Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 4

← Archive 3 |

Archive 4

| Archive 5 →

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

It is okay for me to have pictures in article like Depictions of Muhammad too. --- ابراهيم 21:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Aguerriero

Proposed criteria for including depictions of Muhammad in the Muhammad article:

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. The image's notability is asserted using a reliable source: a citation explaining why the image is notable in reference to Muhammad (see WP:N) (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

• Agree - the second bullet is a little confusing, but after I've studied it, I don't believe it would be a problem, as surely there are enough relevant Mohammed paintings with online descriptions. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Needs reconfirmation since change.
• Agree with points 1,2,4, and 5(all current points). HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with points 1,2,4, and 5(all current points). --BostonMA ^talk 22:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree (confirmation) Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)}
• Agree with points 1, 2 and 4 … but 5 with limitations (which is only a guideline as opposed to official Wikipedia policy). I would agree with 5 only if it meant that material should not be purely for poking insults at people. Issues like this actually effects many mainstream religions. If a normal image depiction of something is being called "a sin" and/or offensive by a large group of people (be it a picture "God" itself or in this particular debate an image of "Muhammad") is considered offensive, would be in my opinion not reasonable. However, if someone proposed an image of "God" drinking and driving or abusing a prostitute, it would be valid to consider offensive. Nonprof. Frinkus 03:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with 1, 2 and 4, and with Nonprof. Frinkus re 5. The profanity guideline should be interpreted in light of what its authors likely had in mind when it was written. It is very doubtful that the authors of the profanity guideline had in mind depictions of Muhammad, and possible that it would have been worded more carefully had these been considered. More generally, it is doubtful was meant to hand veto powers to fundamentalist interpretations of any philosophy or religion. If such interpretations are more prevalant in some quarters, or if the tolerance for the standard practices of non-adherents is less, that shouldn't earn it a greater influence over any aspect of the encyclopedia. Arguably less; certainly not more. I challenge BostonMA's interpretation of the guideline, and further offer that, to whatever extent such an interpretation is considered inevitable in its reading, the guideline should be ignored in light of its undesirable and unintended consquences.Proabivouac 04:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with 1,2, and 4, but not 5. Seems to open a can of worms. I assume what you're trying to say here is that we don't want, say, images like these (warning: offensive). If that's the case, let's think of wording that will cover that rather than referring to WP:Profanity. Maybe something like "The image can not have been created with the intention to cause offense". —Chowbok ☠ 04:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it, obvious attack images would run afoul of point #4 anyway. So I guess I don't think #5 is needed at all. —Chowbok ☠ 04:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Agree I must agree. Actually, we are all compelled to agree because the five points are all points according to Wiki Policy; any other conversation is simply a waste of time. Anyone who disagrees is disagreeing with Wiki policy - but have fun with the long-winded explanations. P.S. Who keeps striking stuff out and what do the strike-outs mean? Are they meant to imply they were censored out? Meant to imply their inclusions were mistakes? Meant to imply I should ignore that line? What does a strike-out mean? Stop striking out things without explaining the purpose!DocEss 19:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is explained on this page, and the edit history that point 3 s struck out becuase it was found undesirable(and should be ignored). This section is a sandbox after all. It was struck out instead of being removed so the numbers that people refered to would still match. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The explanation is too diffucult to find. A better system would help.DocEss 19:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well since you know now, and nobody else seems confused by it, I think it is fine. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, not all 5 of those points are official Wiki policy, some are just guidelines. So guidelines may be discussed, and even updated.  :-) Nonprof. Frinkus 20:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree to follow the consensus here regarding pictures --Striver 12:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with keeping this in mind . and hope to see a good solution acceptable to all of us. --- ابراهيم 16:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed BhaiSaab ^talk 23:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with the points but we should take into consideration that Islam at large has no tradition of iconology and any images of the Prophet are viewed as offensive, saying this some Muslims tolerate portraits by Muslim artists of the Prophet (with face blacked). I think we need to be sensitive and asses the value of image inserted into this article i.e will it increase or decrease the value of the article. I hope this helps. ---Palestine48 12:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree

• Disagree The image should additionally be informative in the context of the article per WP:Profanity. --BostonMA ^talk 22:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you please define "informative" in this context, as that is far too subjective a term to be used plainly. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

• is a reasonable one. Even though it is not policy, it is a good idea, and I would support it in regards to this type of image. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree - Considering we have not established a consensus that images of Muhammad should be included at all, I find it presumptuous to outline "criteria for including depictions of Muhammad in the Muhammad article"- Further, I dislike why, again, we are dealing with one specific method of art, and ignoring, per the systematic bias I mentioned earlier, the vast majority of Islamic Art.--Irishpunktom\^talk 17:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • We have not disregarded the agreement we made here: Talk:Muhammad/Mediation_Archive_3#Agree_2. We are simply refining one of the two points. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Not presumptuous, no. This is a logical necessity - no one will agree to including images anywhere if criteria are not defined beforehand. Therefore, I don't think we should have that discussion until after this one. Whatever the consensus on image location, the criteria are needed. Additionally, the focus of this mediation is not to deal with systemic bias. We are discussing criteria for including depictions of Muhammad, and the appropriateness of said depictions. Medium doesn't enter into it. If something is a depiction of Muhammad, it will fall under our consensus; if it's not, it doesn't. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      • well, then, surely the agreement of those opposed to the inclusion of the images is irrelevant? --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This assertion is alot less obvious to me than it seems to be for your, can you spell it out for me? Becuase I cannot see how this is irrelevent. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, one thing I really think we should have agreement on, if wikipedia forces the images into the article.. how many? At one stage in the recent past there were five images, added solely to offend. Can we agree that there should be a limit to the amount of images that may be included? --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Later. Right now, we are agreeing on criteria for including images, if we include images. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Then I disagree, part of the criteria for inclusion should be the volume.--Irishpunktom\^talk 12:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Can you propose a criterion, please? Do you mean that a finite limit should be placed on the number of images in the article? That is not possible in Wikipedia any more than putting a limit on the number of words or paragraphs is possible. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
            • I don't see why you write "That is not possible in Wikipedia any more than putting a limit on the number of words or paragraphs is possible." If the consensus is that no more than a certain number of images should be in the article, then what is wrong with that? --BostonMA ^talk 21:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

(de-indenting) I say that because that seems too nebulous without qualification. I could see something more specific, like "one acceptable image per heading", which is why I asked for a specific criterion to be suggested. You can't just say "There can only be 4 images in this article" because there are too many what-if's. What if the article expands? What if the article is split? What if another article is merged into it? What if someone discovers that half the article is a copyvio and it gets removed? That's why you can't quantify something like that. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The previous consensus was that no more than one image of Muhammad would be in the article. Of course there is always the "what-if" new editors come along and the consensus is disrupted? Well, nothing we decide here can prevent that. We can only decide for ourselves. The future is not completely within our control. --BostonMA ^talk 22:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. If everyone agrees to whatever Irishpunktom is suggesting, then we'll go with it. But he still needs to suggest something specific. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My contention is that there should be no more than one image of Muhammad, while not proposing any limit of other images for inclusion in the article. --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree - I have been busy with work and life, so I have not had time to participate. I will reiterate my opinion that WP:Profanity is not an appropriate guideline for images not related to shock sites and the like, and I believe that WP:Not#censored's criteria are far better. I further object to the first criterion's requirement that the source be neutral. Reliable is one thing, but neutral is asking too much. The Catholic Church is hardly a neutral source, yet it is one of the largest repositories of religious-themed artwork in existence. We are supposed to be "neutral," not our sources. Captainktainer * Talk 23:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Captainktainer. So to be clear, you are proposing to remove the "neutral" from the requirement for the image source, and change the WP:Profanity requirement to WP:NOT? --Aguerriero (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That is precisely it, yes. Captainktainer * Talk 01:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Something to consider: Is it possible for WP:Profanity to be a criterion for deciding whether an image is appropriate to include, and WP:NOT be a criteria for deciding whether to include images at all, a discussion we will have after this? --Aguerriero (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
        • How will WP:NOT prevent those hideous Danish Cartoons from inclusion? Profanity will. --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• • I think that a specific limit on the number of images is out of line with wikipedia practice. It is already a requirement in the profanity guideline that if it is potentially offensive then it has to be shown to be informative and usefull. This is enough to prevent too many images. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Hoping another guideline will cover something we can make explicit here seems pointless. If we can limit the images, then we should, here, and not hope that some other rule will be interpreted in a way that befits what we can make explicit. --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I firmly disagree, we are here to discuss how to interpret the existing rules, not to make new ones. I do not see how any interpretation of the rules can limit the images to x number, especially one. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Please see my note above relating to point 5 … other than that … all is going well thus far. Nonprof. Frinkus 03:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• As I have stated previously, I am more in line with Strivers position than ALM's. There is an article dedicated to images of Muhammad where multiple images of Muhammad can be seen and more added, and the entire debate about the representations can be explained. However, as I have added above, in the article on Jesus there is a large amount of art venerating Jesus as made by Christians, likewise Rama, Visnu, Buddha, Joseph Smith, Jr. etc to the followers of those respective religions. The vast majority of art venerating Muhammad, indeed of Islamic art in General, is calligraphic, and there is a complete lack of Islamic calligraphy in general on Wikipedia, reflecting its bias, and is especially prominent here. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should would all be appeciative if eveyone was a little more succinct in these discussions. The issue is a simple and clear one. All images must meet Wiki policies. We must only decide which images are encylopoedic. Pro-image people will wish to include encyclopoedic images of Mohammud and no-image people will never want any images. The pro-image people correctly say that the no-image people are violating policy with their blatant censorship; the no-image people incorrectly say that Wiki should kowtow to Islammi beliefs and not include images, allowing this anti-policy censorship. Also, including images of calligraphy in place of facial images is patently ridiculous - we are not here to venerate (nor denegrate!) anyone; we are here to be encyclopoedic, and encyclopoedia articles about people have images.DocEss 19:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

DocEss could be right here, in terms of the 2 camps we appear to have, with image (encyclopædic) and non-image (censorship) camps. The challenge here is to come up with a valid consensus. I am plum stumped on that one personally. Nonprof. Frinkus 20:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Since we all agreed to All opinions are welcome and encouraged; breaking policies is not., then we can disgard the arguement that no image of Muhaamad can ever exist, only if it can be shown that that view is explicitly against policy. I think it is, but I am not sure which policy is most valid, I suppose a policy regarding not using wikipedia for campaigning a POV could be applicable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Wikipedia:Profanity is a guideline, but Wikipedia is NOT censored is a policy. Other guidelines that interpret WP:NOT include WP:SPAM, and WP:VANITY. My point is this: any of the WP:NOT criteria are policy, but their implementation is under guidelines, and those guidelines are almost universally accepted on the 'pedia. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The exact text from the policy states: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements. While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Valid point, getting back to basics could be productive, the policies that many of our policies and guidelines are based off of. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)}

Following up on my comments above regarding the intent of the profanity guideline, I had a look through the history of the guideline and its talk page. Two facts stand out as particularly germane to this discussion:

• The guideline was briefly (and unilaterally) labelled a policy by one user, but was soon delisted due to lack of consensus.
• Muhammad depictions were in fact discussed, specifically the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, but an attempt by a one user to expand the policy to address them was explicitly rejected.Proabivouac 21:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That is very germane indeed, do you have a link/diff to that discussion? A previous talk on the matter would be good reading for me and others in this mediation. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

They are here:Wikipedia talk:Profanity#Policy or guideline?, Wikipedia talk:Profanity#Poll: Proposal 2. In both cases, the result is best described as no consensus. In the latter instance, there was one supporter and three opposers, but each of the three gave a different reason.

There has not been much activity on the page, compared to WP:RS, another guideline which may be quite close to becoming policy, calling its legitimacy somewhat into question to the degree this rests upon the broad consensus of the community. The debate surrounding the Jyllands-Posten cartoons involved many times more editors and extensive discussion across a large number of pages, so is arguably a better guide in this regard, and more topical. There it was decided that highly confrontational and critical images of Muhammad must be prominently displayed in an article about the same. Here we are deciding whether hagiographic images of Muhammad may be displayed in an article about Muhammad.Proabivouac 21:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is my position, yet again:

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements. While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted

How is obviously inappropriate content defined? But that is a side comment, here is my main comments:

"if they are relevant to the content". A depiction of Muhammad is relevant to Depictions of Muhammad. Now, one could put a pictures of Imam Bukharis grave on the "Sources for Muhammad's life" section (as is done, without anyone objecting), but that is for pure esthetical purposes, without adding any information. So, why is it allowed? Why is a picture of Imam Bukharis grave on the Muhammad article, with nobody objecting to it? Answer: Nobody objects to it. It is that simple. The grave picture adds zero (0) information to the article. And the same is true for some guys imaginary picture of Muhammad (pbuh), or anyone else for that matter. Think about it, why would it bring any relevant information about Muhammad? It does not. Period. Now, that would not be a problem, if nobody objected, just like the Bukhari's grave picture, or a Jesus picture in the Jesus article, but thing is, people do object in this article. So what do you got? You got a picture, you got people objecting to it, and you got people wanting to having it there for esthetical reasons. If the people arguing for the esthetical reasons win, can i go to the Spider man article and put up pictures that are esthetical appealing to me? The only information they add is to the Depictions of Muhammad. And in that case, some people not wanting it there does not cut it, since WP:NOT censured. That is why we have dicks in the dick article. And that is why do not have them on the George Bush article. Although i would find it esthetical appealing. --Striver 18:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

At risk of sounding flippant, but a necessary question: so is that an agree or disagree? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Rarely is a pictures value purely esthetical; I believe they could be quite relevant to this article in question. After all, "a picture is worth a thousand words".  :-) Nonprof. Frinkus 20:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

When I heard about all the fuss regarding depictions of Muhammad on the news, I went straight to wikipedia to the Muhammad article to find a picture. I think the manner in which artists has depicted him over the years is relevent and informative. Sure nobody really knows what he looked like, but should we not allow for any images of people that lived before the camera? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

HighInBC, obviously we allow for images of people that lived before the camera. In some cases those images may be accurate, for example the portrait of Shakespeare is attested to be a likeness of the author, whereas an image of Socrates is probably inaccurate. So we allow images of people who lived before the camera. We even allow depictions of Muhammad, and Wikipedia would be censored if we did not have depictions of Muhammad. So the question is not do we allow for images of people that lived before the camera, the question is do we want to put images that offend people into articles when these images don't add informative value to the article? (Or perhaps more correctly, don't add informative value of relevance to the article.) If an image doesn't offend anyone, then we simply don't care that it might be merely decorative and not informative. --BostonMA ^talk 21:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add some perspective here. The accuracy of an artist's portrayl of anything is hardly the point. Only photographs are accurate (in theory and disregarding trickery, at least). What could more a poignant and personal a thing than a portrayl of something from an indivdual's point of view? Ever have your face drawn at the carnival - you know, a characature, where you're ridin a surf board and your head is ten times too big and your features all exagerrated and your buddies laugh when you say "That ain't me!" when it obviously looks just like ya? Hardly accurate, but blatantly obvious that that person is YOU! It is the interpretation that's important. Heck, even the Islammis draw Mohammud with an interpretation --- they use calligraphy. In an encylopoedia, we must endeavor to illuminate the human experiences of one another, including image interpretation over the centuries and decades. We even draw God Himself and no-one seems to get bent over that little blasphemy (or is it????). I can't think of a more poweful image than Michelangelo's depiction of God with His finger pointed down during Creation. I ask you, is THAT image accurate?DocEss 18:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

While I understand that is more in line with what the arguement really is, I was addressing strivers concerns with those comments. In the context of what was said by striver then it appears we are in agreement. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

And we are getting somewhat off-track here.  :) I need to take some time to get others in here who signed up for mediation but haven't commented much or at all. Once they agree to our criteria, we can do some "tests" of measuring images based on our criteria (which BostonMA suggested earlier), and then we can debate the manner in which we include images or whether we include them at all. I have some ideas that very well may be satisfactory to everyone. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to all

Just got back but don't have much time to post until tomorrow. Some great feedback here! Obviously we have hit upon the main crux of the issue which we will try to work on tomorrow. In the mean time, to ALM Scientist, Irishpunktom, Striver, and anyone who hasn't agreed to the criteria - please remember that by agreeing, you are not agreeing to put images in the article. You are only agree that if the consensus is to put images here (or anywhere else for that matter), these are the criteria we will use. So, your agreement is required to move forward. If you don't like the wording of a criterion, please suggest changes. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The first line of WP:Profanity sums up my criteria: "Words and 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, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." If that can be equally well expressed by some other means, that's fine with me. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change from Irishpunktom

Irishpunktom (talk · contribs) proposes a limit of one image of Muhammad in the article, with no limit on other types of images. Some discussion can be seen below his disagree vote in the previous section. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree

Weak Agree. I would support this as a practical compromise. --BostonMA ^talk 23:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I also want it. In past they had inserted many images of Muhammad and a new image used to come every passing day. Hence a limit like 1 or 2 image of Muhammad in Muhammad article is a good idea. However, once again that is only if we decide to include images at all in that article. However, I believe that we will soon also consider the option of keeping them in Depictions of Muhammad and many other such articles and will keep Muhammad article clean from Muhammad imaginary images. --- ALM 14:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree

• I think that a specific limit on the number of images is out of line with wikipedia practice, and sacrifices potential encyclopedic value. It is already a requirement in the profanity guideline that if it is potentially offensive then it has to be shown to be informative and usefull. This is enough to prevent too many images. Lets also remember the editorial practices of everyday life help determine how many images. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• If there is to be a limit, its purpose should be to prevent hypothetical violations of WP:POINT, not to stake out a middle ground between WP:NOT and WP:NOTNOT, which would only create a somewhat less restrictive censorship, not its absence. To this end, I propose the number of images be limited to the number currently found on Jesus and Gautama Buddha, relative to respective length of the articles (though it should not be mandated that we reach this limit.)Proabivouac 04:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• per HighInBC --Striver 13:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Great effort at a compromise, but it purely arbitrary to choose a number like one. I think the solution, if there is any, should be based solid logic instead of arbitrary. Nonprof. Frinkus 02:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

• For now. I think we could have a better compromise, but if this works, I will stick to it. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change from Captainktainer (1)

Captainktainer (talk · contribs) proposes that the qualification that the source of the image must be "neutral" be removed, since he contends that the vast majority of sources for religious images would not be neutral by nature. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree

Weak agree. Religious sources would not be considered neutral about religious topics. However, although I think the neutrality requirement is seriously flawed, I do believe that there is an important point that I think the neutrality requirement was an attempt to express. The images at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy are certainly not appropriate for the Muhammad article. The standards adopted should express that fact. --BostonMA ^talk 23:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak agree I feal much as BostonMA about this, any image of Muhammad will have a strong POV either towards venerating, or disparaging the subject. People rarely depict religious leaders in a nuetral way. However, a quote, or an image need not be neutral to satisfy NPOV, as long as it is attributed to a source, and put forth in a way that does not lead one to beleive it is fact.

I would support changing the wording so that instead of the image needing to be neutral, the image must be used in a neutral fashion. In the case of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy images this would not be possible, so I think this is enough to prevent abuse. I cannot think of a proper way to word it though. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree - with all due respect, this could get to be an ugly clause, used more as a battering ram for "I don't want any image", where a person or persons refuse to allow almost any image on this basis. I'm not sure how we could reword it, though; I'm sure what you were looking for, Aguierro, was "not a picture of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban", as the above two pointed out. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree - I'd thought this was already done some time ago. I also question whether it can really be said a priori that the Jyllands-Posten cartoons have no place in the article. Certainly none of these would be appropriate as a lead image, any more than they would be on any other biography, but should there, hypothetically, be added a section about Recent Controversies involving Muhammad, wherein these incidents were mentioned, one of them might well be included. The problem, if any, with such a passage and associated image would be recentism/undue weight, not offensiveness.Proabivouac 03:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with undue weight. Do we include the 1960's anti-John Lennon protests in the Jesus article? (it could be done artfully, but probably isn't). I'd also like to point out that the idea would never pass anyway here. Mediations tend to try for a "middle ground", and radical proposals tend to fail because the opposite crowd wouldn't support it. Demanding the inclusion of these particular images would be like a nuclear bomb on this mediation, the equivalent of the anti-image crowd asking that p.b.u.h. be placed after each reference of his name, or demanding a graphic homemade pic on doggie style (you'll notice that this article uses a drawing instead to minimize unnecessary offense). -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It was only hypothetical: if the subject were covered here, as it rightly isn't for a variety of reasons unrelated to religious sensibilities, then an associated image might be appropriate. I am only asserting the general principle that anything discussed in the text potentially warrants the inclusion of an associated image.Proabivouac 03:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree

Disagree: Is that means that we will reject any image from any Islamic source and will use only non-Muslim sources? --- ALM 14:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. It means that the "neutral" requirement is being removed, theoretically widening the possible set of sources. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That means any cartoon image can be allowed to put there? The consequence of this sentence could be too wide it needs to changed. --- ALM 14:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean that any given image is allowed. It just means that more possible sources of images are allowed. The other criteria still apply, as well as general Wikipedia criteria of being encyclopedic. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change from Captainktainer (2)

Captainktainer (talk · contribs) proposes that instead of WP:Profanity being used as a guideline, WP:NOT#CENSORED be used. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree

• For rhetorical reasons … weak agreement here … though I think profanity guideline needs to be considered, the fact there is no widespread agreement on it, and that it is just a guideline, its weight should not be overtly strong (unduly weighted). Nonprof. Frinkus 02:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• While rejecting the either-or framing of this proposal, in its essence, and as a practical matter, I agree. The profanity guideline is poorly-drafted, does not enjoy broad community support, and has no history of associated Wiki jurisprudence by which we might be guided. It ought not be considered to weigh overmuch upon the interpretation of the core principle WP:NOT, much less to trump it.Proabivouac 07:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree

Disagree. The central purpose of an encyclopedia is to be informative. If we are to intentionally include material that is offensive to some readers, it should meet the standard of being informative for the context in which it appears. --BostonMA ^talk 23:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree WP:NOT#CENSORED is always in effect, it is policy. So the question remains do I think the WP:Profanity guideline should be used as a criteria. I think it is a fair compromise considering the opposition to these images. I don't think we are sacrificing encyclopedic value by following this guideline. However, how this guideline is to be interpreted in regard to these images is still something I want to reach a consensus on. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak Disagree - WP:Profanity works well enough, and is a guideline for a good reason. If it becomes a big issue of contention, I would like to know first why WP:Profanity would cause a problem - as in, what are the specifics? I can't throw out a guideline without knowing specifically why an editor thinks it might be a problem in this situation (his sentence to date was too brief, IMHO, unless I'm missing something). Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree obvious reasons. Both need to be used. --- ALM 14:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree There is no need not to use both. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree per BostonMA and HighInBC --Striver 16:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Note that I have offered that WP:Profanity may be appropriate in determining WHICH images are included, while WP:NOT#CENSORED is more appropriate for discussing whether they are included at all; Captainktainer has not responded to this suggestion. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This sounds logical to me.  :-) Nonprof. Frinkus 02:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment We have to follow WP:NOT#CENSORED always, it is policy. So the question remains, are we going to accept the guideline WP:Profanity as part of the criteria? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Per my earlier comments, my investigation found no evidence that the profanity guideline enjoys widespead consensus (although no doubt some elements of it would). Very few editors have been involved on either the guideline or its talk page, and an attempt by one editor to make it a guideline was rejected. An attempt to address depictions of Muhammad was likewise rejected. It cannot be denied, as per HighInBC, that WP:NOT is policy, and I concur with his reframing of the issue. I'd agree that the profanity guideline should be strongly considered when choosing images, providing that the definitions of profanity and obscenity are informed by conventional contemporary English-language usage.Proabivouac 03:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.