Jump to content

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Muhammad
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by H (talk | contribs) at 22:52, 10 November 2006 (sp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Good day, everyone. As you may know, BostonMA (talk · contribs) filed a request for mediation here regarding a dispute over adding this particular image to the article. I took the case. As DocEss (talk · contribs) pointed out on the case page, I expect that the result of this mediation will logically apply to any depiction of Muhammad considered for inclusion in the article.

What you should know about me
  • I'm unbiased - I don't edit Islam-related articles or have a vested interest in the outcome of this mediation.
  • I am an administrator, which doesn't mean anything about my mediation style except that I can easily protect the article if edit warring occurs.
My ground rules
Agreed?

Let's start by having every involved party sign below that they are on board this train. Then we'll get started!

Request for clarification

Please feel free to move this to an appropriate section. The welcome section states "I expect that the result of this mediation will logically apply to any depiction of Muhammad considered for inclusion in the article." I agree that the policies and guidelines that apply, should apply equally to all images. However, I believe that the facts surrounding the Maome image are significantly different from the facts surrounding most other images of Muhammad. Thus, I believe that the application of the same policies and guidelines to all images of Muhammad may result in different outcomes for the different images. Could you clarify whether "the result of this mediation will logically apply to any depiction of Muhammad considered for inclusion in the article" is intended mean that outcome (i.e. whether to include or exclude) may depend upon the particular image under consideration? Thanks. --BostonMA talk 19:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It means that if the outcome of this is that the image does not appear on the page, and then someone runs off and finds another image an hour later and posts it, that the things we discuss here should be considered there as well. It's been my experience that where there's one debate, there is another waiting behind the door. Make sense? --Aguerriero (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It makes sense that the principles that are discussed here should apply to future images that may be added or deleted. I think we are on the same page, but I'm not entirely sure. Rather than beat this to death, I will sign my name above with the understanding that the uniform application of principles to different concrete questions can result in different concrete results. If you think there is further need to clarify this issue, please do so now. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 19:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Aguerriero too. When the issue started, we had only one image. Now, I see that there are three images. God's know how many images will be added a year from now if the dispute is not over. --Truthpedia 20:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with Aguierro. BTW, looking at the edit and page history of Mohammed, I think there are many more people who have debated this issue, and probably should be invited. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 20:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I look forward to a mediated discussion, as the subject can summon strong emotions even without trying. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
For me personally it was never a dispute about just one image but in general. Hence I also agree with Aguerriero on this. Secondly I hope soon more people will join it hence wait for few days please. --- ابراهيم 09:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we are still getting regular additions to the participant list, so I will wait a bit longer to begin. Thank you everyone for your patience thus far! --Aguerriero (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I bet you haven't had many mediations of this size before. :-D -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 16:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It is obviuous to me that the real issue is one of any images, not just of one image as Boston suggests. Golly, if we do this as a one-off then we'll be doin it daily, mediating cases of every image of Mohammud that's findable on the Web and uploaded into Wiki. That means there's no need to further clarify any issue - it's pretty clear already. So there's the 'concrete question' - should we include images of Mohammud? Anser that yes or no and we'll have a 'concrete answer.' I also agree that more people should be invited to this discussion so that when the resolution arrives there will be less whining about exclusion.DocEss 17:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


It appears we have an answer to the question I’d posed above: User:Ibrahimfaisal solicited User:Striver’s participation in this mediation[2], who then placed a general advertisement on the partisan "Muslim Guild"[3], which has earned a reputation for this sort of behavior (latest complaint).Proabivouac 05:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, mediation has not even begun and already we have a point of contention, yes? Well, allow me to comment. I'm willing to stick to ground rule #2(see above) for now until someone gives me a reason not to. We all knew that this topic was going to attract all sorts of interested parties, and I welcome them. This is not a "vote", so numbers of people will not matter in that way. It may make consensus harder to achieve and a compromise harder to reach, but such is the way of some topics. We'll start soon, within 12 hours, since most anyone who watches the article would be here by now. See everyone in the morning. --Aguerriero (talk) 06:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Mediation has not even begun and already we have what may be an attempt to alter its outcome through advertisement on pages whose editors may not on average entirely neutral towards the matter at hand. What other reason might one suppose for the referenced edit? It is a fallacy to assume that this observation includes an assumption of bad faith, one which forecloses the more obvious notion that the censorship of images of Muhammad is for some a matter of deep conviction. Ibrahimfaisal and Striver are both unfailingly honest and earnest editors who affect no pretense or trickery; they are entirely forthcoming in what they believe and what they hope to accomplish on Wikipedia, and in these measures are bad faith's opposite.
Whereas you say you welcome all sorts of interested parties, I would like to know that it is alright for me to contact a number of editors who might likewise find something of interest in these proceedings.Proabivouac 08:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
You said that several of the editors listed above have not made a single edit to either the article or to the talk page. Most of the Muslim editors listed above have made contribution in the article (forget about talk page). I myself have written 3 small sections of it. I asked Striver and some others to come because they do have given input on Muhammad talk page. These people were directly related to this dispute and I wish to have their side of arguments here. For example read the complete message I posted on Striver page (instead of using above mentioned URL). --- ابراهيم 11:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have always favored good arguments above numbers. My problem is when that does not apply. Like in the mentioned afd of the deletion list. People are just voting deleted without addressing any of my arguments, and that makes me angry. And the same applies here, its not the number of Muslim editors that matter, it is the validity of the arguments. i don't understand what is up with "NO!!! DONT LET THE MUSLIM EDITORS KNOW ABOUT THIS!!!!". So damn noobish... --Striver 13:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to assume these people that came here through advertisment will be disruptive, or non nuetrail. I am sure somebody will be by the end of this, but surely we can wait till it actually happens? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Certainly. I intended only to memorialize this for future reference.Proabivouac 20:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The only person who has not edited this article is Palestine48, so your contention that "several of the editors listed above have not made a single edit to either the article or to the talk page" is wrong. I removed the anon editor who seemed to have no mainspace edits. BhaiSaab talk 19:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I had just checked the histories of Palestine48 and the anon when I wrote that.Proabivouac 20:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

STATEMENTS

Okay, let's get this rolling. First, I'd like to say that the issues here are obviously well-known. From reading all of the background information, I surmise that that no editor is alleging that a Wikipedia policy is being broken by either including or excluding the image in question (bear in mind that Wikipedia:Profanity is a guideline, not a policy).

Having said that, I would like to collect concise statements of position from anyone who cares to give one. State why you think the image should be included or excluded, as well as whether your position extends to all encyclopedic depictions of Muhammad (for more on what makes an encyclopedic image, see Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedicity). Do not repeat sentiments already expressed by another statement. In other words, if someone has already summarized your position satisfactorily, you don't need to make a statement. The number of people having a position holds no bearing here; the purpose of this is to get all of the positions out on the table. Concise means not verbose or rambling. 2-3 sentences max. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I should have also said - please do not use your statement to rebut statements of other editors at this time. We are just getting the statements out on the table. If your statement is not concise, I may message you asking you to edit it. Thanks --Aguerriero (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

We will allow for statement for around 24 hours more, to get anyone who might have been gone for the weekend, etc. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Example:

John Q. Editor

I think the image should be included in the article, because blah blah blah. I believe this applies to all encyclopedic depictions of the subject ~~~~

HighInBC

I think it is important for a major biographical article to have an image of the subject clearly visible. I think what while acting contrary to others religious beliefs can offend them, I don't consider it necessarily offensive behavior. I am open to a compromise, and do not wish to snub anyone. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

One thing I would like to see from this mediation is, if it is decided that an image can be used based on a set of criteria, that an attempt be made to choose a specific image that fits the criteria. That way if there is a giant arguement later as to if an image meets the criteria, then there will atleast be one picture we know we can use.

I do hate to see a major article without a picture of it's subject. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

DocEss

I think any and all images should could be included in any and all articles (to the point of expediency and reason, of course). This includes images of Muhammad in the Muhammad Article. I believe images should be included because doing so helps to illuminate the subject matter, to deepen our understanding of the subject, to satisfy the human mind's insatiable need to put a name to a face, and to act as a scornful snub of distasteful attempts at religious-based censorship in an encyclopedia (a more egregious affront to truth I cannot imagine). I believe images are benign by nature and this applies to all encyclopedic depictions of any subject.DocEss 20:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-professor Frinkus

I hope this was not already covered: I believe, if the image is clearly relevant to the article, it should be included. If people find depictions offensive for any reason (regardless of size of that group), that should not be a consideration beyond ensuring that the image has some historical/informative value before being used. For example, if people do not like images of a particular person, one should not source a recently produced generic image just for the sake of including an image; however, images that adds something relevant to the article is fine regardless of other objections. This would apply to all controversial images. Nonprof. Frinkus 20:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA

I think that images of Muhammad should be included in a given article only if they are informative in the context of that article. I subscribe to the position that "including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." I believe that scornful snubbing the sensitivities of others, whether or not such sensitivities have a religious backing, is not part of Wikipedia's mission.

I believe that in particular, the Maome images is not informative with respect to the subject matter of the Muhammad article. (It is informative with respect to the subject matter of other articles). In particular, the question has been asked repeatedly for a brief statement of of exactly what the image informs us. No such statement has been offered other than it is informative about some Muslim art created long after Muhammad's death. As a depiction of Muhammad, it is quite atypical.

I believe that Wikipedia benefits from editorial decisions which are based upon aesthetics as well as informative content. However, aesthetic concerns are secondary and must be weighed against other secondary concerns, such as offensiveness.

--BostonMA talk 21:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok

Despite nobody knowing what they actually looked like, the articles on Homer, Jesus, Alexander the Great, Zoroaster, Socrates, William the Conquerer, Moses, and Genghis Khan all have images at the top of the page. Clearly, this means that adding an image to the top of the Mohammad article wouldn't be done simply to antagonize Muslims; it would just be in keeping with standard Wikipedia practice. On the other hand, were we to not include an image on the Muhammad page, the only reason we would be doing it would be to capitulate to a vocal minority. We don't let people remove appropriately-included profanity or nudity from articles, why should we let people remove an unquestionably appropriate image? If we agree to leave the image out in this case, or even to push it to the bottom of the page, we might as well completely throw out WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored. —Chowbok 21:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Striver

BostonMA sums up my view. Pictures of peoples perception of Muhammad (pbuh) belong on articles related to that. We do not have pictures of Muhammad. Nude pictures are relevant to articles about that form of nudity, not to some related article just to make them pretty by some subjective standard. Muslims are over 20% of the earth pop, that is not a minority. --Striver 21:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom

Ok, firstly, there is no breach in wikipedia this is not a policy issue. Considering Images are offensive to a substantial amount of people (and I have seen no-one dispute that, so i presume it is agreed all round?), surely we need a good reason to include any images into the biography article? . Knowing that such images of Muhammad are offensive has been used as a tool to attack Muslims with; Images that no-one knows a thing about are being added with no context, false attribution, and an ignorance of the artist; added solely to offend; Wikipedia should not gratutitiously offend. The majority of art surrounding other religious figures is art created by artists who adhere to the religion associated ith that person, and the majority of Islamic art concerning Muhammad is calligraphy, of which there is a shortage in this biography. -- Irishpunktom\talk 00:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

IbrahimFaisal

I do not support any picture of Muhammad in the Muhammad article because: no picture exists that has resemblance or related to Muhammad. All early surviving biographies were written by Muslims and they do not have any pictures of Muhammad. The oldest picture we found so far is of 13th century that is 7/6 hundred years after Muhammad death. Yes these might be historical but how could be they related with Muhammad biography directly? ALL Sunni Muslim (90% of total Muslims) do not like Muhammad picture of any kind and many Shia too (if not all). There are alternative, for example pictures not showing Muhammad but only events and calligraphy pictures then why to offend other people? By including Muhammad picture we discourage Muslims to contribute in Muhammad article as well as in wikipedia and we are NOT improving the article quality too by some imaginary picture. -- ابراهيم 16:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


Patstuart

  • Wikipedia, and for that matter, other encyclopedias, have good precedence for showing the pictures of ancient historical figures; it's already been said that we have pictures for many of the above. As I mentioned on the talk page, we don't really know what most of them looked like, but the picture is there for help with all of them anyway (e.g., Plato, David, Jesus, Paul).
  • WP:Profanity is a guideline, but yes, it is a guideline, meant to be used. It is not meant simply to be ignored, certainly not just because someone becomes offended (indeed, the very point of the guideline is to say "if you're offended, too bad if the pictures/content is appropriate". The oft-mentioned example of penis is another one; I can't possibly see how the pictures provided on that article add any more to it than the pictures provided here for Muhammed.
  • Any other statement I would speak has been said above.
  • I hope there is a possibility for mediation. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 17:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Captainktainer

I believe that the Muhammad article, along with all biographical articles, should include pictures and depictions of their subjects. I believe they should include those depictions, even if those depictions are not 100% accurate - before the advent of photography, no paintings or pictures were ever 100% accurate renderings of their subjects. The illustrations, depictions, pictures, paintings, whatever are there to help the reader understand what a subject has been historically considered to have looked like, with as much accuracy as the limits of the medium or, in the case of Muhammad, divergent interpretations of the subjects' likeness permit. Human beings are visual creatures - it is helpful for us to be able to visualize something in our minds. Now, Sunni Islam has a long-standing prohibition against images of Muhammad; I understand that. But to claim that we should censor depictions of a biographical subject because a minority of the world's population might be offended - despite content disclaimers plastered over every single page on Wikipedia, telling users not to use Wikipedia if they're concerned about being offended - is an abrogation of Wikipedia's mission to serve as a useful repository of all human knowledge.

Furthermore, in the case of the image that led to this whole brouhaha - Maome.jpg - the constant assertions that it tells us nothing about its subject are quite false. We know that it refers to the prohibition against intercalation of the calendar at one of two dates, for which sources have been provided - even a walkthrough for the purpose of verifying it for oneself. We also know the provenance of the image - it was either painted or collected by Al-Biruni, in roughly the year 1580. This is on top of its general usefulness as a visual model of a subject. Captainktainer * Talk 19:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab

I generally agree with what Ibrahim has stated. I'd also like to note that even though "Wikipedia, and for that matter, other encyclopedias, have good precedence for showing the pictures of ancient historical figures", I have not seen pictures of the Prophet in the articles on him in Encarta, World Book Encyclopedia, Columbia Encyclopedia, or Britannica. BhaiSaab talk 22:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

TruthSpreader

I believe that the picture under discussion does not have any informational value but it actually gives wrong information. According to hadith literature, Muhammad used to sit with people and it is also reported that when someone from outside used to come, it was difficult for him to find the prophet because he used to mix with others in a cordial fashion. What the author of the picture is implying, just simply doesn't pass NPOV. TruthSpreaderTalk 11:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarity

Okay, I have thought a lot about how to best approach this case, because there are many issues at play here. All of them are subjective, and all of them have been debated ad infinitum. Therefore, I don't see much value in debating them again here, because in my experience, everyone brings out the same arguments and nothing is agreed upon. So, here's what I propose.

I am going to summarize what I think are the major sides of the issue:

  • Encyclopedic depictions of Muhammad should be included in the article. Removal on the basis of relevance or notability may be discussed on a per-image basis.
  • Depictions of Muhammad should not be included in the article since they are offensive to many Muslims who read Wikipedia, and the depictions may be made available in a separate article (such as Depictions of Muhammad).

Now. Sign below to indicate whether you agree or disagree that these two points adequately summarize the debate. If everyone agrees, we can proceed to compromise.

Agree

  • Agree, these seem to be the main issues at hand. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with several added points. First, there may very many Muslims who are not offended by images of Muhammad, who distinguish themselves, presumably, by their lack of involvement in this issue. I am personally acquainted with several Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, who feel the issue entirely irrelevant, (and we can only surmise that the Muslim creators of the images did not find them offensive.) There is no reason to believe that the editors involved in the image removal are (or are not) broadly representive of Wikipedia's Muslim readers. Contra BostonMA (below), all we can agree is that those who remove the image claim that it offends them and others. Further, it is not obvious that those who remove the images from Muhammad accede to depictions of Muhammad elsewhere on Wikipedia, or anywhere else: at least one serial remover, User:Embarkedaxis, who has been invited to participate here, has also been blanking Depiction of Muhammad, and I personally have no faith that this will be the end of the removal of the "offensive" images. We can agree that the fact of their presence elsewhere has been put forth as an argument for removing them from Muhammad.Proabivouac 00:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for notes, Proabivouac. Indeed I anticipated that some might assert that no images of Muhammad belong anywhere, and we will cross that bridge when we come to it. Re: Embarkedaxis - if the editor chooses to avoid this mediation, and we come to a consensus, and they disregard the consensus, they are essentially guilty of disruption or vandalism. --Aguerriero (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. I would quibble with the wording somewhat, but that seems like overall a fair summary. —Chowbok ☠ 00:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Please do quibble. Consider the wording a first draft. We want to convey the spirit of the issue without using weasel words, and I am open to edit suggestions. --Aguerriero (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Heh, okay:
  • Encyclopedic depictions of Muhammad can should be included in the article. Removal on the basis of relevance or notability may be discussed on a per-image basis.
  • Depictions of Muhammad should not be included in the article, since they are probably offensive to many Muslims who may read Wikipedia, and the depictions may be made available in a separate article (such as Depictions of Muhammad).
  • Agree, with wording direction here. Nonprof. Frinkus 04:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree; close enough, so stop bickering about wordings. The spirit of the issue is so obvious that the issue defines itself. Depictions of Mohammud or no depictions, that is the question. [When we're done with this one, let's move on to whether we can include pictures of the globe in the Flat-Earth Society pages.]DocEss 18:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, however other solutions can also exist. Terms including relevance or notability, Encyclopedic need to be defined because we had disagreement on them. Furthermore, should be discussed is a dangerous term because although in science article a discussion usually result in a solution but, believe me about this we had discussed in lenghts but had no solution. --- ابراهيم 15:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree; after studiously looking at all sides, I think this statement is true. Perhaps, Aguierro (have you seen this comments?), the statement should be reworded to say not "you think everyone falls into one of these two categories" but "you specifically fall into one of these categories". My experience is now that all disagreements have been people arguing that someone else doesn't fall into one of the categories, but that each individual does, although with different nuances. BTW, there is considerable disagreement of the term "relevant", as the case with BostonMA seems to have shown. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 15:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree

  • Disagree (summary of why) I think there are at least two dimensions to the disagreement. One is whether or not offensive images should be informative to be included in an article. The other dimension is disagreement regarding which images are informative. I also believe the summary lacks neutrality. I am not aware that anyone has contested the idea that the images "are probably offensive to Muslims who may read Wikipedia", and so I don't believe that such an assertion belongs as a description of one side. Similarly, using the term "encyclopedic" in describing one side, while not the other, seems to me to not correspond to the arguments put forward on each side. --BostonMA talk 23:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Hm, I think you may be misinterpreting my summaries. Your first points re: "informative" are addressed by my first bullet. In other words, if an image is to be included, it is subject to discussion of its relevance and notability. Re: my statement that the images are probably offensive - isn't that the main reason people don't want them included? If you don't think they are offensive, but instead think they are irrelevant or non-notable, then you should agree with the first bullet rather than the second. My use of "encyclopedic" is meant to say that ONLY encyclopedia images should be included as a basic rule. I am not implying that NOT including images is unencyclopedic. I believe the dimensions to the disagreement you listed are covered in either of my summaries; remember, I am not asking if you agree with both summaries, and I asking if you agree that the two statements summarize the issue. --Aguerriero (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, it is possible that I am misunderstanding. Could you please address these points?
  • You used the term "encyclopedic in this comment where you wikilinked to Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedicity. The text in that link makes no mention of a requirement of being informative, only "relevent". Your comments above suggest that by encyclopedic, you also mean informative. Is that correct?
  • "Informative" is part of the definition of encyclopedic, so yes.
  • If you intend to include "informativeness" in within the concept of "encyclopedicity, then I think matters stand as follows. Virtually all of those who oppose one or more of the images which have been added in the last month have stated that they believe images should be informative. I think all of the opponents of the new images would thus fall under the first bullet. Is that what you want?
  • I don't want anything, and if no one here objects to certain images of Muhammad if they are informative, then that will make mediation much easier. However, DocEss and others have suggested that we address the issue of images at large, suggesting that some editors have feelings about the issue that extend beyond the scope of just one image. So we will clarify that first. Determining whether one particular image is encyclopedic is simple.
  • You state "If you don't think they are offensive..." I don't believe it is an issue whether individual editors find the images offensive. The question is whether them may be offensive to some Wikipedia readers. I am not aware that anyone has contested this.
  • It is relevant for this mediation, though. If no one involved here finds the images offensive, then we are not mandated to discuss that point. We cannot guess at what the community at large might find offensive.
  • Your statement continues "but instead think they are irrelevant or non-notable, then you should agree with the first bullet rather than the second." What if I think an image is notable as an image, related and thus in some sense "relevant", but does not increase the informative content of the article?
  • Then you are asserting that the image is not encyclopedic, and thus you agree with bullet point one.
Just to clarify, I understood that you were not asking if I agreed to both bullet points. (Although with minor changes to each, I agree with both). What I do believe is that these two bullet points do not clearly describe the differences in the current conflict. --BostonMA talk 00:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with your proposing minor changes to the statements. It appears that most of your differences have to do with word choice, which are minor. --Aguerriero (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
If I were to change your bullet points, they might look something like this:
  • One group of editors believe that at least one or more of the images of Muhammad that have been placed in the Muhammad article are not informative with respect to the primary subject of that article, Muhammad. As such, one or more of the images that have been placed in the Muhammad article should not be included. Some may believe that virtually all images of Muhammad are uniformative in the context of the Muhammad article, while others believe that some might be informative in that context.
  • Other editors believe that to remove any image from the Muhammad article on the plea that the image is non-informative in that context, amounts to censorship. This may be because it is held that images said to be depicting Muhammad are informative in the context of the Muhammad article in general, or because it is believed that it is unimportant that they are non-informative.
I would argue that belonging to one or the other bullet point more accurately reflects who has added one or more image and who has removed one or more image, although there may be one or two editors who do not fit. What are your impressions of this restatement? --BostonMA talk 02:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, BostonMA. I understand what you are getting at. If you don't mind, I'd like to let the "agree/disagree" poll to continue before we make changes, as I suspect our course of action will differ depending on the outcome. It is noted that you disagree, and after the poll is concluded, we will work on integrating changes of those who dissent and then re-poll. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
As a little bit of background: I jumped into this discussion a few weeks ago, not too long after it flared up. I was surprised to note that Boston wanted one of the images removed, but the other to stay. The first was just a general depiction, and the second was Mohammed with the black stone, which is a historical event, and thus relevant (by his estimation). His position may be a third ground, in practice if not in theory, simply becuase he sparred more often with the "keep the picture" group than with the "get rid of them" group. If you read some of our discussion on the talk page, this may become clear: [4]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patstuart (talk • contribs)
NOT historical event! We know for sure Muhammad DID preaching against the evil intercalation which shown in the first pic. Its only the LEGEND that he help put the black stone idol in sacred Kaaba. Maybe because it make it look real? Like the pic he's riding the flying horse, or the cave where the editors try to say, look, here he got his first revelations. Telling people stop intercalating at least were know is real.Opiner 02:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Opiner, this is probably not the time or place to discuss your objection. I would be happy to discuss it in an appropriate place. --BostonMA talk 02:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Boston, if you move over to agree, then I will as well. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 02:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

* Disagree: I am sorry but at this point I am not comfortable with agreeing too. It is because of two reasons

    • It oversimplifies things because the true groups are 3 and not 2. First group wants to keep some picture and remove others. Second group wants to keep ALL of them as long as they are showing Muhammad and few hundred years old (they are all okay). Third group wants to remove all of them because we have no picture old enough to truly represent Muhammad and they are very offensive to them.
    • The first point talks about discussion and that we are doing since I have joined wikipedia and seen Muhammad article. See talk achieve we have talked so many time that I am started getting bored with it. Each of that discussion ends on disagreement and result in an edit war. That means first point is only saying keep the status-quo. If that is an end of a mediation then what we have achieved? Nothing!
    • The definitions of "encyclopaedic", "relevant to the article" has been topic of many discussions and become very disputed. They need to be expend on and specified in more detailed fashion. Otherwise all of us use them for presenting our points and no one agree with each other.

I agree with second solution (if that's a solution) but the first one needs to rewritten (see above points). --- ابراهيم 11:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to disagreeing parties

I want to stress that at this time I am not asking you to agree to anything other than that my two points are basic statements of the issues. While I understand your concern that "encyclopedic" has not been defined, we can define it with respect to depictions of Muhammad later in the mediation. If it helps you come to agreement, I will add a third "side" that all images should be included. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Another thing - I don't think anyone's position is "to keep ALL of them as long as they are showing Muhammad and few hundred years old". The closest person to that position seemed to be DocEss, and he has agreed with my assessments above. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Aguerriero: I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, here, when you refered to my position. I think I can clarify somewhat. I agreed with what I was asked to assess (i.e., your two points above). I don't quite understand, though, the reference to ALL; I believe that any and all images could be included, not should be; I mean , heavens, I'm not advocating we need farcical images of Mohammud with a bomb in his turban in the Mohammud Article or an image of Moses windsurfing the Red Sea in the Moses Article! We must remain encyclopoedic, insofar as that word is clear on the surface; images in any article must obviously be germane to the topic.DocEss 18:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
You are understood. What I was getting at is that BostonMA seems to believe that there are some who want any images in the article regardless of questions of being encyclopedic, and my point is that no one seems to be taking that position. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure that no one thinks that all few hundred years old pictures (not joking/mockery) of Muhammad are encyclopaedic? --- ابراهيم 14:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Who said that? That is a ludicrous claim anyway - anything added to Wikipedia has to be held to standards, and has to be measured for being encyclopedic relevance. Once we all agree that it is possible for that to occur, we can move on to defining what is considered encyclopedic for this article. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I am going to agree because I do NOT want the mediation to be in deadlock at some point. I really wish to see this problem solved. However, please do not have a solution that say something like point one because it needs to be expended on and clear cut defined. I personally really like solution number two or any other solution on those lines. --- ابراهيم 15:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Refining positions

Okay, based on all of the discussion in the previous section and my interactions with BostonMA, I am going to try to refine the summary of positions below:

  • Encyclopedic depictions of Muhammad should be included in the article, and held to defined standards of notability and relevancy. Standards will be defined in this mediation.
  • Depictions of Muhammad are not informative (and by extension, not encyclopedic) because the physical appearance of Muhammad is unknown, and the depictions are offensive to many Muslims. As such, the depictions should not appear in the article.

I am asking that you agree that you fit into one of these categories. It is not necessary to state agree or disagree unless your position has changed. I am simply trying to satisfy everyone so we can move on. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree

Disagree

Comments

Can you please also add after "unknown" in second point and they are offensive to many Muslims ? --- ابراهيم 16:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. However these are two separate/independent points. They are not related by thus (may be furthermore or also instead). --- ابراهيم 16:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to take the extraordinary, and hopefully non-harmful step of removing the word "thus" - the context is better then. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 17:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not halt the mediation on account of me. However, in all due respect, I do not see why my consent is required.

I am not suggesting it, but we could ask the questions:

  • Do you consider yourself a Muslim?
  • Do you not consider yourself a Muslim?

It is probably true that everyone would agree that they fall into one or the other category. It is also probably true that everyone would agree that everyone falls into one another category. Finally, it is conceivable that an editor might believe that the conflict is about Muslims versus non-Muslims. All these things might be true, yet that does not mean that such a breakdown correctly describes the conflict.

Although there is an editor who has expressed his opinion that all images of Muhammad are uninformative, that does not mean that the conflict is between those who hold that editor's opinion and everyone else. That editor expressed his opinion a year ago, but the general consensus among editors at that time was that an image of Muhammad was appropriate. This editor adhered to this consensus (while disagreeing) and did not revert the image. For a year! Since then he has also expressed that altough he disagrees with having an image, he can live with one (not necessarily happily). There simply was no conflict for a year. Thus to describe the current conflict as one between those who hold this editor's views, and those who don't, does not describe the existing conflict.

In a separate conversation, it was suggested that even though the summary of the conflict might not be an "historically" accurate description of the conflict, it nevertheless has value in that it commits one side (why only one side?) to a willingness to discuss images on a case by case basis. If that is the case, might I suggest that we ask each participant in this mediation, whether they agree to consider each image on a case by case basis, and to include in article those and only those images that are determined to be encyclopedic and informative for that article. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 16:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your consent is required because you filed the mediation request, and because mediation cannot work unless all involved parties agree. Otherwise, it's not mediation, it's just someone winning. Do you or do you not fall into one of the refined statements? In response to your concern that one side commits to willingness to discuss images on a case by case basis: this is simply logic. Anything added to Wikipedia is subject to discussion. If one's position is that no image is acceptable, logically that is the end of the discussion for that person. No matter what image is presented, they will say no. That is the essence of point two, which you may note has now been amended to cover someone who wants to exclude them because they are uninformative or they are offensive. For the purposes of the article, the two have the same result (the image is not there for the reader) and thus they are in the same category. It is a moot point to ask editors if they agree to consider each image on a case by case basis. Why? Because every image is different. All we can do is try to agree in principle whether images should even be considered, but we're not even that far yet. Right now, we are just trying to agree what sides have been taken. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The question I ask is why is my consent to a particular description of the conflict necessary? You ask, do I fall into one of two categories. The answer is yes. Just as if you asked me whether I fell into one of the two categories "Muslim" or "non-Muslim". However, I do not believe that your summary accurately or fairly describes the two sides in the conflict, even though all editors may fall into one category or the other. Although you say that it is only logic that anything added to Wikipedia is subject to discussion, it is perhaps not agreed to by all that any image is subject to a discussion regarding its informative value for a particular article, and that those and only those images that are encyclopedic and informative for an article ought to be included in that article. That is why I suggest you test this by asking it as a question.
With regard to your point that "if one's position is that no image is acceptable, logically that is the end of the discussion for that person. No matter what image is presented, they will say no." Why is it the end of the discussion? Is the editor unwilling to discuss? Does the editor have no valid points to make? If you are trying to get everyone to agree in principle whether images should even be considered, why don't you please ask that as a direct question? Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 17:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Because we're not there yet. I'm not ready to ask the question, "should images be considered?" Please trust me that the question will be asked and answered, just not yet. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Then please move on despite my disagreement with your summary of the dispute. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 17:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Boston, you started the darned issue and now you can't even help define the issue. Goodness - either you agree that the proposed statements are the issue or you do not - please stop writing wordy essays. Be a man - agree or disagree. Hit-and-run editing in Wiki is a waste of everyone's time. DocEss 18:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
DocEss, I have offered my own opinion regarding the definition of the issue. Both extensively [5] and in summary fashion. I have done my best to help define the issue. Please avoid comments like "be a man". I have stated my disagreement, although I hope that the mediation will continue without my agreement to the current summary. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Impress me, then. Rephrase those two statements above to read like you want. We don't need an essay. We don't need a rambling monologue. We don't need a critique. We just need two sentences phrased in this "Be it resolved" tone, one sentence on the por-image side and one on the -no-image side. Simple stuff - two sentences. What do you propose those two statements should be?DocEss 18:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
As it states in the paragraph above I already offered a summary in the "Be it resolved" form. I have also been discussing another summary with the mediator, which I will reproduce here (with a minor modification).
"Depictions of Muhammad, if they are encyclopedic, relevant and informative in the context of the Muhammad article should be included in the article. Images of Muhammad which do not meet these criteria should not be included. The debate to be resolved by this mediation concerns the standards by which encyclopedicity, relevance and informativeness will be judged."
[optionally include bullet items representing different standards that have been offered]
"Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with this description of the matter to be mediated."
Doc, perhaps you could vote either yes or no to the ascersion, and state very strongly that you believe that an image should be included, but obviously it would have to be relevant (I don't see why you would disagree with the relevant clause). The definition of relevant can be brought up later. This might help out any concerns that Boston has. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 18:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Pat, unlike others here, I followed the instructions: I was told: "It is not necessary to state agree or disagree unless your position has changed." My position has not changed. Secondly, Boston's concerns(whatever they are!) can hardly be addressed by anything I say.DocEss 18:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm talking about the second round of voting directly above, because the original question has been changed. I know your position hasn't changed, but it might help out some of boston's concerns -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Read the instructions above in the section Refining Positions. People! Pay attention.DocEss 18:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed edit by BostonMA

What does everyone think of BostonMA's proposed edit to the first bullet? "Depictions of Muhammad, if they are encyclopedic, relevant and informative in the context of the Muhammad article should be included in the article. Images of Muhammad which do not meet these criteria should not be included. The debate to be resolved by this mediation concerns the standards by which encyclopedicity, relevance and informativeness will be judged." --Aguerriero (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree --BostonMA talk 14:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree Yes this described my postition, so did that last two. The difference is very subtle. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree --Striver 19:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I think Boston's proposed edit does not materially change the meaning of what Aguerriero originally wrote nor of his subsequent revision and it amounts to motherhood. We all know what the real issue is and we all know about Wiki policies on image relevance. But if it'll silence the noise and speed up the process....DocEss 16:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree. -- ابراهيم 16:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
*sigh* It seems to me that I agree more with DocEss. The argument is principally over which images are "informative" and "encyclopedic", but several people have said that no image is encyclopedic, while others say an image can be encyclopedic. Which brings is back to exactly what the first statement said, except that this statement is a bit more confusing (no offense, Boston). Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 19:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Round and round we go on the diversionary-go-round. Whilst we argue no images can get uploaded. Let's hurry up - humanity needs images!DocEss 20:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)P.S. (I know it hurts to agree with me, Pat, but you'll be better for it in the end.)

Image Criteria: Sandbox

Okay everyone, since no one seems to object to BostonMA's edit of one of the position statements, I think we can move on. I considered for quite some time whether it would be more useful at this time to discuss the criteria for including depictions of Muhammad in this article, or to discuss where to include them or whether to include them at all.

There are two editors who, in their statements, indicated that depictions might belong elsewhere (Striver) or do not belong at all (IbrahimFaisal/ALM scientist and BhaiSaab). However, I think it will be more useful to get the discussion of criteria out of the way first, and then proceed to the other discussion since editors who are currently opposed to any kind of inclusion might reconsider if satisfactory criteria are developed? Does that makes sense? I hope so... it's Friday afternoon and my brain power is waning.

That being said, I am going to propose criteria. If you agree, awesome, sign. If you don't agree, create a subheading with your name and your proposed changes, or "this is all bunk", whatever your position is. I will be largely absent over the weekend, so I will check in Monday and view everyone's comments. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Aguerriero

Proposed criteria for including depictions of Muhammad:

  1. The image is properly attributed with its title, creator, and origin (museum, manuscript, etc) using a reliable and neutral source (see WP:RS). If any of those are unknown, the citation should acknowledge that it is not known.
  2. The beings and/or events depicted in the image are properly described using a reliable source: a citation explaining what it depicts (see WP:OR).
  3. (removed)
  4. The use of the image conforms to WP:NPOV.
  5. The use of the image meets the standards of WP:Profanity.

--Aguerriero (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree

Disagree

I thought that defining such standards was part of the mediation. I am happy to give you my definition of informative. However, whether or not my view is adopted, I think that some requirement of informativeness is necessary, irrespective of how it might ultimately be defined.
WP:Profanity states:
"...images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative..."
I think a reasonable test is to ask for a short statement of what the image informs us, to ask whether that something is (non-tangentially) related to the subject of the article, and whether its omission would make the article less informative. --BostonMA talk 22:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It is part of the mediation - I am asking you to help us define it. :) And that is a good start. Consider also point two, which says it must be explained what is being depicted. That makes progress toward being informative, in my view. Thoughts? --Aguerriero (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding point 2, the fact that a given image is asserted to represent Muhammad, does not necessarily mean that it informs us of anything appropriate for the Muhammad article. Cartoon drawings may be asserted to represent Muhammad. However, what they inform us is something about the artist's views, and not about Muhammad himself. If the article is about cartoon pictures of Muhammad, then by all means, such cartoon pictures belong. If the article is about paintings of Muhammad, then paintings of Muhammad definitely belong. However if the article is about Muhammad, the image should inform us of something more than about the artist, or the context in which the artist produced his or her work. That sort of information is tangential to the topic of Muhammad. If you will like, I will add a new bullet. --BostonMA talk 22:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I also do not know what that means, can you quote the pertinent passage? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I would certainly agree to that, but the words Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not. are very important aswell. I think that the criteria:
Meet the standards of Wikipedia:Profanity

Comments

The third and fourth criteron are unduly strict. To draw an analogy to text excerpts, the first two would be uncontroversial, as they merely restate existing source policies.

But there's no requirement that a particular excerpt's notability be asserted elsewhere, only that the source itself is considered notable and/or reliable, with editors deciding what is important to the article. It's great if we can find another source that says this Stillman quote/this depiction of Muhammad is important because etc., but is impractical to require.

Similarly, there is no requirement that any excerpted text be neutral; indeed they rarely are, particularly when religious figures are involved. It is only our use of them which must be neutral. I'd be surprised if any depiction of Muhammad (or Jesus) did not promote a non-neutral point of view. The adoption of this standard would lead to a perverse result: all three images would be rejected, because they promote a distinctly positive and Muslim view.Proabivouac 22:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you support removing the third bullet, and changing the fourth to: "The use of the image must be neutral"? --Aguerriero (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not like point 3. Why should the image itself be notable if the source is reliable? After all in a world where any image of Muhammad is forbidden then most notable ones are the contreversial ones which would fail point 4. Nowhere else on wikipedia is an image required to be notable aslong as it can be confirmed accurate(as covered in point 1 and 2).
Points 1,2, and 4(although I would prefer simply saying meets WP:NPOV) make perfect sense and fit with policy. But point 3 is a dealbreaker, the very forbidden nature of these images put's a specific images noteriety at a disadvantage, and it is a standard not applied anywhere else on wikipedia. I also do not think this point will make the image less offensive to anyone. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, you guys are right. I think I was trying to head off what I knew BostonMA's argument was going to be (see above under Disagree) but I didn't do a very good job wording it. Took it out for now until we can refine a bit. That's why I called it a sandbox - see, I just buried #3. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad/Mediation_Archive_8&oldid=87031871"