which image better represents the pathophysiology of the disease to some sort objective to represent people with the condition as invalids, is just plain weird, if I'm blunt. Nobody in the entire course of this discussion has said or implied anything even remotely in that vein--and your extreme false analogy (the idea of using a picture of a famous person afflicted with a late stage representation of the disease is nothing remotely like using a close-up of the extremities to show a clinical presentation, regardless of whether or not it is an extreme case...) doesn't help either. That kind of rhetorical approach won't gain you much support in consensus discussions on this project, and can quickly become perceived as WP:disruptive. Again, please confine your comments to the merits of the suggested approaches to the content issue and away from speculation about why you think another editor is supporting one approach over another, especially if said speculation is going to be as wild, unfounded, and out-of-left-field as your implication above.
And again, try to understand that a 4:3 !vote after a couple of weeks is not solid consensus and resist the urge to imply people "aren't letting it go" when the discussion has only progressed to that point. It was actually an inpapropriate action for you to take to replace the image while the RfC issue was still live and there had been no formal close or finding of consensus. You didn't get called on it, because the participation here is low and I don't think most people are that concerned about either of these options prevailing over the other. But youdefinetly need to slow your roll here a little bit and try to understand the pace at which consensus processes on this discussion progress, especially given your lack of familiarity. Snowlet's rap 02:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Ian, a cross section of a joint is not immediately recognizable to many people. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I just can't agree that's a huge problem, since the diagram is clearly labelled. But I do still believe the photo is the better of the two options. However, I still don't understand why both sides here are so dead set on treating this as a zero sum issue; there's more than ample room for the bottom portion of the diagram (which communicates every bit as much information as the full diagram) and the photo both, in the infobox. Why not illustrate the pathophysiology at both levels of scale/with both types illustration? Snowlet's rap 00:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
It is more than just inflamed joints. Specific joints are affected such as you see in the picture. We generally only put one photo in the infobox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
"We usually only" is not, standing alone, really a compelling editorial argument as to why to avoid a reasonable middle ground solution. I'm not the hugest of proponents of WP:IAR in general, but there is a good reason why it is not just policy, but one of our pillar principles. Here there is a solution that would embrace both options and would arguably serve the reader far better than either alone would: one image illustrates the pathophysiology involved in express terms via an internal section, and the other shows the pathological effects under gross examination, and both are desirable/mutually reinforcing means of understanding the condition at a glance. Furthermore, there's no policy or style guide language that outright bans multiple images formatted into one: it's just a matter of custom--and even then, many articles on biological topics utilize multiple images in the lead infobox where different aspects of the various images are judged to be of equal importance to understanding the topic.
In my opinion, both sides here are allowing themselves to be limited by tunnel vision, being funneled by the adversarial process set up by a two-option-only/false choice formatting of the RfC into the smallest possible number of suggested solutions, when there are in fact numerous possible alternatives. In particular, I see no principled, pragmatic reason why both images cannot be accommodated, if it would serve the interests of the article and reader best--especially given that removing the (needless) top half of the diagram and combining the remaining bit with the photo would leave us with a lead image profile that is the same size (or smaller) than the present one. Snowlet's rap 02:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
We all had plenty of time to weigh in on this and the vote for for Image 2. Doc James is upset that he lost and refuses to let this go and now engaging in some sort of edit war.Thisnotnpov (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Thisnotnpov Your newness to the project is only going to buy you so much latitude if you keep becoming increasingly disruptive of the RfC. You need to better educate yourself on our community processes before you go around accusing other editors of violating them or otherwise engaging in bad faith behaviour:
An WP:edit war pertains to back-and-forth reversions of article content. In that respect, you are the one who initiated the edit war, since you changed the content while the RfC was still running, which is typically seen as inappropriate; DocJames merely reverted pending the outcome of the RfC.
The policy you are trying to cite (with regard to DocJames seeking further input) is WP:CANVAS. However, once you take the time to actually read that policy, you will be aware that Doc did not violate it: editors are allowed to post a notice about an RfC or similar discussion in a WP:WikiProject or other community space populated by editors likely to have an interest in the subject matter of the article or RfC, provided that said notice is neutrally worded. Now personally, sometimes I do feel like Doc leverages his reputation in the community as Wikipedia's most famous physician-editor in a way that I, in his place, don't think I would feel comfortable with--because most people at WT:MED are likely to follow his lead by default, I feel. Nevertheless, in placing such a notice, he does not violate any policy or principle of community consensus, but has in fact operated completely above board.
As has already been pointed out to you repeatedly above, the average WP:RfC lasts at least a month before it's considered appropriate to even contemplate a close, and there is WP:NORUSH to close this discussion, especially considering there is nothing remotely like a WP:consensus established as yet (and contrary to your assumptions, you never had one here). So you should strike your comments above suggesting that comments after July 3 "will not be counted": I assure you, they will be, and your introducing the suggestion that they won't/shouldn't be--on very, very little understanding of this project, its policies, its processes, and the manner and timeframe at which consensus is reached--is likely to be seen as WP:disruptive. The mere fact that your position garnered a lead of two whole !votes early on does not entitle you to declare victory and attempt to shut down any further discussion. That's not how things work here, nor are your efforts to forestall further discussion acceptable. There has been no formal close and the topic is still open to further community input.
You additionally need to understand that discussions are not closed here based on counting votes: it's uncommon, but one of an editorial dispute can garner more support for their position and still have the discussion closed in favour of another proposal: its not about the number of people who support one option over the other, it's about which position maps better to larger points of community consensus.
With respect, you have a lot to learn about how this project operates, and you'll find there's a lot of people willing to help you gain that understanding. But you won't get there if you get yourself blocked during your first community discussion. And frankly, that's kind of the direction you're leaning into at present, on account of your WP:Battleground approach here. Snowlet's rap 03:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
So can I look forward to Wikipedia making sure that the worst possible (but not certain) outcome of every disease is used as its lead and therefore representative image? You know, since that's the standard Doc James is using here. Please use Annette Funicello in the late stages of her disease as the lead image for MS instead of the current photo of stained tissue, which is confusing and meaningless to the layperson. Please insert David Kirby on his deathbed as the lead image of HIV/AIDS instead of the current photo of a cartoon red ribbon, which does not look like AIDS at all. According to your logic, these are the best representations of these diseases, right? If you're not willing to do this, then how about using the RA awareness ribbon as the RA lead image instead? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rheumatoid_Arthritis_ribbon_two_tone_blue_purple.jpg Do you see the point I am trying to make here? Thisnotnpov (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok, there's a lot to unpack there:
To begin with, you should familiarize yourself with WP:OTHERSTUFF. On this project it is typically impossible to compare a given editorial issue on a given article against all possible similar articles and what has been adopted within them, and any attempt to do so typically only results in confirmation bias and cherry-picking. Furthermore, even if we could make a complete accounting, the allegorical arguments from multiple different types of article would compete to be the controlling principle in this article. As such, editors are typically required by the principles of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to decide the approach adopted in each article on its own merits, through the application of our WP:POLICIES that represent the codification of broader community consensus.
Additionally, comparisons from analogy don't even work here to begin with--not when it comes to complex editorial issues anyway. Let's look at your examples. Now, I was not a member of the local consensus that put the yellow ribbon in the lead image spot for HIV, but I imagine the argument was two-fold:
AIDS does not have absolutely standard symptoms when it comes to those it afflicts, because it's an immunosuppresive condition: the negative outcomes are mostly a result of secondary infection from various different pathogens, not the HIV virus itself. Thus there is only so much that is going to be shared in common even among late stage examples of the disease. An auto-immune condition (like RA) on the other hand, does present in a much more narrow band of (relatively) more consistent symptoms, since the underlying condition is the more proximate cause of pathological outcomes.
HIV/AIDS has a massive amount of stigma attached to it: things are vastly better today than they have been since any other point since the disease first arose as a pandemic, but there continues to be a frightening amount of bigotry, judgments about the sufferers, and paranoid misinformation out there: I can well imagine that this played a role in using a positive symbol for the lead image, and I doubt it had anything at all to do with "typical outcomes" as you are arguing here. RA doesn't have anywhere in the same universe as much cultural baggage in the form of stigma. Indeed, up until relatively recently, it was considered just one of those unavoidable things that happened to some people as they got older.
So you are comparing apples and oranges. But beyond that, you're making a lot of other assumptions on very skimpy evidence:
The image in question is not a "worst possible outcome". Not by friggin' miles. Just type "severe rheumatoid arthritis" into a google image search and see what comes up. This isn't even the most severe image we could have taken from Wikimedia Commons.
By your own admission, you knew next to nothing about this condition until relatively recently, and yet you have no compunction about declaring what is "typical" of the disease, and which presentations are so severe that we shouldn't even contemplate showing them. No offense, friend, but if we were going to base our choices on the WP:Original research of one of our editors (which we won't, but if we did...) it wouldn't be the guy who heavily panicked the first time he saw an image of the condition less than two months ago. I think we would instead go with the first hand perspective of one of the people with some degree of formal background in medicine, physiology, or pathology--and there are a number of such persons this very discussion. I'll show the restraint of not pointing out exactly who. But in any event, you're making some very forceful (and bluntly, very privileged, and western) assertions about how atypical such an outcome is today, based on a thimble's full of knowledge, experience, and context.
So no, you cannot "look forward to Wikipedia making sure that the worst possible outcome of every disease is used for its lead image". What you can count on is that the local editors on any given article will balance all relevant factors to arrive on an image choice (from among our free-use options) that best provides an introductory look at the condition. And ideally it will be based upona WP:NEUTRAL, dispassionate analysis of the educational aims, not a highly personalized reaction. I'll repeat that I am sorry that you had a moment of fright on account of the photograph, and I'm glad that you brought the matter to our attention to we could at least address it with the caption (or maybe eventually end up going with another image, who knows).
But you are not the only reader with the only context we need to consider here. And it's unreasonable for you to treat people who favour a different approach to yours as if they are morbidly celebrating disease or looking for the most extreme image for shock value or out of ignorance. None of those things is true. Many of us have in fact invested considerable time into articles about medical conditions specifically because we want dependable content for the reader on those, above all other, articles. and your favourite target for criticism here has probably put more edits towards that objective than any other editor in the nearly two decade history of this project. Doc James (like the rest of us) simply has a lot more factors to balance here than you seem to be appreciating. Snowlet's rap 03:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
An autoimmune disease that affects only a tiny percentage of people (0.5 - 1% in the developing world, according to Wikipedia) was "considered one of those unavoidable things that happened to some people as they got older"? Are you confusing RA with osteoarthritis? Thisnotnpov (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Unavoidable in that those who were afflicted had no choice in the matter, and there is no social stigma attached to it (or at least nothing near the level of what exists for HIV/AIDS. Snowlet's rap 03:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
To correct a few of your assumptions: I'm not "a guy" or "he," friend. I didn't see the image less than two months ago. I tried to change it less than two months ago, but I have had this disease for several years. Did you really think the first thing I did after my diagnosis was mount a campaign to change the lead image? I do at this point have more than a "thimble" full of relevant knowledge, and my doctor (a rheumatologist, as opposed to, say, a generalist ER doctor) has significantly more than that, and she was the one who said an image of a deformed hand is not necessarily representative of the disease in the first place. I'm not even asking to remove the image entirely, just to take it out of the lead. As for the western privilege you continue to bring up: many, many (all?) diseases are treated with medications that are accessible to some but not all. I am not denying that the disease can get really bad, especially if it's not treated. Just that deformities are not a certain outcome, haven't been for decades now (even pre-dating biologics), and so should not be used in the lead image that suggests as much. In the body of the article, sure. Thisnotnpov (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I think I actually used gender neutral "they" for you there, as I do for all editors whose preferred gender I do not know, the "guy" was a slip-up resulting from the hypothetical structure of the sentence. Still, if I'm missing somewhere where I accidentally assumed you to be male (which I typically don't do for a number of reasons) somehow, then I apologize. As to the substantive argument there, it's not worth getting in to, because it doesn't really matter what your relative expertise is, and that was what I was trying em emphasize in my post. You could be a medical doctor with two additional relevant research PhDs who has lived with the disease for a decade, or you could be a teenager not yet at uni, with no firsthand knowledge, and you would still need to back up your arguments on the typicality with something more than your personal opinion. Snowlet's rap 03:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, sure. The worst possible outcome is death. But are you saying that current lead image doesn't represent all outcomes of RA? Perhaps something that better represents the disease for all of its sufferers would be a more informative image to use as the lead. Thisnotnpov (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the lead image is a useful spot for an educational image and there's no one image that everyone in the world is going to agree is the "most typical", so the utility of the image will be judged as best we can on identifiable factors. Snowlet's rap 03:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
You are assuming that my only reason for changing this image is because I got upset when I saw it. No. It's because I got upset when I saw it only to find out that for millions of people, this is not the disease's outcome. I was misinformed by Wikipedia, and so I thought it would be to Wikipedia's benefit if I were to use a lead image of the disease that was applicable to ALL forms of it, including, as one editor here said, the form that "young wealthy people" get (that reminds me -- gotta go tell my RA friends who are on Medicaid that they are, in fact, young and wealthy). Thisnotnpov (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
When an editor says he'd prefer an image that shows a "significant deformity" as the lead image because otherwise people may think RA is "not that serious" to a diagram of a finger joint that is "not immediately recognizable to many people," but when that editor has worked on many other articles whose lead images do not follow the same logic, it might make someone wonder why the editor is not applying his own standards equally. Why doesn't Doc James's "different approach" apply to an article he recently worked on about tinnitus, which uses a cartoon alarm clock as its lead image? Or Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which shows an MRI that a layperson can't easily interpret? Or Rhabdomyolysis, which is exemplified by a photo of brown piss? Or Ebola virus disease, which is a photo from 1976 of two nurses and a bed with a barely visible body in it? Or Carpal tunnel syndrome, which is a diagram very much like one I proposed to use for this article? I know you think I am cherrypicking here, but go have a look at my examples and tell me how those things are immediately recognizable to people as the diseases they are illustrating but a diagram of a finger is not. Thisnotnpov (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I don't even need to look at those discussions to understand your argument here, because I recall having a prolonged debate with James some years ago at Gout (after responding to another random RfC notice), where he wanted to use a centuries-old illustration of a little devil biting the foot as the lead image (and thus prime visual exemplar of the disease), despite a slight majority wanting to use a physiologically representative photo. As best I recall, James' objection to that image was---and hold on to your hat here, because this is super ironic--that the image we had available for that purpose represented a too severe example of swelling. Indeed, because the discussion ended in no consensus and nobody wanted to re-open the matter, that image (in my opinion a wholly inappropriate one for lead image in an article on a medical condition) has stayed in to this date. I've always meant to go back and re-open the issue, but what can I say, it's item #1,473 on my Wikipedia to-do list. But I always got the feeling that James, having indicated some previous familiarity with the Renaissance era image, chose to use something he saw in a medical text during his formative years as a medical student, rather than something more appropriate to educating the reader. So why did I not bring this example of James taking the opposite approach to a similar editorial issue up before? Well, it's the same reason that I mention it now to you while trying to emphasize a point here: it doesn't matter to this discussion. It's WP:OTHERSTUFF. We need to decide what is best for this article, and what one particular editor particpating in the discussion did on Article X, Y years ago, is just not helpful to resolving that question. Snowlet's rap 03:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Snow Rise It was this image. And I objected to it as the lead image as it was the first and only time I have seen a case like this. I have seen dozens of RA cases such as this one. This image of gout by the way was also mine, and I opposed it being in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, but you have to admit there's a certain degree of irony in that reasoning, since we are (correctly) telling Thisnotnpov here that editors should not make a call on typicality strictly from our own first hand knowledge. Anyway, this is not the space to discuss the issue: one of these days, we will have to re-open that discussion and finally get a real consensus on the matter, but not today--and not by me any time soon. As to "This image of gout by the way was also mine, and I opposed it being in the lead.", you might want to address that to Thisnotnpov; I have neither forwarded the proposition that you are preferentially selecting your own photographs, nor would I assume as much. Snowlet's rap 03:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I accept that I did not realize or understand that there isn't a consistent (or any?) policy when it comes to lead images, which therefore can be dependent on one very powerful editor's whims and his desire to fight for them. I should have done more research on Wikipedia's approach to lead images and the process of requesting/suggesting a replacement before I acted here. As it happens, I just checked out the RA lead image's history, and, wouldn't you just know it, Image 2 WAS the lead image for this article until August 2010, when Doc James replaced it with the current lead -- a photo that he himself took, and deemed to be higher quality. I don't see him letting us replace his own image with anything else, no matter how much better the alternative offered is (votes in another image's favor will simply be rejected for not achieving "consensus" unless there is a clear and overwhelming majority with many editors voting -- something we all know will not happen for something as minor as a disease article's lead image). Nothing can compete with Doc James's photo studio. So I'm going to bow out.
Again, Snow Rise, I appreciate your responses and the time you took to give them. Thisnotnpov (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello my group and I are hoping to edit other signs and symptoms to include those found in different body systems that increase with the the development of RA
The points included are verifiable with cited secondary sources. Risk of cancer was supported by data pooled from 74 randomized control trials and environmental risk factors were supported by population-based case control study.