Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Avoid rehashing the actual debate

1) We've already seen one section hatted because it degenerated into a tussle. So, I request that all of us involved try to avoid repeating the arguments of the past month or two in this Arbcom case. Some back-and-forth is expected and healthy in our various evidences and workshop entries, but when making a response, if a thought comes to your mind like "damn, I've already told him this before, why do I have to do it again?", chances are you probably don't. Tarc (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Seems reasonable enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what that actually means, but I'm amenable to it. What precisely constitutes 'rehashing', just so we all know what we're supposed to be avoiding? --Ludwigs2 13:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, that, perhaps. It really ain't going anywhere productive. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• lol - that pretty much covers our entire discussion to date, so unless you're suggesting we sit in silence a somewhat more useful definition might be in order. To be frank, I don't want to badger anyone, but I do want the distinction between valid disagreement and mere wp:IDHT to be clear, and I don't know how to point that out except by what might be considered 'rehashing' to the IDHT side. --Ludwigs2 15:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Exactly. Merry XMas. Tarc (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wonderfully bad faith response; I ask for for some insight and all I get is tripe. Go grinch someone else, please. --Ludwigs2 16:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oy vey. I'm just saying try to recognize when you're going to far on you own, i.e. self-restraint. Like right now, this back-and-forth has IMO come to a point where nothing else good will come of it, so this should be my last point. Tarc (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, that's clear at least. thanks. --Ludwigs2 16:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• That would be very helpful. AGK [•] 09:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Add Kww as a party

2) Given evidence has been presented against him and he's been extremely active I think he should be added as a party.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Mostly irrelevant; if proposals are made with respect to a non-party, time is given to permit the editor who was not one of the original parties to respond to evidence and make alternate proposals. Risker (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Possibly Elonka as well? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing like a good ol dose of the ol' chilling effect, eh? Tarc (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Personally, I prefer being able to comment without substantial risk of repercussion. Your mileage may vary.—Kww(talk) 00:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit a bit of confusion as to why I should be listed as a party. I haven't been involved in this specific dispute, and am still working on figuring out who is who and what all their various positions are. I see myself more as a (relatively) uninvolved individual who is familiar with the topic area, offering subject expertise. I also have some experience as an administrator dealing with disputes, so I am trying to look at things from that perspective as well. Of course, since I am involved in this topic area, I would not use my admin tools in any way, but I figure it can't hurt to offer my thoughts as to what kinds of actions that the arbitrators might wish to take in order to help stabilize the topic area. Arbitrators are not going to make rulings on article content -- they are going to be focusing on user conduct. So (usually) their goal is to identify which editors are operating in good faith and seem to be working together constructively to try and craft a consensus version of the articles involved, and which editors seem to be either disrupting or blocking the consensus process. My own goal is to try and help the arbitrators make sense of the debate here, so they can make well-informed decisions. --Elonka 16:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You've made quite a few comments, and I thought people might make statements against you as has already happened to Kww - thus this suggestion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

(1) Current article and image use

Thank you for your responses. AGK [•] 21:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It was said during the debate at Talk:Muhammad/images that the images are being included in the article either for the sake of including images or as a knee-jerk response to ostensible censorship. In your view, are the images presently in the article useful to the reader and do they add to the quality of the article? If we removed the images or used very few (as reportedly is the case in the sources, most of which use few images of Muhammad), would the article be better or worse off? Please explain briefly why in both cases. AGK [•] 04:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Jayen466 No one asserts that our images, created 600 or more years after Muhammad's death, by artists from different cultures than Muhammad's own, bear any naturalistic resemblance to what Muhammad looked like. Where a face is shown, the features are those of a generic male, indistinguishable from those of other male figures in the relevant work. So while they're of central importance in an art history article like Depictions of Muhammad, they have very limited encyclopedic relevance in Muhammad. For those interested in what Muhammad looked like, there are extant and much beloved descriptions of his appearance by his contemporaries; I added a couple of them to the article a few weeks ago. Images of course make an article less dry to read, and are useful in illustrating a figure's artistic reception. In Muhammad's case, figurative images have played a very limited (and non-public) role in that reception, whose main focus has been on calligraphy of his name(s) and words, present in almost any mosque in the world. In Turkey and parts of the Ottoman Empire, calligraphic renderings of the eyewitness accounts of his appearance have also been popular, and an art form in their own right. If we are using Islamic art to decorate the article, then we should use mainstream Islamic imagery that is culturally relevant. That's also the approach taken by many reliable sources. This is where the preponderance of figurative images actually becomes a net negative. By including so many of them, we are implying they are the mainstream. If casual readers come away from the article with the impression that Muslims paint and worship images of Muhammad just as happily and enthusiastically as Christians or Buddhists worship images and statues of Jesus or Buddha, we have failed them. So I believe what we had here, per Resolute's proposal, was about right; and we should add a photograph of the Kaaba and Quranic inscriptions from a couple of mosques. That would make the article better, and more in line with reliable sources. --JN466 07:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC) @ASCIIn2Bme: To be clear, I am not advocating that we illustrate the article solely from the perspective of mainstream Islam, which would imply no figurative images at all. While I have every sympathy for any Muslims who are genuinely offended, I cannot in all honesty see how doing so would be in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Hence my support for Resolute's excellent proposal, which includes such images both among its examples of Islamic art, and in the Western reception section. Figurative Muhammad images should have some weight – we do explain their existence, limited distribution and historical development in the text. However, they should not predominate within the selection of Islamic images we feature at the expense of mainstream Islamic art. They do so neither in real life, nor across the entirety of reliable sources. --JN466 17:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Tarc The article as it is right now is a product of consensus, as Resolute has noted below. There is also, as Coren notes the question of why editors insist on a standard for this article that applies to no other article about a person living or deceased, e.g. Albert Einstein. The only difference is some Muslim's prohibitions on imagery within their own culture. That has no bearing on the Wikipedia or how we make editorial decisions, though, any more than the Church of Scientology would be allowed to remove material from Xenu that they do not wish the public to see, or creationists from timeline of human evolution. It cannot be stated enough that Jayen's insistence on "doing it like the sources do" is simply not applicable here. The Wikipedia is not beholden to religious conservatism when making decisions about the usage of images, in this or any other article. We have several historical images of Muhammad, they are free of restriction or copyright to use, and they are used to depict several important historical points in Muhammad's timeline. Could you write about George Washington's sneak attack across an icy river and still educate the reader? Certainly. Would the material be benefited by the inclusion of Washington Crossing the Delaware? Immeasurably. Despite the historical inaccuracy (they went on foot), it shows the historical impact of the event and how artists chose to render it. No different with the case of this article and these images; the reader would be deprived...for no other reason than offense to Muslims...of Muhammad and his affect on artistry and history in general. We'd be shoehorning the reader into viewing the subject solely through the lens of Islamic prohibition, elevating that point-of-view disproportionately over those of the rest of the world (and even many Muslims. the notion that "this offends all Muslims" is a misconception) that does not follow that faith. To do this would be about the clearest violation of WP:NPOV that one can find. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC) ASCIIn2Bme The huge mistake made by JNN466, Ludwidgs2, and their followers is the assumption that the article on Muhammand should solely recount his life and eschew any discussion on the ulterior perception thereof through the centuries, even though the latter had far more of an impact on history than the few battles between the dunes during Muhammad's life. You cannot draw a line in the sand in that article and keep it confined to a dry, sketchy account of his life. It's the ulterior interpretation of those events that is of far greater significance. And that interpretation has varied and diverged quite a bit over time and space. Asking for the article to be written solely from the viewpoint of current mainstream Islamic faith (if you can even pin it down) is definitely not NPOV. It's like asking the article on Jesus to be written only considering the current dogmatic view of the Vatican. And this includes the selection of imagery. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC) The demand that an image needs to be included in the majority of reliable sources, never mind "across the entirety" thereof, as a precondition for its inclusion in Wikipedia is ludicrous for the reasons I detailed in the collapsed section on CENSORED vs. NPOV. I'm not going to repeat myself again on that. I think none of the images in the article meet that putative standard, be they anthropomorphic or calligraphic. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC) As for "trivial value" and "whimsical depictions created generations after Muhammad's death" arguments by Ludwig2 below, the exact same expressions can be said about the calligraphic depictions. Even more so in fact, because this is the English Wikipedia, and few readers can fathom what the Arabic calligraphy means. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Since Eraserhead not picked up the banner of applying "WP:DUE balance of pictures" to image types, here's an apocryphal story that should be enlightening. The article on the Siege of Rhodes (1522) has only one source that is full of imagery, the recent book by Nossov. The older books have very little if any visual material. Now lo and behold! Nossov's book in doesn't have ANY pictures of guns! It's all architecture: dozens of pictures though. Should we delete or drastically prune the images of guns from the article unless someone can produce a reliable source having lots images of guns from the battle? After all, some people, pacifists especially, may be offended by images of guns! The WPDUE [wikibeancounter] score is: walls 25 (or thereabout), guns 0! So, unless someone can find another source about this topic with tons of guns depicted, the putative principle of "balance of the image types in sources" requires we soonish delete most if not all the guns from that article! Let there be WP:DUE balance of image types?! Or not? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC) r to L2: Thanks for the snotty lecture on VNT. If you actually had a look at the article, you'd see that the images of guns there are from authentic pieces from Musée de l'Armée. I think the plaques next to the guns there, as well as their inscriptions on the guns themselves are sufficient WP:V-wise to document those pieces were at least part of the besieged's equipment, if not actually fired in anger at that time. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs2 The images have a certain trivial value. They are decorative illustrations, and one or two of them might be desirable to exemplify a notable but relatively minor art-historical movement in Islamic history. Beyond that, none of them have any clear and demonstrable use in the article. While they are not unrelated to the topic at hand, at best they constitute religious iconography - whimsical depictions created generations after Muhammad's death (not accurate depictions of Muhammad or the events of his life) with little to no informational value in their own right. They even misinform the reader to a certain extent, since they are not clearly labeled as religious iconography and may lead people to believe they are accurate depictions. This image is clearly useful (though not on the Muhammad article) Note that I do not deny the usefulness of images for solidifying knowledge, even when somewhat whimsically drawn. I'm simply stating that the given images of Muhammad are not even close to being useful and informative in the same sense as the picture at right. I don't think anyone has ever argued that the images have zero value. My argument all along is that the images do not add sufficient quality to the article to merit invocation of NOTCENSORED. NOTCENSORED is intended to protect the encyclopedia from losing valuable information, not to protect Wikipedia editors' rights to 'free speech.' There has to be some lower limit where we acknowledge that the negligible cost to the encyclopedia of losing images like this is outweighed by the significant cost to the encyclopedia of offending the religious beliefs of a sizable segment of our readership. In my view, paring down the number of images and constraining them to particular sections where they have clear and unambiguous use (e.g. a section on the art-historical tradition or a section on the image controversy) would not change the informativeness of the article at all. It would be just as good an article without these pictures, but the conflicts that plague the page would disappear. The mere fact of having a clear and unambiguous use to point to would resolve most the page problems; as it stands, Wikipedia appears to be showing these controversial images for no particular reason, and that does not reflect well on the encyclopedia. --Ludwigs2 17:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC) r to ASCIIn2Bme Yes, you're right that the same can be said about the calligraphic images. However, the calligraphic images have two advantages over full-faced images: They are far more common and representative. They do not run counter to any established social mores or norms - in fact they are the norm for depictions of Muhammad. The calligraphic images can be used because there is no countervailing issue offsetting their marginal value to the article; for figurative images there is a countervailing issue, so the standard for including such images ought to be higher. With respect to your 'Siege of Rhodes' comment: you are confusing Verifiability with Truth. The fact that you know in you own head that they must have used weapons at the siege of Rhodes (though I doubt they used guns in 305 BCE), we would still follow what sources say. If no sources covering the siege ever mention weapons, then we couldn't talk about weapons in the article, could we? So why would we have a separate standard for images? You might have a case on that page that the one source with images is not representative of the subject (in which case you could argue that we shouldn't use images from it), but that hardly compares to this case where we have a plethora of sources to establish a standard. Further, if we added an image to that article of (say) a typical greek siege engine or catapult, it would have a clear use and purpose (displaying the kinds of weapons that were likely used in the battle), as opposed to the Muhammad images which are not useful depictions of anything. Apples and Oranges… --Ludwigs2 19:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Eraserhead1 I think pictures should be present in the article to some extent. I think the balance of pictures and calligraphy in the article should reflect their usage by our reliable sources as per WP:DUE. We should be following this balance so this WP:VITAL article is kept in line with the WP:NPOV policy. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC) @ASCIIn2Bme, possibly we should include more images of walls if our sources primarily show that rather than holiday snaps of cannon which our article appears to currently contain. I doubt anyone cares particularly, and the article is only a Start class article, let alone a good/featured article so isn't a good one to compare to. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC) @Resolute, I would have thought the maximum would be the number typical for historical biographies, and that's somewhere between 30 and 60% of the images in the article. Currently this article looks to be within the normal range for a historical biography, albeit at the lower end. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Elonka I am not a party to this particular dispute, though I edit in several other closely related articles about Islamic topics such as Black Stone, Kaaba, and Hajj. After reviewing the Muhammad article as it exists today,[1] in my opinion the article is giving undue weight to figurative images of Muhammad. Based on my knowledge of dozens of Islam-related sources (even mainstream movies), the representations of Muhammad are predominantly in words, verbal descriptions by contemporaries, and extremely elaborate calligraphy -- not in visual depictions. Most of the images of Muhammad in the Wikipedia article do nothing to add to its quality, portray the subject in a different way than is normally presented in sources, and could be easily moved to other locations, such as to Depictions of Muhammad, where they would be more appropriate. Some images could reasonably stay, such as those which show how Muhammad tends to be represented in Islamic art (veiled, or as a flame), but more images than that would be excessive. --Elonka 23:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Johnbod I think the pictures are certainly useful and, as the selection has evolved, well-balanced. As far as I am concerned we are already using "few" images by our usual standards. If there were no religious concerns we would certainly have more, and they would be differently placed, not kept off the first four screens down (on my machine). We always use more images than "other sources" who have to pay for picture rights. The obvious comparator, Jesus, has 46 images, 37 including a depiction of Jesus and 9 not. Muhammad has 25 images, 6 depictions of him, 10 calligraphy (already too many in my view) and 9 other - and also long sections with no illustration at all. Buddha, which is a good deal shorter than either, has 14 images, 12 including him and 2 that don't. So percentages of total images showing the subject are: Muhammad 15%; Jesus 81%; Buddha 86%. Comparisons to Jesus and Buddha are also relevant to the "not historical portraits" and "not typical" arguments advanced above by Ludwigs2, Jayen and Elonka above, and others in the original talk page discussions. The conventional images of Jesus and Buddha are also not based on any historically authentic depiction, though there are verbal ones for Buddha and Muhammad but not Jesus. The plethora of images of Jesus we show are nearly all drawn from the narrow period of Renaissance/Baroque Roman Catholicism, and are far from representative of the broad history of Christianity across time and place, and in particular obviously do not reflect the objection many Protestant churches still have to such images, and all of them once had. Probably some Protestants are still offended by such imagery, though not in such violent terms as their 16th century forbears, though I suppose they realize it would be pointless to object. Johnbod (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Resolute Many of the "opponents" (for wont of a better word) of the depictions are applying an inaccurate scale to this debate. They seem to be arguing that zero is the minimum and six (the current total) is the maximum, therefore any compromise position must be a number between the two This is incorrect. The maximum number of depictions is "as many as we can fit into this article". Commons:Category:Muhammad has over 100 Muslim drawn depictions, and over 40 western (half of which belong in "Everybody draw Mohammad day"). With respect to Jayen's arguments on due weight, picked up on by others, I would point out that there are 25 images total on the article as of right now. Only five of them are Islamic depictions, two of which are defaced. I would argue that the article already reflects Jayen's arguments. This is also why I argue below that the use of images in this article is already in a compromise state. Johnbod is dead on in his assessment that there would certainly be far more such depictions if not for some level of deference to Islamic belief. I consider this a fair arrangement: We have shown a nod toward Islamic religious belief by limiting the number and placement of images. To do more, however, would violate WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV. Consequently, I categorically reject the claim that these images are included only as a "knee-jerk response". In my view, the depictions most certainly aids the article. And the truth is, this should be so self-evident that such a question should not even need to be asked. They are direct representations of the article subject, in most cases showing the subject during a notable moment of their life. Their very nature is educational: they reveal how Muhhamad has been viewed throughout history, even by Muslims. The very fact that we have 100 Islamic depictions and nearly 150 total should make it self-evident people throughout history have found value in such imagery. I believe we do too, exactly as we do on any other article subject. Resolute 23:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Alanscottwalker The images are educationally useful. If they need to be further contextualized by the text, to avoid unwanted implication, than that can be readily done. The Muhammad article is the biography of a man -- this is not an article whose purpose is art, art history, religion, or architecture. It is apparent by looking at them that the images in the article bear some kind of naturalistic representation of the man, Muhammad, although they are certainly not photographic. (Indeed, it is the fact that they do so, that gives rise to any religious objection that they could be idolotrous). They are images of a man, that all have said is the man Muhammad, doing things that are important in the story of his life. Although it is far from relevant for this article and our purposes, for further information, if one were inclined to look at the history of the art, two of the (unveiled) images (those seem to be the most objected to), in the article, were created for what has been called the "first history of the world," Jami' al-tawarikh, by the extraordinary scholar Rashid-al-Din Hamadani. [2] This work was planned to be published in Arabic and Persian, and distributed to schools in cities throughout the middle east. (Id.) Extensive research went into writing this history that covered civilizations from China to Europe. (Id.) Hamadani also published 4 volumns of the Hadith and many other books. According to our article on the Jami, the images of Muhammad were painted under the direction of Hamadani and the artist named, Lohrasp, who painted in the "Arab, Syrian and Mesopotamian" tradition. The one other unveiled image is from a book created for the Ottoman emperor. We are also using them for secular purposes and presenting them in a respectful, secular way. From the forgoing, and the number of images in our Wikimedia galleries, as well as, their extensive use on our sister projects, about Muhammed, in many languages, it is evident that we are far from the first people who have thought of illustrating the life of Muhammad, with pictures of him, for educational purpose. With respect to the most recent discussion of the current images, and the proposal that was being discussed, when it was interrupted: The central nub is there were three very small camps of editors: status quo, uncommitted to particular images or numbers but think the present images serve their purpose; and those who don't want any figurative, especially, unveiled, images of Muhammad in the biography sections of the article. This biography article, like many other such articles contains, at its core, a large section on the person's life: the biography sections. We assume the good faith of those who placed the images in the biography sections. They have stayed there and are presumed to have consensus, especially when they have been discussed. With respect to the unveiled images, they do illustrate important things about him and his life: including, but not limited to, the clashing, polytheistic, tribal society he came from; the claimed revelations; and the rule of a newly united people he established, while proclaiming the revelations. There are multiple other images in the article, including prominently, calligraphy. Others have spoken to the view that the way the article is now is already a concession to the demands of the subject matter, unlike any other biography. The proposal under discussion was a radical departure from the status quo. It will take time and perhaps a more structured process, and specification of rules, to move through that. Whatever the outcome, the rules should not be based on, imo, art history (widely tangential to the subject of a biography), or, certainly not, with limiting use because of the religion or culture of the artist (widely tangential and discriminatory), or the religion of the particular reader/editor (not allowed by policy). We should prefer that they be based on whether they illustrate something important Muhammad was personally claimed to be involved with, and properly contextualized. The rules and results should also have wide consensus, generally applicable to every article presentation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC) FormerIP Including images for the sake of including images is good enough. That's what we normally do. Including images as a knee-jerk response to ostensible censorship would be a violation of WP:POINT. If there is any serious claim that this has happened, then this should be explored. But I don't think it is something that is seriously in issue (at least, I have not seen it raised in those terms). It is not the case that the sources use "very few" images of Mohammed. The sources simply present the dilemma: should we use images of the subject of the article, or should we use pictures of sunsets, sand dunes and random mosques as placeholders? I think the answer to this is that we should reject as a model any source that does not appear to follow WP's guidelines for selecting images (we are not censored, and images should have direct relevance to the accompanying text).--FormerIP (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Tivanir2

Most of the major points have been included already to why the images would be considered useful. My personal opinion is that (and I have pointed this out) that if this article was about any other person in similar instances (i.e. almost any other religious figure, political figure etc.) there would be no issue, or barring that the individuals in opposition to these images are using the argument based on the numbers within a current community. I find all the pictures useful; both caligraphy and images since they show different things about muhammad. Calligraphy gives us information about how he is currently portrayed in the Islamic world, while the images give us an idea of how his followers perceived him to be. Both give us insights into what he has molded (i.e. legacy) the religious followers into today. I do need to point out that the article already follows WP:offensive material since we aren't using anything designed to deliberately cause offense. Editors removed the dante's inferno picture due to it being irrelevant and offensive, the other pictures do not fall into the same category.

(2) Basing Wikipedia coverage on secondary sources

Thank you for your responses. AGK [•] 21:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to the parties who have responded to my first question. Anybody who has not responded is still welcome to do so, and I will continue to read all submissions to this section. Also, other members of the committee may want to pose further questions - I'm not sure if they will. At this point, I have two further sections to add. To avoid blurring the lines between answers, if an editor wants to respond to both questions, please do so separately. I was heartened to see the parties get behind a proposal to base the use of multimedia within Muhammad on that of the main secondary sources. As editors, it is important that we explore different approaches and develop new rules for articles that are the subject of unusual debates. However, I have some concern about that proposal. Wikipedia uses reliable sources to verify the content of our articles. Primary and secondary sources may provide useful guidance in how to treat specific questions of the coverage of subjects, but even if a source is unquestionably reliable it cannot be used to dictate a Wikipedia article on the associated subject, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and most reliable sources are not. The purpose of Wikipedia is often different from the purpose of textbooks, academic texts, journals, or other sources. Therefore, Wikipedia does not merely collate reliable sources, but instead amalgamates the material on a subject into a neutral, verified article. Where the specifics of such an amalgamation are disputed, editorial consensus (and dispute resolution if consensus cannot be reached) must be used; it follows that we would not deliberately reflect the use of images within secondary sources in the use of images in our own article. Do you agree or disagree, and why? AGK [•] 22:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Agree entirely. In particular our use of images is different from that of print sources as they have to pay for the picture rights, the pre-press repro & then the paper. Johnbod (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Agree. In many cases the actual images from reliable sources are still under copyright and with all rights reserved, so they can't be used in Wikipedia at all. You can't "rephrase" a picture in way that would pass the derivative work test, so you have to look for a free substitute instead, which already entails some editorial judgement. (Is the same item being depicted? Etc.) I think that anyone who has struggled to find suitable pictures for a Wikipedia article knows this, but I can give some examples if requested. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC) I don't think anyone would argue that wikipedia is rigidly bound to what happens in reliable sources, and I'm quite certain that neither Jayen, Hans nor I would argue that this should be some kind of thoughtless automatic procedure. The problem here is specific to controversial images: if Wikipedia is going to be using controversial images (as it sometimes must) then it puts itself in the position of taking sides in real-world controversies, and as a consequence ought to be judicious in the manner and extent to which it does so. The quantity and nature of images in secondary sources and tertiary sources is a reasonable metric of what others consider to be judicious usage. If our editors could always be trusted to use common sense on controversial topics we wouldn't need such a metric, but ample evidence (here and elsewhere) demonstrates that controversial topics attract editors with strong opinions and determined attitudes, and that puts our articles at risk of becoming overtly opinionated. (Note in this regard that the primary motivation of the image supporters on Muhammad is NOTCENSORED - it's an ideological position, not an encyclopedic one). Until the project develops a level of maturity that allows it to handle conflicts between ideologically-driven editors, we need to have some way of ensuring that our articles do not get staked out by one side or the other as their ideological 'turf'. It's unfortunate, but (currently) Wikipedia cannot be trusted to handle controversial topics even-handedly, and using secondary sources (via NPOV) are the only tools we have for keeping ardent editors and their opponents in check. --Ludwigs2 00:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC) As I explained to Coren the other day, the problem arises where images take a side in a preexisting debate. We are all aware that there is such a debate about depictions of Muhammad. The committee quite recently dealt with the abortion case, where one of the most hotly contested and intractable points of discussion concerned the inclusion of an image of an aborted foetus. You may be aware that there is a plethora of such – often gruesome and disturbing – images in circulation (for examples, see [3]), and that they play a significant role in pro-life advocacy. Now, if anti-abortion activists have uploaded 60 such images in Commons, each quite clearly illustrating what the article is about, we could arguably have sixty of them in the abortion article, with several representative images of embryos removed from the womb at every possible age at which abortions are performed, and in every possible state of dismemberment. However, AGK, it seems to me we would quite clearly be favouring a point of view by doing so. We cannot solve such disputes through editorial consensus, because any such consensus will favour the prevalent view in our community, whose demographics are, as we all know, neither representative of our global readership, nor necessarily of views expressed in reliable sources. As Jimbo quite rightly pointed out, policy requires us to place the neutral point of view, derived from the prevalence of viewpoints in our sources, above our own viewpoints. The proper function of community consensus here is to establish the prevalence of these viewpoints in reputable sources, and to ensure that our presentation is neutral with respect to that pool of sources. So in the abortion case, if such images are prevalent in reliable sources, we are bound to include them in proportion to their prevalence. If we find that reliable sources do not include them, but they are in fact restricted to self-published activists' websites, we don't. WP:NOTCENSORED cannot help us make this decision in a way that satisfies WP:NPOV, which is and remains non-negotiable. Whenever we deal with emotionally loaded questions of this type, we have to take recourse to sources, and come to an agreement on how best to reflect them, in order to ensure the project's neutrality. --JN466 03:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC) For any matter that is controversial the only sane and future proof way to me to resolve the issue is to follow our sources more explicitly than you are suggesting here. That means in this case we should be using images in balance with our sources. I would say Jayen's comment about 60 feutuses is more than a little much, but would including 6 such images be considered appropriate? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Agree - This is what many of us have been saying all along. The "our use of images must follow how the sources use images" has always been a rather weak argument. We do not apply the censorship found by some in this subject area, nor are we bound by the traditional limitations of paper media. Tarc (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Agree, but I would be more emphatic in saying that a process based on the idea that reliable sources should dictate our stylistic choices, as well as wrong, would simply give rise to a fool's errand in the present case. Giving consideration to the sources in a very general sense tells us little that we didn't already know. Some use images of Mohammed, some do not. I have not seen any that attempt a fudge by including images but placing them bottom-left-below-the-fold-subject-of-article-not-clearly-identifiable. So the sources really give us a two-way choice, which is exactly what we started out with. In reality, consideration of source material is just one of various factors that might go to decisions about imagery in the article, and it is not even of comparatively high importance, IMO, when sat next to consideration of the guidance in our MoS and our general asprirations of being politically neutral and uncensored.--FormerIP (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I realise you collapsed this section AGK, and if I am out of line in making an addition here, please feel free move this to the talk page (this could also be the basis of a finding of fact). I had a thought tonight that is not new, but perhaps needs to be stated in this case: I was taking pictures at the 2012 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships tonight for the purpose of adding to several of our national team and player articles. It occurred to me that under Jayen's logic, not a single picture I have taken is valid for Wikipedia's use. In fact, of the nearly 400 images I have uploaded to Commons, about 98% of them would be invalid, because virtually all of them are self-published, and they did not appear in any other publications prior to being added to their respective articles. The argument that our editorial decisions on image use must rely heavily on what published sources use runs completely counter to how Wikipedia treats images and multimedia at present. I would say that the only real requirement for images is that they be what they say they are. In the case of my images, you really have naught but my word that each photo is of the individual I claim them to be. In the case of the Muhammad images, the historical ones are already published and known to be of or about Muhammad. As such, the only question on their use is editorial balance. How other publications treat the topic, based on their own editorial limitations, is quite irrelevant. With that in mind, I am growing more of the mindset that Jayen's arguments, while well intentioned, are not germane to this debate and actually serves as an unnecessary distration. To treat it seriously is to ask for special case treatment on this article that is not present elsewhere. Resolute 06:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - I'll take them into consideration. I collapsed the previous discussion because I had finished reading the responses, but if there are other belated comments I'm happy for them to be added underneath the box. AGK [•] 13:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolute, that is of course a misunderstanding. We require our texts to be verifiable, and reflect viewpoints in proportion to their published prevalence, but of course that doesn't mean that we use the exact words our sources use. Similarly, NPOV policy, as it applies to images, does not imply that we should only use images that have been previously published, merely that our illustration style should be neutral, i.e. consistent with practice in the best and most reputable authoritative sources, rather than markedly and intentionally different. --JN466 14:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I could consider supporting this if you would exclude all sources edited or published by people that had their editorial judgment driven by religious considerations. Those sources would not be comparable to a secular project, and should not be used as a measurement point.—Kww(talk) 17:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a false dichotomy, Kww. Annemarie Schimmel (not a Muslim) for example focuses on traditional imagery in her books (examples: [4][5]), while Omid Safi, as a Muslim, discusses Muhammad images at length in Memories of Muhammad, and shows examples. It's pointless to pick and choose our authors according to their religion. They are either mainstream sources by significant authors or not. --JN466 17:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It would only be a dichotomy if I asserted that all non-Muslim sources were reliable, which I have not and would not. I would have a hard time using sources by Tea Party members as being reliable on Islam-related topics either, regardless of academic credentials. We always need to evaluate the bias of sources. The articles by Schimmel you keep pointing out cover Islamic imagery: a narrow focus, not at all comparable to an encyclopedia article about the historical figure. The article is focused on factual history, not the mythology that has grown around the man.—Kww(talk) 18:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, Britannica's online Muhammad article has four images: one of the Kaaba, two of the Prophet's Mosque, and one of the Shahada. That's it. No figurative images in the hardcopy version either. And WP:NPOV does not say that we need to "evaluate bias". It says that we have to represent viewpoints in proportion to their prevalence in the most reputable, authoritative sources. Why is that so difficult to follow here? --JN466 18:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That actually goes to my point. We are not limited to the same editorial constraints as other publications. We can use as many or as few as we deem proper for our needs. For the sake of NPOV, we need only state that such images are rare in modern Muslim art. In fact, that every image we will use is centuries old will indicate this as well. The problem with this debate is that we are bogged down in circular arguments. This being one, and Ludwigs' consistant forum shopping trying to force his personal opinions on the value and use of said images down everyone's throat being the other. Ludwigs' arguments have been rejected by the community, while yours have likewise failed to gain overall support. So lets move on to trying to resolve the issue. I am not suggesting that we dramatically change the number of depictions in the article, merely that we focus on what serves the needs of our readers best. Keeping in mind that the overwhelming majority of English Language readers will be coming from cultures that have no probihitions against such image use and that we exist to serve our readers' needs. Basically, before the discusison at /Images was trainwrecked, we stood at a point where there might have been support for my overall framework, but also that many did not wish to see the Black Stone image removed, or to have all images pushed down to the bottom of the article. So, using the existing number of six depictions as a framework, the question I would put is: Would people accept the orginial idea of one or two Muslim images (one unveiled, one defaced) in the Depictions section, two western images in the Western Views section, and two or three in the Life section? It is not a significant change, but it does spread the images out a little more. Resolute 17:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, this case is unusual as there are strongly opposed POVs attached to the images. WP:NPOV / WP:DUE applies to images. Editors may argue that it doesn't, but that doesn't change policy. --JN466 18:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

To state that an image is that of Muhammad doing x is NPOV, and to state that such images are rare (or forbidden) in the modern Sunni Muslim world is DUE. That we choose to use them to enhance our article is editorial. But, again, we're going back in circles. We both know that depictions will be retained. So lets focus on which images and where. Resolute 18:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I was happy with the number of figurative images in your compromise proposal. That is still what I am aiming for now – your proposal showed perhaps one or two more Muhammad images than I would have liked, and one or two less than you might have liked, but the number, placement and selection of those images broadly met WP:Due. It had majority talk page support then, and still has now. --JN466 19:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I had hoped so too, but there is validity in the claim that the discussion was done "in the dark". While that is how things often go on Wikipedia, given the multiple forums this has been shopped to, the objection to the change on that basis was not completely out of line. Also, it was noted that other discussion had found at least one image I proposed to remove useful, so we may have ended up with two apparent consensuses acting at cross purposes. At this point, we are better off seeking to blend the two together than to hold to one and wait the other side out. That is what I was hoping to do before this case interrupted that process. Resolute 21:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Given how scattered this process is (how the hell do you arbs make sense of it all?), I just realized Eraserhead proposed a compromise on the talk page here. Perhaps it would help if everyone who is party to this case were to look at it, and discuss what works and what doesn't. We could ultimately settle this "out of court", as it were, and leave it to ArbCom to deal with those who act to subvert any resolution going forward. Resolute 21:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with the statement because similar to information there are things that people don't necessarily want to have the public see image wise (Xenu comes to mind) but that doesn't change the idea that the information is false or misleading. I think the most important aspect overall is the ability for a group to form consensus about which things to include or remove from an article, and as long as valid justification can be given for either side it should be weighed against what it provides to the reader. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

(3) Policy holds that Muhammad must contain images

Thank you for your responses. AGK [•] 21:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

As an online project, Wikipedia has the advantage of making use of online images and other multimedia to improve the reader's understanding of the subject of our articles. However, decisions to include or exclude an image in an article must focus only on whether the image is appropriate to include in a given article. The community has decided that an image may be included if it improves the reader's understanding of the associated content and if the image looks like what it means to illustrate. Images that are not provably authentic may still be included if it improves the reader's understanding of the article subject, especially if authentic images (like photographs or contemporary drawings) are unavailable. Policy holds that Muhammad should contain images of Muhammad himself, even if those images are not contemporary or not direct images of him. Do you agree or disagree, and why? Do you think that, within reason, the argument that including many images of Muhammad implies he was widely covered by contemporary artists is therefore secondary to the need to show the readers images of the subject - as is the case in almost every other article? Why or why not? AGK [•] 22:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Agree. The captions are careful to date all the "depiction" images - the other captions of images of buildings etc could do with more dates. Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC) To Elonka below: In fact there are only two images from the Jami' al-tawarikh, there because they are simple compositions with large figures that work well at small size. I hope you not implying, as many in these debates unfortunately have, that Persians or Shias are not "mainstream Islamic culture". There are large numbers of manuscripts with images of Muhammad, especially of the Mi'raj, a point that has been heavily discussed at the original talk page. Johnbod (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC) I agree. An important reason for the policy is because we are in the project to make knowledge as concrete and accessible as we can to a pluralistic audience. Thus, in the biography of a man, we at a minimum say: this is a man's life, this is what is important about him, these are illustrations of that. All topically related images used in an article (thus having consensus) are contextualized and explained in words, not misrepresented, and not deleted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Ironically, Jayen's argument on reliable sources supports this argument. We have over 100 viable Islamic depictions in Commons that have been published in reliable sources, ergo, the use of any of them is supported. Consequently, since we currently use only five, I disagree with the argument that we are "including many images of Muhammad", which also defeats the implication that we are misrepresenting how widely he was covered by contemporary artists. Beyond that, however, I believe we have a consensus that the article will include these depictions. Given that I believe the only viable argument for removal of all such images is "they offend some adherents of a religion", I also believe that removing all could only be classified as censorship, which would negatively impact the neutrality of our article. As such, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV, all policies, mandate that depictions be included. Resolute 00:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC) As I said in my reply to your first question: the art-type depictions included are reception-type images: they illustrate how Muhammad was depicted in various cultures across time. There was a time and place where anthropomorphic, non-veiled depictions of him were common. And it was an important Islamic culture. These images were defaced by later generations. I can back this up with references if requested. The attempt to move every anthropomorphic image to a sub-article (Depictions of Muhammad) is not appropriate first because of WP:SUMMARY, second because we have art-type depictions of historical figures (not actual images of them) in many, many other articles, and third because some of these images illustrate important events in Muhammad's life as seen by later followers, so they fit quite well with the prose flow. The placement of the anthropomorphic images in the Muhammad article is already a significant departure from Wikipedia's editorial standards in articles about historical figures, bowing to certain religious standards. In his argument below Ludwigs2 is failing to comprehend WP:NPOV and insisting on imposing a tyranny of contemporary Islamic majority. NPOV does not require that only mainstream and contemporary religious depictions be used. Minority or historical depictions are okay as long as they have some relevance and are found in reliable sources. And both these conditions are met in the Muhammad article. It would be quite difficult to replace all anthropomorphic manuscript images in that article with Arabic calligraphy and convey the same message to most of our audience, which by and large is not a reader of Arabic. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC) I don't believe policy actually does hold this position (if that's what you meant to suggest); There is a disconnect between "may be included" and "must be included" that cannot be glossed over. We are not thoughtlessly obliged to include any image just because we have it available; we choose (or at least should choose) on the basis of appropriateness. That aside, the remainder of the argument rests on the terribly unsophisticated assertion that we need to show a person-like image simply because it's an article about a person. Why would that be the case? There are many articles about people that would be better served by images of the person's accomplishments than of the person him/herself, and in a case like Muhammad - where we know that the person-like depictions are not remotely accurate, and where the most commonly used depictions of the person in the real worlds are (by far) obscured or non-person-like - then the logic "It must be person-like because it's about a person" is incredibly strained. There was a period in Christian history where Christ was always depicted by the image of a fish; had that tradition continued to this day then our article on Jesus would correctly be predominated by images of symbolic fish. There would be little value to presenting a person-like image if that were not the way Christ was conventionally represented in the real world, and there is little value in presenting Muhammad that way, since that is not the way he is generally construed. --Ludwigs2 00:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Let's have a look at the article William Shakespeare (permalink), a featured article on another giant of world literature. It contains: 1 picture of Shakespeare, 2 statues of Shakespeare, 1 picture of his signature, 1 photograph of his birthplace, 1 photograph of his grave, 5 paintings of scenes from his plays, 2 pictures of early editions of his works (one also including an image of him), and 1 image of the rebuilt Globe Theatre. It also includes 3 call-out boxes (2 featuring Shakespeare quotes, and 1 with a quote about Shakespeare). The article as a whole is clearly an apt reflection of Shakespeare and his reception, yet only 4 of its 14 images are figurative depictions of Shakespeare, because Shakespeare's reception, just like Muhammad's, has primarily been through his words and oeuvre, and not through figurative images. Our task is to educate the reader. 10 additional fanciful images of Shakespeare would contribute less to that end than the images the article presently contains. To address Resolute's point, the reason we have so many images of Muhammad in Commons is that in the wake of the Jyllands-Posten affair, many people felt motivated to make Muhammad images available online through websites such as http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/ which many of our Commons uploads list as their source. There has not been a similar effort in uploading notable calligraphic art, Quranic inscriptions etc.; the hilya images I uploaded to Commons, for example, were the first ever to be added there. It is well known that the media content in Commons is frequently not representative of the wider world, but instead reflects the preoccupations of a Western and white demographic – readily apparent from such anomalies as for example the fact that we have about 1,000 images of white Caucasian penises in Commons (and could have had several thousand more), but no images of black or Asian ones, and so forth. To address the point made by ASCIIn2Bme, his assertion that "it [figurative images] was an important Islamic culture" is flatly contradicted by scholarship. Book miniatures were never a mainstream part of Islamic culture. They were the preserve of privileged rulers and wealthy patrons (some of them recent converts to Islam) who had artists illustrate manuscripts for them privately. Such images did not have wide currency in their own day, and played no significant role in the reception of Muhammad among the general populace. (For sources for these assertions please see the works cited in Muhammad#Islamic_depictions_of_Muhammad.) I would also urge you, AGK, to take note of User:Elonka's recent and welcome comments in this regard. As an encyclopedia, we do and must aspire to scholarship. --JN466 03:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC) In my experience, historical images of Muhammad are extremely rare, and come from very few sources. Indeed, on the Muhammad article as it exists right now, three of the images can be traced to one source, the Jami' al-tawarikh, a historical work commissioned for the Mongol Ilkhanate. Its context must be understood: The Ilkhanate was Mongol-conquered Persia, one section of the much larger Mongol Empire. The Mongols were very tolerant of multiple faiths, and in 1300 many in the Ilkhanate were converting to Islam. The Jami was created in this time of change, in the early 1300s. It does not represent mainstream Islamic culture -- it was an important historical work, but it was focused on the Mongols and their history, with information about the history of other peoples that the Mongols had interacted with. It was not a treatise focused on Muhammad and Islamic culture. It is incorrect to try and take images from the Jami and claim that they represent widespread Islamic practice, because they don't. As for how this connects with the current debate about the Muhammad article, I would say that one image from the Jami is sufficient, rather than three. --Elonka 05:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC) It should be taken into account that historical images of anything within the Muslim world are rare compared to European culture, if you consider the period from the time of Mohammed to the birth of photography. I would offer the following challenge to deletionists: are you able to identify any historical figure whose depiction in surviving antique Islamic art is more common than that of Mohammed? --FormerIP (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Elonka, I very much appreciate your contribution. See my entry on the Jami and irrelevance arguments, above in answer to the first question. I would question one or two of your points but we should avoid making much of any of this, because 1) we are not, in the article, representing it as widespread Islamic practice or culture; 2) We should hope "tolerance of multiple faiths" would not determine how we use their pictures; 3) We should hope that his religion (recent conversion or not), or culture, or ethnicity, would not exclude using an artist's pictures -- the pictures should be judged on the work (composition, subject matter, etc) for a biography. Out of curiosity, which one of the pictures you discuss would you choose and why? Or would any one of them suit you? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Thanks Alan. In answer to your question: Of the three Ilkhanid images (Muhammad and the Black Stone, Muhammad and Gabriel, and the Ottoman/Ilkhanid image), I have no strong preference on which to include, as I don't think any of them are particularly necessary to advancing the reader's understanding of Muhammad. As a compromise though, I could see it as reasonable to include one of them as a sample of the figurative art from the 14th century Ilkhanate. I slightly favor the image of Muhammad and the Black Stone (which I routinely restore to the Black Stone article when other editors try to delete it). In terms of the other figurative images, I would probably also thin them by removing one of the "Muhammad's entry into Mecca" images (there are currently two). And I would question the need for the Gagarin image, since I didn't notice any mention of Gagarin in the article text, nor even any discussion of Western visual depictions in that section, so it is not clear (to me) what purpose the image serves. A better image, if it could be worked into the text and a proper fair use rationale constructed, might be one of the movie posters from List of films about Muhammad, or a still if one could be obtained. For example, an image of Muhammad's son-in-law's sword from The Message might be interesting, and would serve a useful purpose to illustrate how even in mainstream films, great care has been taken to avoid showing Muhammad directly. --Elonka 06:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC) I am glad to agree on some of your image ideas. Perhaps, we will meet again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC) My concern has always been that we are implicitly presenting it as a widespread Islamic practice by the amount of weight we give the images, especially if we don't show the reader the mainstream public art that takes the place of figurative images in Islam (a couple of months ago, the situation was even worse, and we still lack a photograph of the Kaaba, or a single Quranic inscription). Hence the idea of Showing three Islamic figurative images, one of each major type (unveiled/veiled/flame), so the reader learns about these types, Using Mi'raj images to reflect their popularity in history, as well as their popularity in RS today (the right-hand one of the two Mi'raj images in this article version alone is used on at least three book covers), Adding mainstream imagery like the Kaaba and Quranic inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock (both the Kaaba and the Dome of the Rock are initimately linked to Muhammad's biography, and are the two most holy shrines in Islam today), etc. --JN466 07:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Without transforming this into a content debate, there are several books dealing with the art during the Ilkhanate, e.g. [6]. The nutshell version is: there was a trend towards visual representations in that part of the Islamic world before the Mongols arrived; this trend was accelerated by the arrival of Mongols who had no iconoclastic inhibitions. At the same time there was a more practical reason why visual representations of Muhammad in depictions of key events in the Islamic faith surfaced: competing Sunni and Shi'a groups tried to influence the conquering Mongols' faith through the visual means that the Mongols were accustomed to from their contact with Buddhism. [7] Amusingly, because the Ilkhanate-period art is replete with visual depictions of key events in Muhammad's life is what makes them useful for illustration purposes in Wikipedia as well. Another problem with Elonka & JN466's statements is that "mainstream Islam"—an expression both of them use above—is hard to actually find in serious scholarship dealing with that period. The Mongols even conquered and destroyed Baghdad, thus the traditional center of Islamic (Golden Age) power was no more. But the Mongols in that region themselves converted to Islam thereafter. So, if by "mainstream Islam" Elonka and JN466 mean the Mamluks and other Muslims to the west of Egypt, then it is true that visual representations did not surface in their lands. But I've not seen scholarly sources referring to these as "mainstream Islam" as opposed to the "non-mainstream" (or "fringe") Ilkhanate. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC) I am repeating myself here slightly, but I presume you have a source showing that this form of art has been widely practiced in Central Asia, China, Iran, South Asia and South East Asia? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Yes you are repeating yourself, so I'm going to say it for the last time: NPOV does not require that all images in the article come from some "majority" or "mainstream" Islamic art. And you'll have a hard time even defining that "mainstream"; there's an interesting WP:RS quote on my talk page in that respect, which I won't repeat here. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC) That isn't the question I have asked. You have stated that JN466 is only referring to Islam to the west of Egypt, I have asked you for evidence that the situation is different to the east of Egypt in the muslim countries there, I think that if your claim is correct I would be keen to change my mind on this position, so I'd like to see the evidence behind your post. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure exactly what is that you're asking, but it's this simple: the images are part of one significant Islamic culture, the Ilkhanate and their Timurid successors, which were located East of Egypt. The images don't have to be part of all Islamic cultures across all time to be relevant in the article. We should probably continue this conversation elsewhere. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification. I understand your point and agree with it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC) I am not aware of any policy that requires us to use any images at all. The only relevant policy I know is WP:Image use policy. This policy just takes it for granted that editors will want to use images, and describes some restrictions. In one place it comes close to giving a reason for inclusion of an image: "Articles may get ugly and difficult to read if there are too many images crammed onto a page with relatively little text. They may even overlap. // For this reason, it is often a good idea to temporarily remove the least-important image from an article and queue it up on the article's talk page. Once there is enough text to support the image, any contributor is free to shift the image back into the article. // If a contributor believes such a queued image to be essential to the article, despite the lack of text, he or she may decide to put it back in. However, he or she should not simply revert the article to its previous state, but make an attempt to re-size the images or create some sort of gallery section in order to deal with the original problem." The reason we use images is that they improve an article. If they improve the article. If not, we remove the images. As the excerpt from the image use policy shows, this requires weighting between the benefit provided by the image and any drawbacks such as the relatively trivial one of layout problems. This weighting is a normal editorial process, and it can take into account such arguments as "If there aren't enough pictures all the kids will stop reading half-way through" and "If there are too many sexually explicit photos, a lot of readers will either surf away from the article or focus too much on the photos and not read the text". Wikipedia does not have good processes for dealing with disputes about such editorial decisions. I think I am observing a recent trend to deny that editorial decisions are even legitimate and to replace them by more objective processes. You can often read words such as "Follow the sources, Luke" in this context, and the fundamentalist idea is basically that we should be no more than "transcription monkeys" (Jimbo's expression). Of course this goes too far. Even when there are a lot of reliable sources on a topic, we can still treat it in an essentially unique way. However, where we depart from the sources, we should know why. The application here is as follows. There are no images of Muhammad with any claim to accuracy of facial features. Therefore the main benefit of such illustrations is the demonstration of how posterity has seen Muhammad. This is the same situation as with Holy Spirit (Christianity), which shows many paintings that depict the Holy Spirit as a white pigeon, but only one each presenting it as a human or flame. (Should an occultist try to shift this balance and upload many images of the Holy Spirit as a humanoid ghost, we should resist this.) Hans Adler 07:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC) I agree that the article should contain images, and I agree that it should contain some depictions as they are useful. However the featured article William Garrow seems to manage with only a single depiction of him, so there doesn't seem like any policy based reason as to why we have to contain significant numbers of depictions. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV do dictate that for this article we should include a small number of images. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Near as I can tell, we only have one image of Garrow available. You don't honestly think that we would have included more if the material was available? Resolute 19:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Looks like we have 3 on commons alone, additionally its gone through the FA process so if it was an issue you'd have thought people would have found more. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC) If we have images of a subject and they satisfy WP:NFCC] or are otherwise free to use, yes, usage should be automatic. How many to use and their placement therein should be a matter of editorial decision. Second,I do not feel that image usage implies implies wide usage in contemporary sources. It all has to do with what exactly we are here doing on this project, and what the purpose is of this article. Are we writing an article on Muhammad for a Muslim audience, and thus must take care to be deferential to their beliefs and how they treat their prophet? Or are we writing an article on a historical religious figure for the English Wikipedia, a diverse and broad audience that does not share any one religion, creed, or nationality? Tarc (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC) If we have images of the subject of an article then it would seem obvious that we use them. The question of whether they are authentic as to the likeness of the subject is not really relevant. In no other article would the question of whether we should use such images arise. Robert has objected to the absence of an image of Mohammed in his infobox. Purely for the sake of appearing pragmatic, I will not push this point. But is there any other biography of a human being where an image of the subject exists but something else is included in the infobox? We are already bending quite far enough. --FormerIP (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Well does the article need to have images? In honesty no article requires images as someone can explain something if they are willing to write 1000+ words to describe it in sufficient detail. Also I would like to point out that the push for a smaller number of images includes all images on the article not just the figurative images by the majority of editors last time I counted. As long as images are relevant and serve a purpose than I am of the opinion they should be included to help the readers understand the subject they are looking up. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

(4) Question to and about Hans Adler

In Kww's submissions, his evidence included this comment by Hans Adler in which Hans said,

There is nothing wrong about "implicitly paint[ing] you as unethical". In fact, I hereby say explicitly that unless your brain is functioning in a seriously unusual way (such as autism, to give a concrete example) or you come from a weird culture with seriously twisted ethics, the fact that your perspective is thoroughly unethical simply cannot be argued away.

Such behaviour is grossly unacceptable, but unless there is a wider issue with Hans' contributions to the discussions surrounding this dispute I would be inclined to overlook an isolated case of unprofessionalism in the final decision. Hans, please explain why you made such a comment. Other parties, please comment whether this was an isolated instance, or whether there is a wider problem to be considered; if you answer there is a wider problem, I would look for a substantiating evidence submission. Thank you, AGK [•] 00:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem an isolated incident. His ability to assume good faith in this dispute seems low [8] [9] [10] [11]. He basically wants zero anthropomorphic images in the article, veiled or not, because they cause offense: [12] In a couple of those diffs he prophetizes that there's going to be showdown RfC in which he is going to be vindicated, but he never initiated one on this issue in the past year. There's also his enabling of other disruptive editors to consider. Please read the comment [13]. We can only hope that Hans Adler intends to presents /Evidence on the behavior of those he says behaved worse than Ludwigs2. Amusingly [or hypocritically], he later impeached factionalism and the lack of policy rationale in the !votes [14]. At that point in time, the ANI thread already contained a sizable portion of the diffs on Ludwigs2 now found on the /Evidence page. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Hans and I assert that, because this project defends the placement of offensive images that add little or nothing of importance to the reader's understanding of a topic, it is behaving just like a person who is incapable of sensing the social impact of their offensive behaviour, or like someone who sees the offense but doesn't care. This project shares its perspective on offensiveness with unsocialised autistics, and psychopaths: an unethical perspective. What Hans said about this perspective is highly pertinent to this discussion; it addresses, in my opinion, the very root of the problem. I don't mean this to reflect in any way on Kww's character, I'm addressing the ethics of a particular perspective he is defending, one that is presently embraced by the project as a whole, in WP:NOTCENSORED. Hans could have chosen his words more carefully. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Anthony, it seems like you're trying to say "If I call someone an asshole, it isn't a personal attack if I truly believe that person to be acting assholishly". What I see in those diffs above is Adler denigrating his Wiki-opponents for supporting "ornamental images" and for insisting that the inclusionists are doing so with the willful intent to offend. He is also pretty much the lone voice calling for ZERO images. Tarc (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm saying I agree with Hans; the project's attitude toward offending its readers is autistic/psychopathic. This is no doubt due to the fact that we're online and welcome all-comers, an ideal refuge for people with poor social intelligence. Hans should not indulge in assigning traits and motives to individual editors, though, and should be counseled to refrain from that. Please don't refer to people by their surname; it is patronising and insulting. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

First off, I will acknowledge people in a manner that I see fit, within the bounds of WP:NPA. We're not buddies, and certainly not on a first-name basis. Second, in trying to address this concern of Adler's conduct, did you seriously just agree with him and call us a bunch of psychopathic autistics? Do you wish to rethink that? Tarc (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest "Mr Adler," then? No, I did not call us a bunch of psychopathic autistics. I pointed out that "offensiveness is irrelevant," the sixth pillar, is an autistic (they don't notice) / psychopathic (they don't care) trait. This contempt for our readers is bad for the project.

(It probably survives here because of the likely higher incidence of low social intelligence in internet communities, but I can't imagine a study design that could disprove that.) It is time for us to start treating our readers and fellow editors with respect. Respect is not deference. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the problem I've been discussing in talk: it's a peculiar Wikipedia phenomena where editors feel free to behave in ways that would never fly in the real world. As I've mentioned before, I sometimes amuse myself by imagining editors here approaching their bosses in real life saying "It's irrelevant whether our product offends Muslims, so let's just go ahead and offend them." (or worse: "Our product must offend Muslims because if it doesn't we'll look like we're 'soft' on Islam") Real organizations do not tolerate people who create prejudicial work environments, and using the self-righteous assertion that a coworker is being uncivil for pointing out the hostile work environment would probably get security called in double-time. But, Welcome to Wikipedia! --Ludwigs2 15:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else involved in this dispute, but I freely acknowledge I stand guilty as charged of having PDD-NOS, so let me take you through my thought process. My indifference to offense is not subject specific; I don't empathize with people because I can't. Over my 21+ years of living, I've learned to notice when this indifference is entering into what I'm doing, and it's not here. I want the images in the article for reasons that Tivanir2 elucidated in Section 1 above far more eloquently than I can right now, not because I'm evilly cackling as Muslims write about how offended they are. Again, I'm not speaking for anyone else here, but my PDD-NOS isn't the driving force behind my pushing for inclusion of these images (and though I won't speculate on whether anyone else here is on the spectrum, I suspect if someone is their thought process closely approximates mine). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

There are plausible arguments in favour of : "Offensiveness is irrelevant." Kww makes the slippery slope argument - "If we take into account the offensiveness of images of Muhammad, then we'll have to take account of images of dead Australian Aborigines ... where will it end?" There are others that deserve to be addressed, too, and I'll try to do that in my proposal. But, ultimately, you have to ask, what kind of project adopts this as policy?

I take your point, Blade; there are persuasive (though I'm not persuaded) arguments in favour of ignoring any offense or hurt we may cause, and every editor I've opposed on this question is convinced by those arguments. I counsel editors not to speculate about the ethics or motives of their opponents, it derails discussion, compounds ill-feeling and is, in itself, offensive behaviour. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Reasonable people can come to different conclusions, and so can a reasonable person and I ;). Seriously, though, I think that this, along with many other debates, is something which has a great deal of high-level scholarly work to support both sides, and it ultimately comes down to which side an individual person is more convinced by (one parallel that comes to my mind is the Battle of Kadesh, which has both sides claiming victory; since obviously no one alive was there, do we ascribe victory, moral victory, or defeat to the Egyptian army, and on what basis?). That people have debated this issue since Islam's earliest days is indicative of how murky this question is, and in my mind justifies showing at least a few pictures of visual representations of Muhammad both veiled and unveiled, but I also understand the position you take. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Blade, literally everybody in these proceedings, including Anthony, is happy to show at least a few depictions. There is not a single editor here demanding zero depictions, and Anthony was one of those supporting Resolute's earlier compromise proposal which did just that -- show a few depictions. [15][16][17] --JN466 06:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, both Adler and Elonka have expressed a desire for a final finding of zero-to-two/three depictions of Muhammad in the article. Is that technically demanding total removal? No, but IMO that is a distinction without a difference. Tarc (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, at no point have I demanded total removal of images. For you to try and claim that that is what I am saying, concerns me a great deal. I was asked what I would expect to see (0-2 images), and then I explained, quite clearly I thought, what I would do with the article if it were entirely up to me (which would be to include some images).[18] --Elonka 18:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Given that Anthonyhcole refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing by Ludwigs2 [19], his statement above is no surprise. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I regularly criticise Ludwigs for bickering on talk pages and running off with threads. I would like the committee to admonish him for that behaviour, and threaten him with sanctions if it doesn't stop (on all pages), and admins to act on the threats if his behaviour doesn't improve. If that were sorted, if he could just not bite the bait and stay on topic he'd be fine. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Anthony's assessment. --JN466 15:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm… well, it's interesting that you acknowledge the baiting but think the solution is for me not to bite it. That's a bit perverse, isn't it? --Ludwigs2 16:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No. I, and I think Jayen, do that all the time. (At least we try to.) If you bite, they keep baiting, and you both look like twelve-year-olds while ruining the discussion for the rest of us. If you don't, they look like the dicks they are. If you sign up to this mode of behaviour, I think you'll escape serious sanctions here. If you don't, I for one won't be defending you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• • This is one reason why we are stuck where we are: The assertion that the images add "little or nothing of importance" has been rejected. Consensus exists that the images belong in the article, ergo they add value. By constantly looping the discussion back to a defeated argument, you are preventing anyone from moving forward to a resolution. Resolute 17:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Some I describe as of little or no importance, others, as you know, I believe are essential. It's only the former that I object to. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel the need to point out he also accusses people of being incompetant as well [[20]]. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the lack of diff on this one for some reason in the page history it doesn't seem to exist. Direct quote is "<sarcasm>And of course Tarc's IDHT behaviour and insistence that NOTCENSORED takes precedence over NPOV has nothing at all to do with it.</sarcasm> Hans Adler 19:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)" found at [[21]]. The find option putting in Hans will bring up the reference for anyone that wants to see it. Again apologies it isn't a diff but I can't figure out what I am doing wrong with it right now. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You probably mean this.—Kww(talk) 23:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats the one. Good show. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither diff supports the accusations. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Agree he has been very prone to assume and assert that the images were deliberately added with the intention to offend and provoke Muslims, and therefore that defenders of their place in the article are acting from all sorts of bad motives, and do not display good faith in their arguments. He first appeared on the images talk page on October 22nd this year and I think most of his 19 edits there are in this vein, and will be found above, or elsewhere on the page. This one can be added to those above. Johnbod (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Jayen466

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is not censored

1) Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia includes educational content that may cause offence if inclusion is due according to the neutral point of view – representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

While true, I am not convinced this is sufficiently applicable to images. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Needs to be said for future reference.--JN466 11:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. --Ludwigs2 13:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed as stated, although Jayen has made it clear he interprets "... representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias..." in a way I certainly would not agree with, so Disagree with the intent of this proposition. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. --Elonka 00:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

True, but not in the sense that Jayen466 attempts to use it. While we must apply NPOV, we must also use some common sense in evaluating these sources. A source that defers to Muslim sensitivities about depicting Mohammed must be considered to be a biased source when making that evaluation.—Kww(talk) 16:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

So books by the foremost scholars of Islam in the Western world, like those of Annemarie Schimmel (e.g. [22][23]), university press-published, with hundreds of citations in the scholarly literature, that have been required reading in innumerable university courses – in other words, sources that are as mainstream and establishment as you can get in the real world, beyond the world of South Park – should be deemed "biased" in Wikipedia because they are openly celebratory of mainstream Islamic imagery? --JN466 19:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Annemarie Schimmel "had defended the outrage of the Islamic world against Salman Rushdie" (or more precisely "thinks that the Iranian death sentence against Salman Rushdie was understandable. And she has said so." [24]). Hmm. How about someone less controversial like William Montgomery Watt? His book Muhammad: prophet and statesman [25] does not have any miniatures, but has no calligraphy either! In only has MAPS. Ergo, by the JN466 logic, every other type of picture is UNDUE in the Muhammad article. Brilliant, isn't it? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

So what? She is probably the most cited Muhammad scholar of the last fifty years, winner of dozens of international awards, taught at Harvard for 25 years, as well as in Bonn, Ankara, Teheran, London and Edinburgh ... would you like us to prefer your judgment to that of the academic mainstream? And instead go by "Mr Hankey" and South Park? And it's not about going by any single book. Maps certainly occur in books on Muhammad, and we have some: that's good. But so does mainstream Islamic imagery, and lots of it, in the most reputable sources available to us. --JN466 21:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that quote is quite right "When she was asked in a television interview about the fatwa on Salman Rushdie, the novelist whose 1988 book, Satanic Verses, unleashed a torrent of Islamic fury, she said Rushdie had injured the feelings of Muslims and while she did not support the death sentence on Rushdie, she had seen "grown men weep" when they learnt of the contents of Rushdie's novel. She appealed for an understanding of the Muslims' point of view." (source). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

So, JN466 asserts without any citation that she is ""probably the most cited Muhammad scholar of the last fifty years", but Watt who is said to be "the foremost non-Muslim interpreter of Islam in the West" and "an enormously influential scholar in the field of Islamic studies and a much-revered name for many Muslims all over the world" [26] is like "Mr Hankey" to JN466. Only whatever scholar happens to support JN's precise POV is worthy of any consideration. Nice... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I did not denigrate Watt. I denigrated the implied relevance of Mr Hankey to writing an encyclopedic article about Muhammad. --JN466 22:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, one simple question for you: what's on the cover Clinton Bennett's In Search of Muhammad? (Please, no Mr Hanky replies.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

[27] (point 2). --JN466 00:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Watt certainly isn't an impartial scholar: "Unlike certain Orientalist scholars of previous generations, Watt was indeed convinced that the Koran was divinely inspired and that Muhammad received true religious experiences directly from God".—Kww(talk) 15:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, what do you think of Watt's writing? Are you aware he's presently cited over 50 times in the article, and do you think it's undue for Wikipedia to rely on him to that extent? --JN466 11:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes.—Kww(talk) 01:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV

2) WP:NOTCENSORED does not override WP:NPOV, including WP:DUE.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Closed discussion. AGK [•] 04:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment by parties: Proposed. This is stated in WP:NOTCENSORED itself ("Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's main servers are hosted, will also be removed."), but it seems worth restating. --JN466 16:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC) I don't believe any editor has suggested that NOTCENSORED overrides NPOV, DUE or any other policy or guideline. --FormerIP (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC) See diffs 5 and 6 in my evidence. The ideas expressed there appeared to suggest that following WP:NPOV / WP:DUE (i.e. following reliable sources) could breach WP:NOTCENSORED, thus assigning a higher priority to the latter than the former. --JN466 17:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC) No, you are working from the viewpoint that your interpretations of NPOV and DUE, acknowledged on both sides to be, at the very least, novel, cannot be overridden by counter-argument. This is not the same thing. --FormerIP (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC) I don't really understand where the notion comes from that it should be a novel idea for images to be subject to WP:NPOV / WP:DUE, or that it should be a novel idea for WP:NOTCENSORED to be secondary to WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV / WP:DUE has applied to images for the past five-and-a-half years, without interruption, and WP:NOTCENSORED has similarly for nearly seven years now stated expressly that it does not protect objectionable content that is in violation of WP:NPOV. Throughout this entire time, WP:NPOV has been non-negotiable, and has defined the neutral point of view as (1) representing views in proportion to their prevalence in the most reputable sources, and (2) as being impartial, i.e. not endorsing any one point of view in a debate as correct. Policy has always been clear on these points. --JN466 22:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC) By definition, censorship is a violation of NPOV. So yes, NOTCENSORED does stand above NPOV as the latter is not sustainable without the former. Also, this statement implies that NPOV has a higher priority than NOTCENSORED. I respect your viewpoint on how to determine "due weight" (thus my own efforts to integrate into my proposals), but it is a fair assessment that your views on the matter have not generated consensus support. Resolute 18:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC) The point, though, being that censorship is not a proper application of NPOV. An argument that goes "I have identified some sources on the topic of abortion/pornography/coprophilia/George Osborne and their use of images is quite different from ours..." is likely to not be an argument based in NPOV. In fact, it may well be the reverse, particularly if it fails to examine or care about the reasons for the differences identified. Claiming that your argument is an application of NPOV and therefore impervious to critique does not make it so. On the other hand, NOTCENSORED does not override NPOV, because no genuine application of policy can constitute censorship. --FormerIP (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Applying due weight in an article is not censorship. It may feel like that to someone who is entirely caught up in a particular subaspect of the article topic, and wants it to be more prominent than it is in reliable sources, but that does not make it so. We have an easy and standard way of dealing with this: if the subtopic is notable in its own right, we use WP:Summary style and create a subarticle. --JN466 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Once in a while, an editor comes along and says that all sources are censored, and therefore we must allow him to present in Wikipedia the truth that is missing in the sources. We may even, in rare cases, sympathise with such an editor, if they make a compelling case. But at the end of the day, we tell them to get reliable sources to include that which they want us to include in Wikipedia, and to come back when they have done so. There is no neutral point of view in Wikipedia that differs from the view of reliable sources. Even if we feel that all or most of the reliable sources are "non-neutral", or "censored", NPOV requires us to present points of view in due proportion to their prevalence in these same sources. That's how neutrality is defined in Wikipedia. --JN466 22:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Firstly, NPOV is only operates where there exist conflicting statements (to be construed broadly - I am not suggesting that images are per se excluded) of fact and opinion about the subject of an article. What we have here are conflicting opinions of editors about how to make stylistic choices in the presentation of an article. NPOV has no direct role in deciding that. It is something we decide by reference to our policies (so far as they are applicable), our MoS and, in the final analysis, our collective judgement. You are failing to draw this important distinction. The New York Times may be a reliable source for information about Mohammed. But it is not a reliable model for the editorial approach to be taken in Wikipedia. Secondly, we routinely deny weight to sources if we believe them to be censored. Were it the case, for example, that we were able to determine that 80% of all sources concerning human rights in China were produced by Chinese state media, we would not take the view that our writing on the topic should lean 80% towards what those sources say about the topic. Of course, we would scoff at someone wanting to include unsourced information on the grounds that all sources are censored. But you know very well that this is not analogous to the present case. --FormerIP (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC) It's a matter of degree. If I understand you correctly, you appear to argue that all sources that do not show images of Muhammad (including Encyclopaedia Britannica, University Press publications by leading scholars like this one by Carl W. Ernst, and many other highly reputable sources, are censored, leaving only the minority that have numerous Muhammad images as acceptable models to follow. This of course is a handy rationalisation, as it means that all the sources that disagree with you are ipso facto disqualified from the pool of references. You yourself, rather than the literature, then become the arbiter of due weight. But how is that different from an editor arguing that all sources that do not give pride of place to their favoured theory are censored, and that therefore said theory should rightly take pride of place in Wikipedia? I simply cannot take seriously the idea that Britannica's Muhammad article (or for that matter, every sexologist or sex-education website that chooses not to show an image like this in otherwise amply illustrated works discussing fisting) is "censored" the way the Chinese state media are censored – in the Muhammad case, not least because there are plenty of sources attesting to the rarity and generally unrepresentative character of figurative images of Muhammad in Islamic art. My whole point is that to the extent that we do present Islamic Muhammad imagery, we should represent it in correct proportions, giving most weight to mainstream rather than fringe art. To summarise, what your line of thinking appears to me to lead to is that we follow your POV, rather than a neutral point of view derived from and reflecting reputable sources. I appreciate that you believe sincerely and passionately in what you are saying, and that it reflects your idea of what Wikipedia should be, but I don't think it's philosophically neutral in either the general or the Wikipedia sense. Cheers. --JN466 02:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC) I'm not suggesting in the slightest that we should be dictated to by sources that reflect my POV. I'm suggesting that, in our stylistic choices, we should not be dictated to by sources at all. They can be useful points of reference in discussion, however. --FormerIP (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC) FormerIP: if we do not follow sources at all in such things, then how do we make such choices? 4+ years of near continuous dispute makes it clear that this is not some innocuous issue of style, but rather an area of fairly deep social and political controversy. NPOV and sources are what the project uses for content decisions about controversial issues; if you don't want them to apply on this controversial issue, how do you suggest we make these decisions? --Ludwigs2 04:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC) It is a gross mischaracterization to claim that we have had "4+ years of near continuous dispute". The truth is that we have had 4+ years of occasional arguments by Muslims who do not understand that Wikipedia is not bound by their religion's dogma. We all know that those complaints are going to continue so long as the count of such images is greater than zero, and we all know that the count of such images will never equal zero. Consequently, those occasional complaints are not prima facie evidence of dispute, but rather evidence of the need to continually try to educate people to the purpose of Wikipedia. Resolute 01:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Resolute: you are making a lot of bad faith assumptions and still agreeing with me that there is an intractable ongoing political and social controversy. So if we're not going to use NPOV and sources to solve that controversy, what are we going to use? --Ludwigs2 01:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC) It is not part of Wikipedia's mission to resolve intractable political and social controversies. Some of our content may be controversial to some people, but that is not in itself a reason to remove it. --FormerIP (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Nor is it part of Wikipeida's mission to choose sides in intractable political and social controversies. You are insisting that Wikipedia display images in a way that reliable secondary and tertiary sources do not: that is choosing a side and advocating for it. Again, the question that you keep not answering is this: If we do not follow NPOV and reliable sources, by what criteria do we choose images in controversial cases like this? You keep saying that we can't let other people dictate what the project does, but you do it in a way that seems to imply that you yourself should be the one who dictates what the project does. That obviously can't be what you mean, so what is the decision criteria you are reaching for? --Ludwigs2 02:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC) As far as I can see, WPs content processes have been more than exhausted and a decision has been reached. Nothing is set in stone, and I'm not opposed to discussions continuing. But I am opposed to the view that there is a problem which needs to be urgently addressed by some policy innovation. There is no such problem. --FormerIP (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC) That is your fourth refusal (on this page alone) to answer this simple and direct question. You have asserted that reliable sources (at least those which you consider to be censored) should not be used, and you are using that argument to justify your claim that we should not rely on the image balance in reliable sources as a guideline for our own image use (because you somehow consider all such sources to be censored). If you are unwilling to indicate what decision-making process we should use instead of referring to sources and NPOV, then how can we take your opinion as remotely credible? As far as I can tell from your argument, you are arguing against NPOV not because you have a better proposal in mind, but simply because you don't like the outcome we get if we do follow NPOV. --Ludwigs2 03:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Again, should be obvious. Any specific application may not be obvious, but this principle should be obvious in itself. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Comment by others: With hundreds of thousands of words having already been expended on this issue to date, the editors in discussion about these two workshop proposals should consider whether we must again rehash the "How to interpret NOTCENSORED etc" debate. AGK [•] 23:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC) AGK: The only debates we have in this arbitration are the "How to interpret NOTCENSORED" debate and the "Why we should all hate Ludwigs2" debate (check the evidence page if you haven't yet caught onto that aspect of this discussion). The latter debate - while arguably more entertaining for everyone - is a whole lot less useful than the former. So unless you want us all to present our perspectives and then sit in appreciative silence… which come to think of it would be kind of nice, yah? Just sayin'… --Ludwigs2 01:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs I suggest you take a look at my evidence which does neither of those things. With regards to this, I think AGK has a point, there is little point in discussing this over and over. That said if the committee feels certain "interpretations" of policy are obvious constraining the debate to exclude disputing those points further would be helpful as per the abortion case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs, the issues of interpretation of policy are of course central to this arbitration case, but my point is that nothing is being achieved here except to paraphrase the debate. We can already understand the dispute about NOTCENSORED and all its intricacies from the existing volumes of discussion. AGK [•] 13:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC) AGK: Actually, I disagree - I think a clear summary of each position (without all the cross-argumentation) would be very useful, but if the choice is between not saying anything and rehashing the dispute once again, then rehashing is better. Eraser: Yes, of course you're right - there's a third argument to make about the general refusal to communicate on all sides. I'm just disgusted by the preference for personal attacks over reasoned discussion that some editors are prone to, and it's bringing out my bitter, sarcastic side. --Ludwigs2 14:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Ludwig's - its clear from the evidence that you are guilty of poor behaviour as well. Take the moral high ground. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Well, Eraser, what can I say: anyone who wants to buy into the soap-opera material that's being entered as evidence is entitled to do so, and there's not much I can do about it except smile/sneer. As is the norm on wikipedia debates of this sort, a significant portion of the discussion is never going to rise above pure emotional whinging; I'm just marking time while that plays out so that I can ignore it as much as possible when I enter my own evidence. What you fail to realize (and what I hope the arbs are sensible enough to see) is that at this point I'm more-or-less irrelevant to the discussion. Not that I don't have a useful perspective to offer, and not that I won't offer it regardless, but for the most part I'm consigned to the role of absorbing the pent up emotional energy of an entrenched conflict that started years before I entered it. All I've done is lay out reasonable and commonsensical perspectives and stand firm on them, and by that act of standing firm force the conflict into a limelight where reasonable editors (like you and Jayen and Hans) have a chance to weigh in on it. Possibly I should just walk away without entering evidence and leave it entirely to you guys; I'm of two minds about that. But either way, I'm more of an archetype here than an actual participant. --Ludwigs2 00:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC) I don't think this is the right place to go in depth on this issue. As I have explained on the talk page of WP:CENSORED, lack of images from any given reliable source is not proof that those images are wp:undue. Images in printed works are subject to quite a few editorial constraints, like space/cost/licensing, which aren't as prevalent for printed text. Because of WP:NOTPAPER (but also WP:FAIRUSE), Wikipedia can usually include visual material, including videos, that aren't easily included in printed works. The argument that lack of a visual element in a majority of printed works makes it undue in Wikipedia's articles is fraught with difficulties that don't apply to textual ideative material. I can give you quite a few examples of good (text-wise) MILHIST books that have very few and totally crappy maps. Does that make good maps undue in Wikipedia for those topics? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC) I believe Jayen466's point is that the balance of imagery is different in our sources from our article - e.g. they will include significantly more images of calligraphy rather than pictures. While the imagery as a whole may be constrained by WP:NOTPAPER that doesn't apply to the balance of different kinds of imagery in our sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• The discussion associated with this workshop proposal has surpassed its usefulness. AGK [•] 04:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Images are subject to WP:NPOV

3) Images, like other article content, are subject to the WP:NPOV policy, specifically WP:DUE. In contentious cases, editors should make a good-faith attempt to base their selection and inclusion of images available for article illustration on the prevalence of the same or equivalent types of imagery in reliable sources on the article topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not convinced this applies to this case. NPOV is quite far down the list of considerations WRT images, and then only in cases of gross bias. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Editors are generally given wide leeway in selecting article illustrations. But while the use of images for article illustration is often uncontroversial, and constrained by the pool of image files available, in contentious cases reliable sources should be used as a reference point to decide what types of images to include, and how prominently to include them. --JN466 15:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This proposal is wrongheaded. Whilst reference to sources may be of use in choosing imagery for an article, it is not keeping with either NPOV or general WP practice to suggest that choice of imagery should duplicate what is found in a (hypothetical and elusive) average or typical source. NPOV is not a quest for an average. Our article on Justin Bieber, for example, does not have an abnormally high picture-to-text ratio and does not have washed-out love hearts in the background, even though these are things that may well characterise an "average" source on the subject. NPOV only applies to images insofar as they represent a "view" (ideological, rather than pictorial). What we are dealing with here, though, are views about religious preferences and about editorial decision-making, rather than views about the subject of the article. I would say this makes NPOV moot.

However, even in the case that the images are held to represent a "view" for the purposes of NPOV, applying it would not give the result intended, because an honest examination of sources would not justify the removal of any images of Mohammed from the article (of course, "honest" here is in the eye of the beholder and it is likely that anyone examining sources will end up concluding whatever it was they set out to). --FormerIP (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I see no evidence that images of Bieber in reliable sources customarily feature hearts (notwithstanding the presence of a few such images on fan sites). But if, for argument's sake, 20% of images in reliable sources were of that type, it would be entirely appropriate for us to feature one too, to reflect a significant aspect of his popular reception. --JN466 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Your google must be censoring hearts, because there are quite a few images there with hearts depicted. In triplicate on some. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

What this seems like is that Jayen has already decided that there should be less images of Muhammad in the article, then goes out to try and shape existing policy to support that conclusion. To me, that is a backwards approach to editing. Tarc (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Given NPOV is non-negotiable I would have thought this was obvious... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV is indeed non-negotiable, but the heart of this dispute is conflicting interpretations of what it means to meet NPOV in this subject area. Tarc (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It reflects policy and is an elegant dispute-breaker. Following NPOV wrt image selection would have obviated the talkfests at Muhammad, Pregnancy and Suicide and countless others. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• This seems clearly to be an attempt to craft Wikipedia policy around this one specific case. Actually, we've got well established, time-tested doctrine which is clear even here; what we have are a small handful of POV warriors trying to rewrite the rules or filibuster their opposition into submission, whichever comes first. It's ludicrous saying that "reliable sources" should determine image selection; our pool of possible images ultimately determines which images are used in a given article, and editorial consensus determines that. There is a majority view and a minority view on this matter in this specific case. The minority refuses to go away on the matter and has engaged in disruptive behavior in an effort to win the day. Seven-eighths of this problem can be resolved with three well placed topic bans, and the other one-eighth can be resolved by agreement among the remaining editors. That's the truth. Carrite (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• This seems like a reasonable principle which is in line with Wikipedia policy. --Elonka 23:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Sounds good in theory, but in practice you can either include or not include an image. If sources disagree, you don't have the flexibility to escape to the metalanguage of attribution as you have for text. Furthermore, an image may lack from a source for a variety of reasons, which have nothing to do with wp:undue (printing costs, etc.) And determining the balance of images in practice still comes down to editorial judgement. Mechanical bean counting can have absurd results, as I showed in my reply to AGK's questions above. Practical test: should the article on Xenu include those cartoon pictures based on the NPOV test as JN466 conceives it? Do they appear in the majority of sources on Xenu? I doubt it. Is South Park a reliable source about Xenu? JN466 actually contested the inclusion of that image as UNDUE (Talk:Xenu#In popular culture) and the discussion got very, very long. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I seem to recall that the upshot was that one or two of the cartoon images were deleted, and that whole section got shortened quite a bit. ;) The thing with Xenu is, there is not very much scholarly literature about it at all, so popular press sources – which have indeed referred to South Park etc. – actually deserve some weight, because there isn't much else to write an article with. But do you propose that our article on a topic like Muhammad, with a scholarly tradition stretching back hundreds of years, should be constructed on the mental level of South Park? --JN466 20:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Are you seriously comparing the Persian miniatures with South Park? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• Once again, true, but not in the sense that Jayen466 attempts to use it. While we must apply NPOV, we must also use some common sense in evaluating these sources. A source that defers to Muslim sensitivities about depicting Mohammed must be considered to be a biased source when making that evaluation. In general, a book by someone that considers Muhammad to be a prophet must be treated very suspiciously when searching for material about Muhammad the historical figure. Otherwise, we risk having further travesty articles like Jesus myth theory, which presents the astonishing notion that most Christians believe the evidence supports the existence of Jesus Christ.—Kww(talk) 16:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

  Once more, with feeling – so books by the foremost scholars of Islam in the Western world, like those of Annemarie Schimmel (e.g. [28][29]), university press-published, with hundreds of citations in the scholarly literature, that have been required reading in innumerable university courses – in other words, sources that are as mainstream and establishment as you can get in the real world, beyond the world of South Park – should be deemed "biased" in Wikipedia because they are openly celebratory of mainstream Islamic imagery? --JN466 20:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Without considering the specific source, yes absolutely. If a source carries an identifiable bias, we should treat it as a source that carries a bias. Surely that's uncontroversial? --FormerIP (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me you are simply calling POVs you don't like "bias". And, frankly, your opinion is irrelevant against that of the academic mainstream. --JN466 22:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No. As I indicated, I haven't even looked at the source and I don't know what its POV is, other than that it is "openly celebratory of mainstream Islamic imagery". I also don't know exactly what that means, but I'm assuming it to indicate a bias. Assuming the source has a POV, that needs - always - to be taken into account in evaluating it as a source. --FormerIP (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

So in other words, you are simply calling POVs you don't like 'biased'. Two points:

• Even if a source has a bias, all that means is that we need to balance it correctly with other sources.
• Bias is something that needs to be demonstrated. No doubt a source that identifies itself as Islamic (in the sense that they directly advocate for Muslim beliefs) could be considered biased, but it's a hell of a stretch to assume that normal academic (university press) sources are biased in any sense of the term. That would fly against normal academic standards and require fairly convincing proof. Assuming a scholarly source is biased because of your interpretation of a single quip about it is… well, let's leave it at 'bad logic'. --Ludwigs2 00:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, it doesn't matter if a source shares my POV, your POV or Desmond Tutu's POV. If we aspire to achieve NPOV, we are obliged always to consider the issue of bias in sources and what we should do about it. This applies to academic sources as much as any other. Since the whole basis of your thesis regarding the article is that NPOV needs to be applied, I would have expected you to have thought through the implications of that already. --FormerIP (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

FIP: Scholarly sources are the sine qua non of Wikipedia standards. You want to assert that sources which establish their reputations by being neutral, independent examples of scholarship are biased solely because they don't conform to your (peculiar) standards of censorship. You effecively destroy NPOV and Wikipedia in the process, because you uproot the only standard the project has for neutrality. is that what you mean to do? --Ludwigs2 19:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Good research: NPOV and sourcing

4) Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Seemingly fine principle, but not applicable in this case. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Verbatim policy quote from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Good_research. --JN466 20:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. The sooner the good and unbiased research can begin, the better. --FormerIP (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Good research wins arguments and is far less tedious in the long run. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It does not, however, prevent misapplication of NPOV itself. Resolute 18:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Quality of sources

5) Wikipedia articles rely mainly on reliable mainstream secondary sources. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most highly valued sources and are usually the most reliable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not sure how this applies to this case. Really, the whole "peer-reviewed" bit is only applicable to areas covered by peer-reviewed literature. Note also that "mainstream" is used in a substantially different sense in WP:IRS than in this principle. Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Standard, part of a wording used in many prior cases (e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed_Pacifist_2#Sourcing_of_articles. In light of the fact that some editors here champion South Park and Everybody Draw Mohammed Day in assessing NPOV, while at the same time asserting that the academic mainstream is biased, it seems unfortunately necessary to say this. We are aspiring to be an encyclopedia, not a cartoon show. --JN466 22:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Noble, but not applicable. Reliable sources verify and support the content of the article, but sources do not dictate or guide image usage and placement. Those are a matter of editorial judgement. Tarc (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but noting that there is in general a considerable naivety here about the processes governing the selection of illustrations in commercial publishing, which often is not controlled by the authors of the text, may well be subject to general diktats from corporate management, and not subscribe to policies comparable to WP:NOTCENSORED. Illustrations obviously do not need to be referenced in the same way as text on Wikipedia, and attempting to use commercial illustrations as "sources" in the same way as the text they illustrate is often a mistake. Johnbod (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a variety of the "our sources are all censored and incompetent, and we're not/know better" argument. One big drawback of this argument is that, looking at Wikipedia as a whole, it is clear that the average Wikipedian does not know better. If they did, we wouldn't have WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. --JN466 16:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. This one is pretty standard. --Elonka 16:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality, verifiability and appropriate weight

6) The neutrality policy requires that articles reflect the content of reliable sources accurately and in an unbiased manner, giving prominence to viewpoints and related content in proportion to their representation in reliable sources. The verifiability policy requires the use of the best and most reputable sources available, with prevalence in these sources determining the proper weight to be placed upon any particular type of content. Apparently significant content that has not received proportionally significant attention in the topic's literature should be treated with caution and included only to the extent that it is supported by reliable sources. In deciding the appropriate weight to place upon a particular type of content, it is its prevalence within reliable published sources that is important, not the prominence given to it by Wikipedians or the general public.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not applicable to images--at least, not within the scope of this discussion, as far as I can see. Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Modelled on last year's Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Neutrality, verifiability and appropriate weight. --JN466 19:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Not applicable to images - see my comment in the section above, which applies here too. Johnbod (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Due weight of controversial content

7) The Wikimedia Foundation’s Resolution on Contoversial Content urges editors to pay particular attention to the curation and placement of all kinds of potentially controversial content. Potentially controversial content should be included in Wikipedia articles in due proportion to its prevalence in the best and most reputable sources. The use of potentially offensive imagery in Wikipedia articles should reflect the prevalence of equivalent imagery in authoritative sources on the article topic. Such imagery should not be noticeably more common or prominent in Wikipedia articles than it is in reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Again, this would be inventing policy regarding images that does not exist. Jclemens (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Incorporates wording from the Board Resolution. One might add that available media that have not been used for article illustration can be made accessible via a Commons link. --JN466 19:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose as putting words into the Foundation's mouth. The first sentence comes from the board resolution, the second sentence onwards is entirely your own words, repeating a position that has not attracted a consensus in the couple of months (at least) you've been presenting it here and at WT:NOT. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Depictions of Muhammad are controversial

1) Depictions of Muhammad are controversial both on-wiki and off-wiki, as highlighted in recent years by the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, and extensive edit-warring about images in the article Muhammad in the years since then.

Comment by Arbitrators:

So it's controversial... but so what? So is Virgin Killer's artwork. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed, for context. --JN466 10:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

agreed, but as with Kww, irrelevant to Wikipedia's purpose. Resolute 06:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

By any measure. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support generally, though would recommend including the timeframe of the controversy (2005), that the edit-warring occurs in multiple Muhammad-related articles, and that the controversy is much older, not just Jyllands- and wiki-related.[30] --Elonka 00:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. The nature of the controversy is one which is irrelevant to the project, and must be ignored while making all policy and editorial decisions.—Kww(talk) 16:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. While trivially true this is also misleading; the controversy is not simply between Muslims and non-Muslims, but between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Contra Kww, the nature of the controversy is relevant to the project in that this isn't even about one religion's beliefs, but those of one sect of one religion. We're not in the business of adjudicating between different sects' beliefs, nor should we be. Prioryman (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Question: How does framing the question as "Muslims vs everyone" vs "Shia vs everyone" or even "Predestinarian Baptists vs everyone else" in any way invalidate the statement that since the controversy is based in a religious belief it becomes irrelevant to a secular project?—Kww(talk) 21:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

WMF Resolution on controversial content

2) In 2010, the Wikimedia Foundation commissioned a study on controversial content, and in May 2011 passed a Resolution concerning controversial content. The Resolution specifically mentioned religious content that may be offensive to some viewers, and Muhammad images were highlighted in the Wikimedia study, linked to in the Resolution. The WMF resolution urges the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement

Comment by Arbitrators:

I just re-read the resolution, and I note that it applies primarily to Wikimedia Commons, which has an entirely different set of problems. Jclemens (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per Elonka, with some details added. --JN466 10:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see the committee endorse this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens, It's been fairly clearly established that the board was addressing all projects in that resolution. One sentence addressed Commons specifically. [31][32] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As worded this is not applicable to the present situation, particularly the "least astonishment" bit, and I think the proposer is glossing over some of what the study actually said. "We start with a bias towards openness but agree to limit that openness, based on respect for our users, as little as possible", for starters. As noted by myself and by others, the current state of the article is a product of such a give-and-take discussion awhile back. Tarc (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Per Franamax, below, this proposal isn't suitable to be taken forward in its current form, simply because what it says is either not true or does not give the full picture. --FormerIP (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Two board members have clarified the ambiguity; Franamax was mistaken. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree with adjusted wording. It's definitely worth mentioning that the Wikimedia study specifically referred to this exact topic, images of Muhammad, as an example of controversial content. --Elonka 23:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts added at Elonka's submission, but I agree that the WMF resolution and study has come to guide the community - and this committee's - thinking about controversial content, and that it must therefore be mentioned in the final decision. AGK [•] 16:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Except that "sacred" images (incl. Muhammad's) were highlighted in the study to show how they are fundamentally different from sexual/violent material, and different recommendation were made for "sacred" stuff. [33]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a sec though: the WMF resolution is urging the Commons community to do these things. The wording here is misleading, as the Board had the choice whether or not to urge more than just Commons, and chose not to. So this should be restated accordingly. Franamax (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read the resolution in its entirety. There are some parts of the resolution which refer to the Commons, but other sections are referring to all Wikimedia projects, not just Commons. --Elonka 17:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have already read the resolution in its entirety (thanks for the advice though ;), and that is what I am urging others to do as well. The specific text being used here comes from a paragraph addressing the Commons community. The scope is narrowed in the first sentence, with no indication that the subsequent "the community" is intended to be of broader scope. The second sentence urges the community to pay "particular" attention to one aspect, i.e. expands on the first sentence, but still within the same scope. This is distinct from the Foundation's use of "the Projects", which does indeed apply universally. Franamax (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Two board members have clarified this somewhat ambiguous language and confirmed "We urge the community ..." is addressing all projects. [34][35] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The working group that studied Harris & Harris expressly included sacred controversial images in its recommendation concerning curation of controversial content and expressly included all projects in that recommendation:

We suggest urging the community to continue actively reviewing and curating (especially controversial) content; this is a re-wording of [Harris & Harris] recommendations 4,5 & 6 (reviewing sexual images) that is more inclusive to all kinds of controversial content, and that recognizes that content curation is a part of ongoing work on all projects.

(Emphasis mine)

The board's resolution addresses the Wikimedia community and addresses all controversial content which it defines as violent, sexual or sacred when it says

We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement.

This is the third time I've had to post this correction on this page. I would appreciate it if ASCIIn2Bme, if he agrees he's mistaken, would strike his misleading statements (that the advice concerning curation of controversial images does not apply to sacred images.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Added clarification in parenthesis 02:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, I don't think it's at all clear that "the community" means "the Wikimedia community". The normal thing would be that it refers to the same community as mentioned in the sentence immediately prior. In fact, you asked Jimbo for clarification on this yourself, and he said that "the plain text of one paragraph does "urge" the Commons community in particular". That can only be a reference to the paragraph we are talking about. --FormerIP (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The whole response from Jimbo is here:

I'm unaware of any discussion at the board level that would suggest that the resolution applies only to commons. However, it is worth noting that the plain text of one paragraph does "urge" the Commons community in particular. I speak only for myself here: my view of that line is that the Commons community has had the biggest difficulties in coming to grips with our responsibilities in this area (for some good reasons, I should hasten to add), and therefore good people there needed extra support to get things done. It isn't that the resolution doesn't apply to all Wikimedia projects, it is that the other projects already generally do a very good job of dealing with these issues.-- Jimbo Wales talk 13:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph Jimbo refers to is

We urge the Commons community to continue to practice rigorous active curation of content, including applying appropriate categorization, removing media that does not meet existing policies and guidelines for inclusion, and actively commissioning media that is deemed needed but missing. We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement.

Does the second sentence address the community as a whole (all projects) or, like the first sentence, only Commons?

I have asked for clarification. [36] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It applies to all projects. [37] --JN466 08:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

And [38] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Concur that the clarification is pretty, well, clear. I would recommend that someone suggest a new FoF that includes links to the studies, the resolution, the section of the study that refers specifically to Images of Muhammad, and the clarification links, all in one place. --Elonka 16:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion continues on the talk page [39]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Battleground editing

3) The Muhammad article has been subject to battleground editing by editors with strongly held views on religion, free speech and censorship. A number of past and present contributors appear solely interested in the issue regarding the inclusion or exclusion of Muhammad images, and are not participating in any other part of editing or expansion of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Finally--something that I can endorse! Jclemens (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --JN466 10:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

@ASCIIn2Bme: No. While the discussions have been extensive, my interest and editing in the article is certainly not limited to the Muhammad image issue. --JN466 01:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I will admit that my interest in this topic is mainly the preservation of Wikipedia's neutrality against religious censorship. I helped form the original consensus following the petition nonsense, I helped explain it to those who ventured by in the time since, and I attempted to broker another consensus here. With that in mind, I challenge the implication that your second statement constitutes evidence of your first. An interest in one aspect of an article does not diminish the value of an editor's contributions. Resolute 06:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am not sure I do agree with this, though clearly there has been lots and lots of argument, much far too long and too sharp. Back in the summer some changes were made, and others have nearly been agreed. Some minor points find consensus relatively successfully. The images talk page is specifically for discussion of the images issue, so it seems pointless to complain that this is what editors there are interested in! The page does tend to collect "talk-page only" editors who drift from argument to argument without doing much else on the project. Johnbod (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Are you including yourself in that category? Because the ratio of your substantial, non-image edits to the article relative to number of edits you have made to the images talk sub-page surely points in that direction. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with the Battleground finding, though it might be worth expanding it from just the Muhammad article, to say "The Muhammad article and other Islam- or Muhammad-related articles". For example, images that have anything to do with Muhammad are routinely deleted and restored in a battleground fashion at Black Stone, Isra and Mi'raj, and other locations. --Elonka 23:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• They are routinely deleted in a battlefield fashion but I take issue with your claim that they are restored in the same spirit. If people are deleting them without discussion and while ignoring clear warnings in the page, then that's essentially vandalism. It gets reverted routinely and usually without drama, like 99.99% of vandalism elsewhere in Wikipedia. Reverting vandalism is never "battlefield conduct". Prioryman (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The article has been semi-protected since 2008, I think. That stopped the drive-by image vandalism dead, along with the need for routine reverts. --JN466 22:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• That may be true for the main Muhammad article but it certainly isn't the case for all the others that include pictures of him. Prioryman (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Increase in number of images since the cartoon controversy

4) The number of images of Muhammad, and especially unveiled images of Muhammad, increased sharply in the wake of the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy, and increased further after the article gained GA status in 2008.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --JN466 10:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

@Elonka: There is circumstantial evidence. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images/Evidence#Article_history. About half the Muhammad images in Commons were uploaded from http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/, a site set up in response to the Jyllands-Posten controversy. --JN466 00:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Per Elonka below, the linkage remains to be demonstrated. In any case the choice, number and placement of images has been very heavily "curated" in recent years (yes, that is what we have been doing on the images talk page), just as Harris and Harris suggest, and the images we now have are the result of that process (which nobody thinks is complete) Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Is there evidence to support this? The controversy was in 2005, so it might be difficult to state whether the number of images increased because of the controversy, or whether it was just a natural part of Wikipedia's growth at the time. --Elonka 00:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The sad fact of life is that most Wikipedians (or Commonipedians??) only upload what's already on the Internet, regardless of the field. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP

5) User:FormerIP has sought to block the development and implementation of a compromise proposal to reduce the number of figurative images (1) by performing reverts [40][41] against talk page consensus at a time when he had never contributed to either the article or any of its talk pages before, (2) by disrupting content discussions at Talk:Muhammad/images [42][43][44][45], and (3) by misrepresenting WP:NPOV policy about reflecting viewpoints in proportion to their prevalence in the best and most reputable authoritative sources [46][47][48][49][50].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --JN466 01:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy for these diffs to be reviewed because I don't think they evidence any sanctionable conduct. I think it would be hard to find a dispute that had got all the way to ArbCom without anyone performing any reverts. The reverts I performed were certainly not against consensus (otherwise, do you imagine that we would still be here now?) and Jayen neglects to mention that they were made in the context of the RfC proposal at WP:NOT which had, at that time, not closed but had certainly collapsed. I think it is obvious why - being involved at NOT but unaware that a discussion had started on the muh/images subpage (it was kinda done on the quiet - this is acknowledged above [51] by Resolute, who started that discussion) - I might see the wholesale removal of "offensive" images to be out of order.

The alterations to image captions were previously dealt with at ANI, where I agreed not to change them any further. Actually, "agreed" is not the right word, because the only admin to comment didn't feel there had been a breach of anything and so I wasn't actually asked (please note also that the admin is also wrong to state that I carried on with the edits "after objection" - although it might be fair to say that I could not have expected Jayen or Luwigs to be delighted with them, no-one objected prior to launching the ANI complaint). In defence of the edits, it is sometimes irritating when editors appear to be adding images to a discussion not to further it but simply to take up real estate. I would also ask for this edit to be taken into consideration and the question asked: why was it never reverted if it is such a horrible thing to do?

The diff where I use the header "margarine" was not intended as disruptive but as a way of expressing objection to what I saw as an unhelpful poll. No-one complained at the time, editors appeared to take it in good humour ([52][53]) and I think it helped to nudge the discussion in a more productive direction (I guess that can be judged by reviewing the discussion that followed on the talkpage).

The other diffs presented I am more than happy for anyone to look at because I think they make reasonable and valid points. --FormerIP (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Mostly disagree. The reversions of Jayen's premature changes - 1) above - were I think perfectly justified and have remained. Some of the December 10th caption changes at 2) were not serious, or intended to remain in place (the 2 Elonka cites below), but other edits in that group seem ok. Nothing wrong with group 3) that I can see. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I have not been following the discussions in detail, but I would concur that some of those diffs are pretty damning. It is difficult to see actions like these[54][55] as being made in good faith or being helpful to the discussion. --Elonka 02:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I found them mildly amusing, if a bit WP:POINTy. For reference, here's the rather underwhelming ANI thread on that. He already promised not to repeat that behavior. Perhaps an official ArbCom warning might be justified though. After all, Ludwigs2 got away with that level of sanction the first time around. By the way, do you have any opinion on the evidence against Ludwigs2 or Hans Adler presented in this case? How do all those personal attacks look relative to this? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I definitely want to offer an opinion on that, but am still wading through the large amounts of discussion and diffs. Even keeping up with the flow of this Workshop page is somewhat of a fulltime job, despite my familiarity with the topic area. Since I haven't been directly involved with the dispute, I'm still trying to sort out who's who, and what everyone's positions are. I pity the arbs trying to make sense of it all! --Elonka 18:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Tarc

6) User:Tarc has misrepresented WP:NPOV policy [56][57][58] and engaged in battleground behaviour [59][60][61][62][63][64].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Actually, while I disagree with Tarc on a number of matters, I find the three "misrepresentations" you cite above entirely in line with my understanding of our NPOV policy. That's going to be a pretty good barometer that policy disagreement is within the realm of allowable disagreement between editors. Jclemens (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --JN466 01:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, these are the stops we're trying to pull now; "I don't agree with tarc on a policy matter" now equates to "tarc is misrepresenting policy" ? After all the nice things I sad about you? Yeesh. As I've said before, the heart of this matter is a disagreement over the fundamental application of policy to Muhammad and images, namely NPOV. You and a handful of others feel it violates NPOV to use images in the article when such images aren't prevalent in Islamic culture. The rest of us feel that it would violate NPOV to remove images for that very reason. Tarc (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That summary is incorrect, Tarc. I have expressly said, many times over, that in order to comply with WP:NPOV, we should have some figurative Muhammad images among our Islamic images, especially a mi'raj image. This was the last straw for me. --JN466 04:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

And as I have expressly said, your take on what it means to meet NPOV in regards to Muhammad and images is not an opinion I share. You wish to take into consideration the fact that such images are not widely used in Islamic culture, and as such, or article provides an imbalanced, NPOV-violating point of view on Muhammad. Let me say this clearly; I fundamentally oppose you on that position. You are undercutting your own credibility in this case by trying to get my opinions on this matter declared disruptive. Tarc (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand this to say that RS don't matter for NPOV balance, and this that views reflecting present editor demographics, rather than prevalence in reliable sources, should be decisive. You may want to revisit or elucidate those statements; especially in light of the Foundation opening a second office in India, which is home to about 175 million Muslims. --JN466 05:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Your responses do not have the slightest bit of relevance to what we're talking about. Let's try again. I have an opinion. You have an opposing opinion. That is all there is to it. If I were acting like a Ludwigs....screaming my opinion at the top of my lungs, month after month after month, declaring my opinion to be superior and my opponents' inferior, calling the lot of you bigots, forum-shopping when I didn't get my way...well then Jayen, you'd have a point. You would also do well to recall that, when Roger Davies asked about acceptance of any RfC finding I answered "An RfC is the proverbial will of the people, I would accept any finding." Again, I have an opinion of how to interpret NPOV that you oppose. Even Kww thinks I am wrong on one point. He's entitled to that. I have been strident in arguing that opinion, but IMO not disruptive in the slightest. Tarc (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

On this point, I would say he's wrong, but primarily, I'd say he's mainly guilty of disagreeing with you.—Kww(talk) 02:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Kww

7) Kww has misrepresented sourcing policy. [65]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Contra my reactions to Tarc, above, I think that Kww's position is incorrect. Not sure that amounts to an actionable finding, however. I go to sleep every night when someone, somewhere, is wrong on teh Internetz. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This statement ("No, Muslim scholars are not reliable sources about Muhammad, no more than they or Christian scholars are reliable sources about Jesus Christ as a historical figure. Anyone that believes someone to be a prophet, divine, or blessed by supernatural beings is capable of being disinterested or objective about the factual nature of the person's life or historical impact. It's an insurmountable obstacle."), from a sysop and recent arbcom candidate, is extraordinary enough to be worth noting. It boldly implies that someone like Omid Safi e.g., co-chair of the steering committee for the Study of Islam at the American Academy of Religion, who is a member of the advisory board of the Pluralism Project at Harvard and is published by top presses including Oxford University Press, and is presently cited in the Muhammad article, should not be a reliable source in Wikipedia because he's Muslim. --JN466 14:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems pretty poor and is counter to our sourcing policy. We don't exclude the CIA world factbook on grounds that it is going to be pro-American. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Do you find everything you disagree with to be a misrepresentation of policy? No, he is not a reliable source related to Muhammad the historical person. He is reliable only in terms of Islamic beliefs about Muhammad.—Kww(talk) 14:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a distinction needs to be made here between reliable sources (as we understand it in terms of WP:V) and impartial sources. Kww seems to be conflating the two. Prioryman (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Are any sources impartial? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No, but some biases are irreparable. Imagine, for example, a source that considered George Bush to be a prophet of God, but, at the same time, devoted substantial effort to documenting the history of his life. Could you use such a source in Wikipedia? Probably, with caution, if other sources were doing so. Should you use such a site without qualification? Rarely. Would you think that patterning our editorial policy about coverage of George Bush after that source would even approach being a good idea? Definitely not.—Kww(talk) 18:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If we are going to remove the ability for religious sources to source religious figures then we better promptly delete Jesus on verifiability grounds, or only refer to him as a fictional character as I don't believe there is any independent historical record of his existence. On the same lines we better describe the Bible as a work of fiction.

I don't think we can seriously say that doing that would be healthy for the projects future, or that it is really a tenable position for us to hold. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad was indisputably a real person: a real military leader, a real ruler, etc. Christ probably was not. They should be treated differently. Many statements about Muhammad can be presented as factual, but people that view him as divine can't be objective about his history. No statements about Jesus Christ can be presented as factual, but only as beliefs. Christians and Muslims alike can be reliable sources about beliefs about Christ (a holy figure in both religions). Muslims can be reliable sources about beliefs about Muhammad. Were you under the misapprehension that this article was not about the historic figure Muhammad, but was instead about Islamic religious beliefs?—Kww(talk) 19:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad having independent historical evidence for his existence makes the issue of treating Jesus differently likely to cause worse problems. Do you not think that causing an enormous amount of controversy by referring to Jesus as a fictional figure would be counter-productive? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

PS It also looks like there is third party evidence for the existence of Jesus after all which satisfies most scholars. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anyplace that Jesus is treated as existing in fact outside of the miserable Jesus myth theory and Historicity of Jesus articles. Generally, the contradictions between the different Gospels mean that statements about him are usually couched as "According to the Gospel of Luke, ....". Jesus myth theory and Historicity of Jesus are seriously flawed articles. It isn't much of a surprise that most Christians believe Christ existed, and are unable to objectively view the evidence about the topic. I don't fight that fight: too many believers on the site to ever win the battle.—Kww(talk) 20:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Tivanir2

8) Tivanir2 has demonstrated poor understanding of sourcing policy in these arbitration proceedings. [66]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I am dismayed that an editor has to ask, in an arbitration proceeding on Muhammad, why porn sites should not be among those "best and most reputable authoritative sources" that policy tells us to research for arriving at a neutral point of view. It seems to indicate either a lack of basic competence, or a delight in being vexatious. Whichever it is is unlikely to be helpful in resolving a talk page dispute in which far too many words have been wasted already, and which hinges on a good understanding of NPOV and good source-based research. It's an invidious task for contributors to have to explain the ABC of encyclopedic sourcing to argumentative editors, over and over again. We are all aware that editor retention is in free-fall. The fundamental health of this project is at risk. Which subject matter expert will feel attracted to an encyclopedia project where they are asked to debate whether porn sites should be classed among the most reputable and authoritative sources in discussions about Islam? Is this what our donors give us money for? We have to uphold a certain basic standard of competence if we don't want to be mired in chaos. --JN466 15:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Stricken. On reflection in light of Elonka's comment, and another look back at Tivanir2's contributions history in the topic, it is clearly an isolated comment, and making it a finding would not be a fair reflection of Tivanir2's participation. --JN466 19:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Actually it was suppose to be completely hypothetical and insisting I have a competence problem because I point something out that actions in mainstream articles might be ridiculous is absurd. I didn't say we should include it and I surely didn't start lobbying for the effort but more pornography is produced in a year than normal media. Taking that into account the mainstream images and available materials falls to that side of the track. I on the other hand trust good judgement by fellow editors to realize that including such images is inappropriate for this sort of project. Unless all sides of an argument can be looked at (regardless of patent absurdness) in a rational manner then there is no reason to continue. Other than a hypothetical there is nothing in the history of this account or the previous (tivanir) account that would qualify as problematic when dealing with sources so the claim I can't do things correctly is moot. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just because an editor says one odd thing, does not mean we should immediately turn that into a Finding. Jayen466, please be a little more judicious with these? If you've got a dozen (blatant!) diffs in evidence, sure, a Finding might be appropriate. But not for one comment. --Elonka 18:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

FormerIP topic-banned

1) User:FormerIP is topic-banned from Muhammad image discussions in Wikipedia for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --JN466 02:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support, though might expand to wording like, "banned from making any edits related to images on Muhammad-related articles, broadly interpreted. This ban is project-wide, to include talkpages, userspace and Wikipedia policy discussions, though FormerIP is still allowed to engage in other non-image-related edits and discussions in the topic area." --Elonka 02:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Way to discredit yourself. --FormerIP (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Jayen466 has so far only proposed topic bans on his perceived opponents. Mathsci (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable as per my evidence. Additionally while he may only have added his "opponents" what's the point in adding Ludwigs again? His behaviour is discussed in multiple sections on this page already. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. FormerIP has been a sounding rock and not engaging in disruptive behavior. He already apologized for the infraction early and has not been disruptive since. I believe his error was on the side of vandalism protection and he didn't notice the section in question which quite frankly can be a mistake anyone is able to make. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• He's engaged in more than just reverting the addition, which I agree wouldn't be sanctionable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The only part I saw was the revert so I will keep reading and see if there is anything I would consider excessive. I will revise my comment if I find anything. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Reading through the diffs I personally hold that a project ban for a year would be a bit excessive. Granted he has a few area's that are controversial and I would propose instead of a long ban a short break (like a month or 3) before considering further action. Again I will be looking past the diffs but at least the arguments are calm and somewhat rational so it would be probable for reasoning, not him standing there beating his chest demanding we do things his way. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Tarc topic-banned

2) User:Tarc is topic-banned from Muhammad image discussions in Wikipedia for six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --JN466 02:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Jayen466 has so far only proposed topic bans on his perceived opponents. Mathsci (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Everyone else among the parties, including Ludwigs2, has been willing to work towards compromise on the content issue and to look at sources, without coming from an a-priori ideological position where certain POVs, even if well represented in reputable sources, are excluded. --JN466 04:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
    • The compromise was worked out in one of the periods when Ludwigs2 absented himself from WP following an ANI report on his poor conduct on Talk:Muhammad/Images. Mathsci (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Given you have not provided any evidence of wrongdoing by Tarc (that I can see, apologies if I missed somethig), then this proposal does seem to be based on his opposition to your viewpoint rather than a behavioural issue. Resolute 06:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

See my evidence then for large amounts of poor behaviour from Tarc. Additionally while he may only have added his "opponents" what's the point in adding Ludwigs again? His behaviour is discussed in multiple sections on this page already. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The behavior isn't model granted though I would like to point out he only takes that tone with one individual. He is extremely caustic even to people that share his viewpoint but some people are like that. However that being said I wouldn't be amazed at similar punishment to what Ludwigs receives, since the two individuals seem to feed off one another quite efficiently. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Really. I realize that sometimes at Arbcoms we see people take a CYA approach and hope that they can skate by unscathed, but I think if we dig up a few diffs of interactions of Ludwigs and you, Ludwigs and Robert, and so on, we'll see that all of these situations have a quite obvious connection; Ludwigs. I will grant that some of my historic causticness from other parts of the project is playing a part here...notoriety has a price and all...but mine wasn't the only hat to be thrown down in the hoedown here. Tarc (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither Robert or Tivanir has had a single diff presented against them because they have both generally managed to behave reasonably regardless of Ludwigs behaviour. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

As have I, eraser. The "evidence" presented by you an Jayen show sometimes sharp and pointed commentary on my part, but nothing more. As I have noted elsewhere, there is sometimes an almost reflexive need by some to find a 2nd party and satisfy the "takes two to tango" truism. You in particular are pretty high in the horse trying to paint me as a scapegoat for Ludwigs atrocious behavior. At most, I will say I should have stopped telling Ludwigs he was wrong the 6th time I did so rather than keep going til hitting the full dozen. But I will pick apart, with ease, your attempts to tar me as an equal partner to his hate-filled rants, all of which are found on the Evidence page. Tarc (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we agree to disagree, this discussion is unproductive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I just finished running through all comments at the main talk page and while there may be a few in the gray area I saw no outright personal attacks. I have not reviewed the WP:NOT or other forums that these posts kept being moved around to yet but I will tomorrow. For now it is time for sleep, good evening to all. Tivanir2 (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ludwigs2 and Tarc: interaction restriction

3) User:Ludwigs2 and User:Tarc shall neither communicate with each other nor comment upon each other's actions or edits either directly or indirectly on any page in the English Wikipedia. Both parties may, within reason, comment within the same pages providing their comments do not relate directly or indirectly to the other party. Neither party may respond directly to perceived violations of this interaction restriction nor seek arbitration enforcement but shall instead report the perceived violation to the Arbitration Committee by email.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This still needs a related FoF with diffs, but both editors would benefit from ignoring each other. --JN466 02:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I have always been fundamentally opposed to the very concept of the absurd WP:IBAN horseshit. Pardon my French. All these Wiki-restraining orders do is add a needless layer of red tape to already messy situations. Besides, we're interacting just fine here in the Arbcom pages. There were brief blips of vitriol that have long passed, and seriously, if they didn't give me and ChildofMidnight one in the Obama case a few years ago, there's certainly no call for one here. Sorry Jayen, but this is starting to come across as a little petty. Tarc (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I am likewise sorry. But the repeated extended dialogues between the two of you ranging from Muhammad to Pregnancy to policy have at times been quite personal, and have not actually helped bring the discussion forward. Would it really be so bad not to go hammer and tongs at each other any more? If you can disengage from each other by yourselves, there is no need for this. --JN466 03:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you're confused, as I have never had a thing to do with the pregnancy article. My overall point is that the concept of an "interaction ban" is retarded. If editors are doing something inappropriate then there are already dispute resolutions to follow to address that, there's no need to slap a layer of dumb bureaucracy onto the matter. I will also note that MANY editors have been up to their eyeballs in these discussions with Ludwigs, much of it just as heated on occasion. When one user's relationship with many is foul, you don't close your eyes and single out one person from the many and call it even; you sanction the lone troublemaker. Tarc (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The other disputes seemed to have subsided by themselves, whereas this one showed no sign of abating. You commented on Ludwigs2's involvement in the pregnancy dispute a couple of times [67][68], but if you say it hasn't been a major talking point between the two of you I take your word for it. (Refactored.) --JN466 05:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Either way on this for me. I've only rarely seen Tarc prior to this dispute, and as I expect this case to resolve the substantive matters here, it will be unlikely that he and I run into each other too much elsewhere on project.

That being said, however, Tarc and I represent diametrically opposed archetypes of the encyclopedia: he on a deeply Western, pro-individual, pro-freedom model, and I on a socially conscious, egalitarian, universalistic model. It would be very helpful to the project as a whole (if unpleasant for one of us personally), to firmly establish what the relationship between editors and readers is, so that the kind of entrenched ideological dispute that he and I have been having is obviated in future discussions. What responsibilities do we have to our readers? what aspects of our readership are we obliged to ignore? Questions like this really tangle up a talk page something fierce. I can draw this out in more detail if anyone would like. --Ludwigs2 02:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• The evidence page indicates that Ludwigs2's conduct towards multiple users on Talk:Muhammad/Images has been problematic. None of Jayen466's proposed remedies addresses that problem. Mathsci (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable above and beyond other steps taken. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• I would prefer that parties to the case not submit proposals for other parties to be sanctioned. While we allow parties to suggest possible interpretations of the dispute (in proposed principles) and less so to suggest findings of facts about other parties, remedy proposals of this nature look petty to me. If you think there has been misconduct by a party, then propose a finding to that effect, but going further to post a remedy is too far - and frankly, the arbitrators probably won't take it into account, if we even read it. Members of the committee come to their own decisions about how to deal with disruptive individuals. If you doubt that your approach is unhelpful, simply consider how useful the discussions attached to such proposals have been... AGK [•] 21:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• AGK, that is not in line with standard practice. Why should parties be prevented from suggesting remedies? They are usually the best placed to identify issues that need resolving. Sure, some remedies may be suggested for petty revenge, but that can backfire on the proposer. If someone suggests a remedy that no one else agrees with, then that can help (possibly) identify an individual who seems out of step with the rest of the discussion. Right now the Guide to arbitration says, "The Workshop subpage allows the parties, the community and the Arbitrators to analyze the evidence, offer suggestions about possible final decision proposals, and receive feedback." If parties are not supposed to be suggesting remedies, then the Guide to Arbitration should be changed, and a note to that effect ("Parties should not suggest remedies") placed in the template. But I'm not sure there would be support for that kind of change. --Elonka 22:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think Elonka is right. Often in the past remedies have been suggested by participants. That happened recently in the Abortion case, where one of the parties, MastCell, suggested topic bans on four other parties. Mathsci (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think it'd depend on the case and the participants. Here, all of our hands are at the very least smudged, and AGK is just saying "I'd prefer you not do it" rather than "don't do it". I deleted the empty templates from my section as I had no intention of suggesting sanctions on others. Tarc (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think my meaning was unclear in the first place, but Tarc has correctly interpreted my meaning. To be clear, my comment represented my own preference about such remedy proposals, not that of the committee; and when I said the arbitrators don't consider such proposed remedies, I mean they usually don't - and of course, I speak only for my own observations. I suppose the thing to learn is that arbitration isn't for splenetic barbs at other parties, and some of the proposals I have seen are poisoning the well. AGK [•] 13:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Eraserhead1

Proposed principles

Images in the Manual of Style

From the manual of style: "We should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Which readers? A reasonable man, or someone else? A reasonable man has every right to expect a picture of Muhammad in the article of the same name, prominently displayed in the infobox. Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I think it depends whether or not your reasonable man is a non-Turkish Sunni muslim or not.

Given Muhammad is the islamic prophet I suspect a fairly large percentage of the readership of the article will be in that category.

Even if they aren't a non-Turkish Sunni muslim given your reasonable man has to be "appropriately informed" and therefore must be aware that many muslims are offended by such imagery I think it is significantly less clear as to what they'd expect. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A MoS is several orders of magnitude less important than a policy of WP:NOTCENSORED, though. Regardless of that, it has been pointed out several times by several editors that a reader of the Muhammad page on en.wiki should expect to see images. Not deference. Tarc (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

NOTCENSORED only applies to images in cases of gross bias

As per table 2 of my evidence how images are used varies widely even in featured articles, therefore WP:NOTCENSORED only applies to images in cases of gross bias, and anything else is up to editorial judgment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The evidence seems to show a diversity of image densities in a few articles. I'm not sure that's enough to support any principle, let alone one as general as this. Not saying the principle is necessarily incorrect, just that it doesn't follow, at all, from the presented evidence as far as I can see. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties

Treating this as primarily a purely editorial issue seems like the most sensible way to come to a conclusion in a less heated fashion. This fits with table two of my evidence which shows a large variation in the number of depictions included of a subject even in featured historical biographies as well as Jclemens comment about NPOV which is a more important policy. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"Gross bias?" What are you getting at, here? Where does the phrase come from? What do you mean? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That phrase comes from Jclemens comment on NPOV with regards to images. I've linked above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• The evidence provided by Eraserhead1 was pre-selected and the numbers too small to have any "statistical significance" in proving any hypothesis, one way or the other. Mathsci (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• We can expand the data set if required quite easily. I've already asked AGK about this and he didn't seem bothered. And I certainly didn't "pre-select" the data - I have better things to do, and you should assume good faith. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jclemens, given that NPOV is a pillar and WP:NOTCENSORED is not then we can't say that NPOV only applies in cases of gross bias and WP:NOTCENSORED does not without contradicting that policy. If you want to avoid mentioning either at all then the committee can't really make any analysis of policy at all (given the NPOV point made by Jayen466 is mentioned in the policy itself and it is a pillar) for this case which is going to make solving the content part of this dispute much harder.

Given the usage of depictions is so varied I think the best way forward is to just ignore WP:NOTCENSORED except in cases of gross bias and let us work out exactly how many depictions to use on editorial grounds which seems much more likely to end well.

While personally I would generally err on the side of more policy, in the case of images it seems like the result is usually pretty sensible, with only a tiny handful of cases causing issues - which would have to be worked out individually anyway. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

But if NOTCENSORED is aimed at a specific objection to images, whereas NPOV, is aimed at gross bias in image selection, then you follow the specific rule for the specific objection and the general rule for the general selection. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others

NOTCENSORED requires an infobox depiction for Muhammad

As per table 2 of my evidence every featured historical biography contains an infobox depiction unless no images are available.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think the proper comparison would be something more along the lines of Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Sun Tzu, Plato, Ptolemy and other figures more ancient than Muhammad, with religious or philosophical significance, who all have some sort of depiction of the person himself: statue, stained glass, drawing... it's all of the person, not the person's name, even though none of these are--or even claim to be--contemporary images. These are the first six that came to my mind--specifically including half non-Western and only one Christian reference. Feel free to expand the thought experiment, but Muhammad stands alone without a depiction. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jayen, just because the people most invested in the dispute think that an issue is settled, doesn't mean it is. The hypothetical average Wikipedia user has been given an impression that pictures or statues or other depictions of human beings are associated with Wikipedia articles on people, even historic figures. The proposition that Muhammad is unique among people and best represented on Wikipedia by a non-picture seems specious and without merit. Placed in context of the particular religious tenets in play here, one must wonder whether, absent those tenets in play, anyone would ever have come up with a caligraphic reference. Jclemens (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties

IMO this seems like a pretty blatant violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. This is also backed up by Jclemens comment here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting, because I clicked through that list the other day and the anomaly is really striking. At the same time, I feel some deference to the good faith work of editors who came before. So, I'm conflicted and need to ponder this one. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED is a very good argument in defence of the idea that there should be a depiction in the infobox. I'm not sure, though, whether it actually requires one. The absence of an image can be defended, I think, on the grounds that no authentic or iconic (in the modern sense) image exists. There are other articles in a similar situation that do include depictions in the infobox, but there may be a reasonable case for saying that those articles have it wrong. --FormerIP (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jclemens, have you read any of the discussions preceding this case? Because the question why it would be historically misleading, and a significant departure from sources, to treat Muhammad the same as Buddha or Jesus was discussed at some length. [69][70][71]. I'm surprised to see you holding up Jesus and Buddha as models to follow here; the discussions passed that point several months ago. --JN466 08:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

On the proposal per se: No. We use the most iconic image, and in Muhammad's case that's the calligraphic representation of his name. That's what you'll find inside a mosque (and on the outside of many mosques as well, embedded in the tilework). Besides, it's a content ruling, and a poorly informed one. Honestly, sometimes I think this entire case could be summed up by WP:BEANS. --JN466 08:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• The proposal here appears to be a personal interpretation of wikipedia policy which goes beyond the remit of the Arbitration Committee. I would not be surprised if the final community decision on images for this particular article, to be decided after the case is closed, included a resolution to have no figurative image in the information box at all. Mathsci (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Possibly this isn't appropriate <shrug> - it is possibly over the line and is too content focused. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jclemens, @Jayen466. AFAIK there are currently 2 calligraphical representations of Muhammad in the article and 6 depictions. As currently used we are showing lots of depictions on the grounds that our readers have a traditionalist view on art (ie only literal depictions are important). Therefore there seems little reason to avoid having a depiction of Muhammad in the Infobox. This also applies to the compromises suggested so far by Resolute and myself on this talk page. If we want to change our editorial stance towards showing Muhammad how he is actually depicted we need to reduce the number of depictions in the article to 1-2 at which point not including an Infobox image would be more justified. But that would make having an Infobox image desirable to satisfy our readers who do prefer more traditionalist art as a compromise.

I don't feel the current Infobox approach is right as a compromise as you aren't going to know how much more weight you should give that depiction to infer anything. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The disputes about how many of the calligraphy represent Muhammad, or his name, or really count, typifies the back and forth to the uninvolved. If one steps back and realizes that this dispute is about whether images should be in the bottom 1/3 of the article, or in the bottom 2/3, or at the top, one gets a sense of where we are, similarly with numbers between some and some more, in the single digits. At any rate, what one might call "traditionalist" is our image policy, which many support for encyclopedic reasons, it prefers images that are less abstracted to represent what is suppose to be represented. But although I think Arbcom can observe and note these practices in their findings, I agree that the final outcome should be left to the editorial process, with these observations in hand, so people will have reference to them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Actually many biographies of artists contain a work by them rather than a portrait in the lead or (less often) the infobox, which is something I usually support, and WP:VAMOS allows for. I support having a calligraphic image in the infobox here, and no figurative depictions high up, both as the most typical form of representation, but also as a matter of tact. The distinction between portrait-type and narrative images is also important here. Very few biographies have a narrative image in the lead (and they tend not to work at small infobox size), though some will use a detail from a narrative image. But since we all agree there are no authentic likenesses, I don't think there is a strong case for a figurative depiction at the start; they are more use illustrating specific incidents from the life. 87.194.52.251 (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Mentoring for Ludwigs2

1) As per ASCIIn2Bme's evidence Ludwigs2 takes it too far on many occasions, mentoring to give him a better idea of acceptable behaviour would in my view be useful.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is in addition to any other remedies that are considered appropriate by the committee. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring is for relatively new but over-aggressive/eager editors that others feel can be a valued contributor if given a bit of guidance. Ludwigs has been around the block much to long for that; this length of time spent in the Wikipedia community has given him more than enough familiarity with norms and practices here. If Ludwigs runs afoul of those, that is his choice; he knows better. Tarc (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't think mentoring can work for someone who is being disruptive with a self-declared expectation of being "martyred". See Resolute's evidence. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with above. Ludwigs2 has passed the point where mentoring would make a difference --Guerillero | My Talk 21:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally I disagree and mentoring has been considered a reasonable option for editors with much longer block logs than Ludwigs in the past. That said of course the arbitration committee should be the ones to decide whether to take this point forward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but Ludwigs' own comments make it clear that he doesn't care about consensus or Wikipedia's policies. He's only interested in getting his way, or getting banned in the process. A mentor cannot help someone who refuses to accept that consensus can, and does, go against his viewpoint. Resolute 23:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Er, of course the arbs will be the ones to decide, eraser; why did you even feel the need to tell us that? Workshop entries have commentary sections for parties to the case, arbs, and others. We're just here weighing in in our respective sections, not passing judgement. Tarc (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Could links be provided to the evidence please? --Elonka 00:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

sure. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Eraserhead1, I don't think that was what Elonka meant. You need to link to the specific evidence submissions that show tenacious editing by Ludwigs, or post the diffs from the evidence submission directly to this section. On the proposal here, as a general matter I will not support mentoring: if we find a user is unable to contribute constructively, then remedial action must remove that editor from the problematic topic areas (or, as necessary, from Wikipedia entirely). I do not speak for the entire committee, but my own view (and I have mentored a couple of users in the past) is that mentoring is an unjustifiable drain on the time of those users who can contribute constructively. In short: we are an encyclopedia, not a nursery. AGK [•] 02:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Tarc

Proposed principles

NPOV and external advocacy

1) Adherence to a neutral point of view when crafting an article in the Wikipedia is of the utmost importance, it is what sets an encyclopedia apart from a newspaper, a blog, a think tank's publications, or any similar source where "X is right, !X is wrong" is the aim/goal of the report, rather than the reporting itself. As such, the project cannot allow its coverage of a topic to be affected by external advocacy groups. These groups may believe information should be presented in a certain manner, that some things must be withheld or treated with discretion. To allow their influence into the project and to affect editorial decision-making would compromise our drive to present the neutral point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Too wordy, but at the core an appropriate principle. We probably should include something like this. Jclemens (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Assumes facts not in evidence. As far as I am aware, external advocacy groups have played no role in recent discussions. I am happy to be corrected if my assumptions are mistaken, but I see the present discussion to a large extent as one dominated by editors who are primarily motivated to contribute to the article because of free-speech concerns, and/or because they feel that Wikipedia should be, for want of a better expression, "less censored" than its sources (a stance that strikes me as inherently incompatible with NPOV). --JN466 15:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no evidence I can see of external advocacy. While some IP editors may possibly have been co-ordinated there is no obvious evidence that this is the case, and its irrelevant with regards to this case as no IP editors have contributed or are named parties. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The "external advocacy" is represented by some editors here who argue on a basis of "it is offensive". If it is offensive to somebody, then an editor making this argument is in effect proxying for the external advocates of image removal. Ludwigs himself has explicitly pointed to the large number of archived requests and discussions at Talk:Muhammad/images as proof that a lot of people have voiced opposition to the images, and therefore must be heard. Tarc (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You can make that same "external advocacy" argument about any action or statement made by any user. Generally "external advocacy" is taken to mean that someone has violated WP:CANVASS. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that I have explained what was actually meant, there should be no more confusion, then. Tarc (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I am significantly more confused. What violations of WP:CANVASS have there been? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm I was never talking about canvassing; you did, and I corrected your mistaken assertion. Many SPA's and IP editors have come to Muhammad/images to argue that they are offended by the images and demand their removal. You, Ludwigs, and Hans Adler have argued that them being offended is a reason to restrict images. A connects to B, you are arguing on their behalf. Tarc (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I see kinda you are coming from as some of the points raised have mentioned previous contributors. But I don't think that's a particularly large part of the argument as quite a bit of it resolves around WP:NPOV.

With regards to WP:CANVASS I bought it up as that's the relevant guideline. Do you have any evidence that a significant percentage of the editors previously involved in asking for the images to be removed had violated WP:CANVASS or is there another guideline/policy which you can point to which invalidates their contributions? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Point of clarity: I have never argued that we should restrict images because "a lot of people have voiced opposition". I've argued that there is a well-known and long-established cultural more against images of Muhammad that out to be considered when we make images choices on this article. I've only mentioned the excessive volume of complaints when you or Resolute or some editor has tried to assert that there is no controversy.

We've had this discussion before, Tarc. You refuse to acknowledge there's any distinction between "Something some fanatic is offended by" and "Something that offends the practices and standards of an entire culture". Opposing the first is tough-but-reasonable; opposing the second is fanaticism in its own right. Ah, hell, never mind; I'm going to add this as a proposal and let the arbs decide. --Ludwigs2

Comment by others:

Islamic prohibitions against images

2) Specific to this topic area, the religious precepts of the Islamic faith that call for depictions of the prophet Muhammad to be veiled or removed altogether cannot be allowed to affect, influence, or color the article Muhammad (or any sub-articles or others within this topic area).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Per Jayen, this should be generalized. I'd go farther than "religious"--I'd say any viewpoint or belief system that aims to restrict knowledge cannot be allowed to unduly influence Wikipedia. We rejected repeated attempts to remove the Rorschach test images, for example. Jclemens (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It strikes me as prejudicial towards Islam to treat that POV as one that is a priori less valid than others, rather than according it its due weight according to its prevalence in reliable sources. It goes with the territory that Islamic cultural and religious norms have affected the sources we are required to reflect, and have done so for centuries. So if we follow NPOV policy, our article will in turn be affected by these religious precepts, to the extent they are reflected in sources. Many reputable English-language sources on Muhammad are written by Muslims; even non-Muslim authors often see no need to include images of Muhammad, because they are culturally meaningless in the majority of the Islamic world. We cannot retroactively change history. Instead of figurative images, Islamic art has developed its own, word-based iconography surrounding Muhammad and the Quran that is the predominant type of illustration in reliable sources. We should reflect Muhammad's reception accurately. There is no good reason for us to prioritise Islamic art that is both atypical in the Islamic world, and less prevalent in reliable sources. --JN466 15:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

@Kww: I am not arguing that we should remove any of the existing images because someone has forbidden them for religious reasons. I am arguing for their reduction because, looking at reliable sources, the number we currently feature is WP:UNDUE, while at the same time we lack images that clearly are WP:DUE. WP:NOT does not protect article content that is in violation of WP:DUE. There are dozens of Muhammad images in Commons. If I added 60 of them in a gallery, would you argue that not a single one must be removed, because someone, somewhere, has prohibited the display of such images? That's the WP:NOTCENSORED tail wagging the WP:NPOV dog, and it's contradicted by the longstanding wording of WP:NOTCENSORED itself. We do not need to feature a surfeit of anything anyone has forbidden, just to prove to the world that we are not cowed, and no such prohibition should cause us to react in a way that makes us depart from WP:NPOV. --JN466 18:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

We should be prejudiced against Islam, or indeed any other stone age mythology. Of course it is less valid than other points of view. Egg Centric 16:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You can be as prejudiced against Islam as you like, but we do not select the authors we cite by their religion, or their POV. --JN466 17:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Not a well-drafted point. So called "veiling" or blanking the face of images is not a "precept" (whatever that is) you will find written down anywhere I think, but an artistic convention that emerged gradually. I don't agree with the proposition as put. We already treat the article very differently from other biographies in the quantity, choice and placement of such images, and I am happy with this, and oppose the suggestions of some editors, such as Resolute, whose proposal included adding a "hostile" Western image, which I think would certainly be needlessly provocative here. After that you come to the very specific wording of WP:NOT, quoted by Kww below. Johnbod (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is specifically covered by WP:NOT:"Wikipedia will not remove content because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations." Jayen466's argument is, unfortunately, wrong in its precepts, wrong in its reasoning, and wrong in its ultimate application. Religious POVs are a priori irrelevant to the editorial policies of a secular encyclopedia.They are certainly equal in weight to all other religious POVs, but those POVs are, as a group, not suitable as an influence on our editorial policy.—Kww(talk) 17:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll add that there was a sustained, months-long effort by JN466, Ludwigs2 and a handful of other editors to change the part of the policy you are citing. It failed. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if you could provide a link to that discussion archive. NW (Talk) 03:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you are a masochist, you can read the final section of Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 37, where it begins. The argument encompasses ALL of archives 38 and 39, the first half of 40 and two thirds of WT:NOT as it stands right now. Resolute 03:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, one thing that did change as a result of these discussions is that policy now states that being objectionable is not a reason for inclusion, either. --JN466 22:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

TL;DR

1) Several editors have generated an enormous and dense amount of argumentation in their drive to acquiesce to outside religious beliefs, in opposition to Principles #1 and #2. Some have been simply misguided, albeit civil. Others have been belligerent and vitriolic towards those who disagree with them. Some fall in between.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agree with Resolute; the argumentation has certainly not been one-sided. Risker (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I might strike "in their drive to acquiesce to outside religious beliefs". While I agree that is what motivated the start of this mess, it takes two (or many) sides to drive an argument to this length. Resolute 01:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This is true, but so what? No-one denies that there is more than one faction of editors involved in the current dispute. --FormerIP (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. It might be useful if a table by volume of bytes or whatever of the main contributors over recent months could be produced, but I don't think anyone involved would doubt that Ludwigs would be at or near the top. Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Obviously, I might be considered biased, but I agree. While it takes two to tango, the lengthy defense would not have been necessary were it not for a sustained attack on encylopedic principles by Ludwigs2, Hans Adler, and Jayen466.—Kww(talk) 16:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised to see the battlefield conduct continued here with such personal attacks. I must ask you for diffs supporting your contentio that Ludwigs2, Jayen466 or I are attacking "encyclopedic principles", and a clarification of what these principles are. Hans Adler 01:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Offense isn't enough

2) Wikipedia editors can never be allowed to purposefully add text or images or other media to an article with an express purpose to offend a race, religion, creed or sexual orientation. However, such material should not be removed from an article for the sole reason that it offends someone. When in doubt, assume that an editor who supports an inclusion or opposes a removal is doing so with the goal of bettering the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes, although there are also WP:Competence issues involved here. Editors may be responding in good faith to defend the project against what they perceive as an attack on free speech, while being quite unfamiliar with the subject matter. --JN466 15:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Tentative oppose: While I don't necessarily object to this as an ideal, this phrasing implies a disturbing amount of mind-reading. How do we know what 'express purpose' an editor has in mind? How do we determine that offense is the 'sole reason' another editor wants it removed? On the Muhammad page there are numerous accusations about what other editors are thinking tossed around (you'll find several examples in evidence of editors asserting that I am solely motivated by offense, for instance, despite the fact I disagree), and they got in the way more than anything else.

Let's take a (hopefully) credible example: Someone decides to add an image of a Jim Crow era lynching to the Martin Luther King, Jr. article; someone else objects, saying that image is inappropriate for that article. Editor 1 asserts that Editor 2 is solely worried about offense; Editor 2 asserts that Editor 1 is (consciously or unconsciously) motivated by racism; grumbling ensues. How will this principle help us resolve that quandary? I don't see any way that it can. --Ludwigs2 04:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how lynching would apply since MLK was not lynched. Lynching in and of itself was not related to MLK Jr., and most likely could be argued on half a dozen grounds without bringing offense into the equation. Even if he spoke out against lynching specifically I am fairly sure it wasn't one of his major contributions or ideological platforms. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be easy enough to argue: lynching as an example of the kinds of abuses blacks suffered, that MLK wanted to put an end to. but that kind of misses the point. --Ludwigs2 19:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• No. If an offensive image is related to the topic but of little or no educational value, it should be removed. If an offensive image can be replaced by an inoffensive image without harming the educational value of the article, it should be replaced. This proposal is opposed to our principle of service to our readers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Support, and also agree with Jayen466's caveat. --Elonka 23:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support, and have to respond to Jayen466's caveat as being a complete and absolute red herring. None of the images that he is objecting to were created or inserted with the sole reason of causing offense.—Kww(talk) 03:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous complaints about these images are disregarded

3) The 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content says the following; "...potential decisions on the restrictions of these types of images must be decided by individual users and why we have recommended that registration be necessary to affect these images." The bulk of the Talk:Muhammad/images archives consist of anonymous IP editors demanding 100% image removal, but these are essentially merit-less complaints.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, people who aren't aligned with Wikipedia's goals really aren't welcome to try and influence content, are they? I'm thinking that's as it should be: you have to buy into the pillars--all of them--to have a voice in the project. Jclemens (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I am entering this here because during the course of these debates, some have argued on behalf of these anonymous persons, that the vast talk page archives proves that we must do something about the image "problem". As the study recommends that only registered editors be allowed to affect the image debate, then this undercuts a large part of the argument. I'd go further and suggest that single-purpose accounts, while technically meeting the threshold, run counter to the spirit of what the study calls for; namely, that people who are actually here to contribute to an encyclopedia be the ones to discuss these sensitive matters, and not those who come here laser-focused on Muhammad and image removal alone. Tarc (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The implication of this, in the absence of any more specialised technology, would be to permanently semi-protect the article. Which I would not necessarily oppose. However, I think, as a matter of principle, that IP and SPA editors should not be restricted from editing the talkpage. I think it is fundamental to WP's ethic that any article be open to the comments and suggestions of newcomers. --FormerIP (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a good point and would support it. Also semi protection isn't hard to fulfill requirements for so people who truly wish to contribute can still do so in a relatively short period of time. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Guys, the article has been semi-protected for years. --JN466 22:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, and it will likely remain so since whenever the semi has been lifted in the past, the article gets hit with vandalism. What we're talking about though is input to the image discussion itself being limited to identifiable, i.e. registered, users. I don't think the study was intending to have Wiki projects block access to talk pages though, my interpretation is that it suggests limits on things such as RfCs. Tarc (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

And by a coincidence almost too amazing to believe, moments ago there was a post made which was exactly what I was talking about; this, which was reverted. IPs have no place filing Arbcoms. Tarc (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by Resolute

Proposed principles

Wikipedia contains material that some may consider offensive

1) Wikipedia covers a wide array of topics, some of which will be sensitive topics to readers on the basis of religion, cultural belief, age-appropriateness or nationalism (among others). Such material is provided for informative purposes and is necessary to maintain a neutral point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Why is everyone fighting over NPOV WRT controversial images? I don't think it's actually appropriate to inclusion or exclusion of material at all. Jclemens (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Verb missing here? Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens: The problem in this (and many other) disputes is that many editors are unaware (or at least don't acknowledge) that images can be used to promote particular POVs. Images contain lot of non-verbal information and can be extremely influential. This is why, for instance, the Bush administration kept the news media from having access to pictures of caskets returning from the wars in the middle east, but provided many pictures of other sorts: They wanted to spin the wars one way, and did not want the cost in human lives solidified in visual imagery. In the case here, there are editors who are insisting on using rare and unconventional figurative images of Muhammad primarily because they are opposed to a tenet of Muslim faith that discourages such. They are quite frank about trying to impose a western/secular POV on the article and exclude the Islamic POV, and that makes it an issue of NPOV.

On any controversial issue, imagery has a grave risk of advocating one perspective or another: a flag being raised by soldiers is just as good an image of war as a flag draped over a casket, but they push entirelydifferent POVs on the war itself. NPOV is what we use to handle advocacy in textual material (and it does a good job, generally); NPOV should be what we use to to handle advocacy in imagery. --Ludwigs2 17:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not censored [Resolute]

2) (Lets address the elephant in the room) I'll simply quote the policy: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agreed. Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

• Bluntly, the central argument to the desire to remove images is that some Muslims find their existence objectionable. Related to Tarc's suggested principle: That something is offensive to someone is not by itself a valid argument in for removal. Resolute 01:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Correct, but this must be tempered by the fact that WP:NOTCENSORED does not protect material that violates WP:DUE. To quote from the same policy:

  "Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's main servers are hosted, will also be removed."

• Images are subject to WP:DUE in this project. They have been for more than five years. What we have here is a situation where a WP:DUE argument is continually being reframed as an offensiveness argument, in order to avoid having to demonstrate that the images are, in fact, due, based on prevalence in reliable sources. That is an all-too common tactic in this project and by no means limited to this article. It's equally common in discussions related to nudity or sexual content. The board resolution on controversial content would not have been necessary at all if the projects had been capable of mature decision-making to begin with, just like the board's BLP resolution would have been unnecessary if the project had been able to get its act together by itself. And in my experience, the offensiveness counter is most commonly advanced by editors who have not contributed encyclopedic content to the articles in question, and who have made no effort to research the subject matter and its literature. Those who are familiar with the general literature on Muhammad, at least to a basic degree, have spoken here, and are in agreement
• To be sure, no one here objects to the presence of offensive images in Wikipedia articles whose display is demonstrably justified by the presence of similar imagery in reputable and authoritative sources. A limited number of figurative Muhammad images in this article, appropriately placed, is due in my opinion. But there is no good reason why Wikipedia articles should contain more offensive imagery than reliable sources do. What is wrong with a Commons link? While "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content, it is definitely not a good or sufficient reason for inclusion either. --JN466 17:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I really do not wish to re-argue the same argument that has been had 30 times over the last couple months. I would, however, like to point out that you have not yet established that the current usage represents undue weight. In fact, given you were supportive of my proposal to use five images (out of roughly 21/22) suggests that the balance (currently at six out of 25) is fairly appropriate. Resolute 19:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I liked the image placement in your proposal, i.e. predominantly (though not exclusively) in the depiction section, and in the Western views section. That felt right, and still does. --JN466 00:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Consensus exists that Muhammad should include depictions

1) An overwhelming majority of editors involved in the debates have agreed that images depictions belong on the article, even if they disagree on the number, placement and specific image use.

Comment by Arbitrators:

How is this not a content ruling? Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

• Agreed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Agreed, if you mean the current regulars. But an overwhelming majority of one-off editors on the page don't agree at all, nor do many regulars in the past. Johnbod (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Agreed. (I assume you're referring to figurative depictions of Muhammad.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. I am trying to consistently use "depictions" to refer to such images, and "images" for the overall balance. Not perfectly, mind you, but that is always a safe assumption with my commentary. Resolute 18:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• I believe the problem is that it says "depictions" in the heading but "images" in the body. Hans Adler 01:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Ahh, true enough. fixed. Resolute 17:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens, It's not content ruling; it is clarifying the nature of the dispute. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. Although my own position is that 0 depictions is as reasonable a number as 2 and more than 2 is too much. Hans Adler 01:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Agreed. --Elonka 23:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The number and placement of depictions at Muhammad already reflects a compromise position

2) The article has, over time and organically, achieved a state that sets it apart from the typical historical biography by: (1) Limiting depictions to a small minority percentage of the overall total images. (2) Using artistic calligraphy as the infobox lead image rather than a depiction (3) placing the majority of such depictions in the bottom half of the article, "below the fold". (4) Allowing for logged in editors to remove the images for their own account (Answer 3 of FAQ)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm not sure that compromise 2 reflects an appropriate encyclopedic reaction. That is, if the article is already being treated specially due to religious concerns, then maybe what we need to do to "break the back of the dispute" is to forbid that, as well. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As per my evidence this simply isn't true.

Additionally while there isn't anything else we can really do, asking users to customise their CSS is hardly an acceptable workaround thats worthy of praise. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind that some don't even want to include the link to how to do that in the offensive images guideline. Nor a link to the wmf proposed filter stuff. [72] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted that. That's not good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, your evidence only shows that the number and type of depictions has undergone small adjustments over time. Your evidence does not refute a single one of my claims here. Resolute 18:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If there has been no significant change in the number of images, or the number of images has increased in ratio to the amount of text as the data shows, then there has been no compromise with regards to the number and placement of images. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You are not paying attention to what I am writing. I said that the article is in a state that sets it apart from the typical historical biography. Not that it is in a compromise state from how the article looked at some arbitrary point in history. Which, of course, leads me to your second error: You (Jayen, Ludwigs, etc.) seem to be of the opinion that the extremes of this debate are zero depictions and the current number. That is completely incorrect. The extremes are zero depictions and every image being a depiction. The current arrangement falls closer to the minimum extreme than it does the maximum. Resolute 23:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Taking a look at some historical biographies that are a featured articles. On William Shakespeare there are 13 images, 4 of which are depictions. On Joan of Arc there are 18 images of which 10 are depictions. On Guy Fawkes there are 3 depictions out of 6 images. Muhammad does have 6 depictions out of 21 images - which is roughly in line with Shakespeare, but I admit at the lower end of the three featured articles I listed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

How about Leonardo da Vinci (a GA)? If I've counted correctly, 2 out of 28 images are figurative representations of da Vinci himself; 26 are not. It's normal and appropriate for people who lived centuries ago, but left an influential legacy that has changed the world, and is remembered by millions (or billions) to this day. --JN466 11:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Further such examples are here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

There are actually 25 images presently on Muhammad. You can't just pretend the images attached to the templates placed throughout the article don't exist. Consequently, the number of depictions is actually below what you assess to be a typical range. I think you have actually reinforced my point. Especially given the other compromises that obviously exist at present. Resolute 20:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Which makes it 24% rather than 29%, its not enough to make the number of depictions statistically significantly lower than the featured articles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, of your eight presented comparibles, it shows that the percentage of depections to total images on Muhammad is less than half that of five of them. And of the remaining three, it can definitely be said in one case that the issue is simply a case of our having only a single depiction. And the more random examples I add from FA-class biographies, the more obvious it becomes: John A. Macdonald, 10 of 16 are of the subject, 12 are depcitions of any individual. Jerry Voorhis, 2 of 7 are of the subject, 3 are depictions of any individual. George F. Kennan, 2 of 2. Yasser Arafat 16 of 21 of the subject, 18 overall depicting an individual. Robert de Chesney, 0 of 2. Paulinus of York, 1 of 2. George Hirst, 5 of 6 (all six depict some individual). Bob Windle, 0 of 0 (there were three irrelevant images at the time it was promoted to FA, none depicting Windle or anyone else). Fairfax Harrison, 1 of 3. Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay, 4 of 7 (plus two more depicting other individuals). James Newland, 4 of 4. That's 11 more examples, of which two have less than Muhammad, likely due to lack of available images only, one is comparabile by percentage, and eight have significantly more such images. And of all those articles, every one uses a depiction or photograph of the individual when we have one available. Any which way you slice it, the Muhammad article has a very low proportion of depictions to total images, and of depictions used relative to what is available when compared to other high-end biographies. Resolute 19:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately all but two of those figures have articles with photographs and/or have been alive recently enough for their images to be still in copyright which distorts the percentage of depictions compared to figures who were alive before that. The two who are relevant I have added to an extended table on the evidence talk page.

Of course I accept that the number of images of Muhammad is lower than the mean number of depictions for featured articles of historical figures, the issue is that it isn't that far away from the mean - especially as the number of depictions used varies so widely. If an attempt at compromise had been made then the number of images in Muhammad would be significantly lower than for other historical biographies and your image count includes a bunch of decorative images that aren't really directly comparable to the other articles listed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't stop you from moving the goalposts in your own evidence. However, I never limited my statements to the pre-photographic era (in fact, including the photographic era is less likely to support my viewpoint, as the number of photographs in copyright limits our avilable pool. This limitation does not exist for pre-20th century drawings, paintings, etc.) I would note again that you are attempting (unsuccessfully) to argue against but one aspect of my claim. I suspect that you choose to ignore the remainder because you have no rebuttal. Resolute 21:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can compare depictions of someone in the 7th century with someone in the photographic era, as photographs change how people are depicted significantly. With regards to your other point. Significantly lower != 0, from my original evidence I would guess that using 3 images out of 21/25 would count as significantly lower - though expanding the data pool before giving an exact figure would be ideal.

I have done some maths to make this point (crudely I have assumed the data follows a normal distribution [this isn't perfect as a normal distribution assumes the data is unbounded which is clearly false, but it should be a reasonable guess] and then worked out what 2 standard deviations less than the mean is [~95% of results are within two standard deviations, and this is the standard measure of error] - which if it was that would make it significantly lower - the figure for Muhammad is ~1 standard deviation less than the mean, or maybe a little less) , and I accept that I haven't given my workings or answers as a specific number once we have the full data pool, including a sensible correction for the fact that the normal distribution requires the data set to be unbounded which is clearly not the case here as you can't have negative depictions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Eraser, your evidence isn't really evidence, it is just you applying your own interpretation to your own data. There has no compromise to simply "reduce the number of images", that would be a flawed and ass-backwards way to approach the matter. What the past compromise was about was identifying what images were relevant and helpful to the article and what we not, without preconceived notions of "more is better" or "less is better", in addition to the points made about moving some images to the end of the article. Tarc (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Resolute is stating that the "number and placement" of images already reflects a compromise position. Unless you dispute my statistical data and basic analysis the data shows that that claim is demonstrably false. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

See, this is the heart of the problem; you are presupposing that a "compromise" MUST end in a reduction of images. That is not the case at all. There were solutions agreed to OTHER than deletion, such as relocation or making clear what the process was for readers to turn image displays off for themselves. Tarc (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the diffs there is no evidence that serious quantities of relocation have occurred.

It is true that a serious alternative to reducing the number of images would be to include a disclaimer and/or a button to hide the images, but neither of those have been enacted. I don't think you can argue in good faith that hacking the css is an acceptable user action as a compromise. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with the proposition - my analysis at AGD's 1st question clearly shows this, and Eraserhead's figures are beside the point as there was already an abnormally low proportion of images showing the subject of the biography at the date he starts. In addition he ignores the placement of the images. For a long time one of the "portrait" images was the first image seen from the top of the article, immediately below the templates; now all are well "below the fold" (the first comes at the bottom of screen 5 on my machine) and most very low down a pretty lengthy article. Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Care to present a diff for that? Currently it looks like the first unveiled depiction is much higher up the article than they were when it got GA status (see my evidence for diffs). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Absolutely not! The diff you evidence gives for the "GA version" is this one, July 5 2008, where the first image is much higher up than present, on the 3rd screen, just below the TOC & the huge templates, as opposed to the 5th screen now. It remained in this position until some point in 2011 - see your December 31 2010 diff, where it is in the same position. I'm not going to hunt through for the exact stop & start diffs. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• The first unveiled depiction is over half way down the article in the GA version. The first depiction may have been higher in the GA version, but I don't think anyone has an objections to those beyond including too many of them being WP:UNDUE. EDIT: Re-reading again and we're both right. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

In reply to Jclemens comment I think he's right. Our reasonable person will expect to see a depiction in the infobox as that's consistent with every other article on the project where there is a depiction and given that it probably is a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. I think this applies even if we take that policy significantly less seriously for images, in line with Jclemens comment here about NPOV. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. In Islam, something like the present lead image is the "iconic" representation of Muhammad. This is what you'll find in a mosque, not an image of a beardy guy with a halo. Besides, this would be a clear content ruling. --JN466 08:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• It is definitely the result of lengthy discussion, involving concessions on all sides. But clearer, better guidance from policy and the Foundation with regard to curation of controversial content would eliminate the need for compromise. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

That a compromise has been made is evident relative to similar articles on the English Wikipedia. Now if you take the Arabic Wikipedia as a standard of compromise, then indeed you can dispute this claim. But they don't have images of people in the articles for man or woman, and I can only hope the English Wikipedia is not aspiring to that kind of compromise. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

As per table 2 of my evidence there is no statistically significant difference between the number of depictions in Muhammad and the number of depictions in the featured articles of historical figures. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Editors have engaged in battleground behaviour

3) Editors have attempted to polarize the debate into an ideological and religious battle, resorted to incivility and personal attacks and have shown a disinclination to acting in a collaborative nature, frustrating the community's ability to resolve this debate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agreed. Jclemens (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

• Agreed, as per my evidence. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• I don't especially agree with this. There are strongly defined views, so some friction has been inevitable. Some drive-by editors over the years have been very incivil and POV on both sides, but the filibstering of recent months has pretty much drowned them out. It's a pity Eraserhead's "evidence" doesn't include some of his own edits, like this one. The debate has also been hampered by a number of editors who feel the need to respond to everything everybody else says, even when they have nothing to say. Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't think that's anywhere near as bad as most of the edits in my evidence. That said if you wish to present that edit to the committee in your evidence by all means. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ludwigs2 has resorted to tendentious editing

4) Ludwigs2 has violated WP:NPA, WP:IDHT, WP:BATTLE, even in this very ArbCom case request.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As per my evidence he's not the only guilty party. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but in my view, he is the source of the issue. Ludwigs is not the only editor I expect to be admonished out of this. Resolute 18:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I don't recall him deploying anything I'd consider a personal attack. He can be blunt, but that's another thing. "I don't agree" is not the same as IDHT; I've never seen him not get what his interlocutor is saying or not respond intelligently and logically. He is not a POV-pusher; he has a view on NPOV that many of us share. No element of BATTLE applies to his behaviour. The only element of WP:TEND that might superficially appear to apply is "One who repeats the same argument without convincing people" but both Tarc's and Resolute's evidence belie this. He is tenacious, which I admire. BUT he is incapable of resisting bait, which is his downfall. Work on that would you, Ludwigs? I don't want to collaborate with you when you, Tarc and others are constantly (really, constantly) hijacking threads with your tangental bickering. It makes measured negotiation impossible among the rest of us. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Er, no. None of us have compared our opponents to [Jim Crow-era racists. There's a false dichotomy going on here, an attempt to pair up Ludwigs' behavior with someone else's to mitigate or explain his vitriol, but given the bulk of links provided my myself and others on the Evidence page I believe it is becoming quite clear what the source of all this is. Again I will draw a parallel to the Obama arbcom; there were many voices, including mine, which got rather testy. But once the onion layers were peeled back, we saw CoM and Steve at the core. Once they were removed from the topic area, the flood slowed to a trickle. Tarc (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I've read all those links, and the interactions that preceded them. The more I read, the more appalled I was by the goading, baiting and pure disrespect meted out to him by you and others. I'm pretty confident that any impartial reader will draw the same conclusions as me. We'll see. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That is true. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• @ Elonka: I just looked over Ludwigs2's 250 odd edits to Talk:Muhammad/Images. I have very rapidly prepared a summary of edits on a userspace subpage User:Mathsci/ArbCom2011 which, if AGK thinks fit, can be adapted for the evidence page. The diffs do appear to support the finding of fact here, although many of the personal attacks on multiple users are borderline. Mathsci (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. I would add that we could do the same at User talk:Jimbo Wales, WT:NOT and anywhere else this dispute has been forum shopped and come up with more examples. There is also my own addition below, in proposed remedy 1. Resolute 22:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I was accussed multiple times (diffs on the evidence page) of being prejudiced and when I told him that I wasn't and he shouldn't make comments about others instead of apologizing for the remarks tried to justify them. I would consider those personal attacks at a minimum since it was done to try to paint me in a unfavorable view simply because I was able to come up with multiple points to why images should be kept within the article. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Your behaviour has been perfectly reasonable as far as I'm concerned. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I try to make a good run at being reasonable. It does get difficult at times and I try to make sure I sit and reread anything I will post since sometimes I either can be confusing or a little heated but I find trying to have a level head is more useful in the long run than trying to play battering ram with my head. Also thank you for the compliment. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I've reviewed Eraserhead's evidence, but I'm not seeing the diffs to backup the claims of personal attacks and battleground behavior by Ludwigs2. Is there a section I'm missing? --Elonka 01:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think my evidence is particularly damning, but this is fairly bad from Ludwigs. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe at that point the disruption caused by Ludwigs2's opponents had reached a dimension that made it necessary to pass to a meta level. I am going to present evidence on Tarc's epic failure to engage in actual dialogue and continued pointing to some imaginary consensus as the only reason not to revisit the lingering problem on the occasion of the WMF resolution. It appears to me that Ludwigs2's description of Tarc's behaviour was essentially accurate. Hans Adler 13:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. There has been an overwhelming consensus for YEARS that images of Muhammad are appropriate for the article. If you can't see where the consensus lies, then avail yourself to the talk page and image archives. The only difference between the present-day vendetta of Ludwigs' and past attempts to remove images from the article is that Ludwigs simply would not drop the stick when it was clear to everyone else that his proposals were not going to be adopted. We're not responsible for Ludwigs argument devolving to insults and accusations of racism. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I will reserve any further comments on this until I have presented my evidence regarding your behaviour. Hans Adler 22:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• I had problems with being accused of "making up cheap lies".—Kww(talk) 15:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. I agree that Eraserhead1's diff shows Ludwigs2 making a personal attack, and Kww's diff shows Ludwigs2 being, at the very least, uncivil and commenting on contributors, rather than content. I'm not sure that this is enough to warrant the claim that is in the FoF though. For example, is there evidence of personal attacks here in the ArbCom case? And to claim that Ludwigs2 is editing tendentiously, there needs to be evidence showing actual disruptive edits. Simply commenting on a talkpage (even if in an inappropriate manner) does not necessarily count as editing. To support a Finding, there really need to be diffs that are clear and egregious enough that even uninvolved parties can see the truth of the matter. --Elonka 18:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Ludwigs2 rarely actually edits, so it's even rarer that he edits tendentiously. If you look through my evidence on Ludwigs2, it shows the pattern: enormous amounts of talk-page discussion, with relatively minor amounts of actual editing. The talk page editing is generally in favor of some magical point of view that he believes has been under represented or maligned: some form of religion or pseudoscience.—Kww(talk) 19:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• So? There is value to the project in trying to solve some of these intractable issues. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. I don't care for the smell of that comment. I hate religion and pseudoscience as much as the next man, but I love a neutral article more. If I see a biased article that misrepresents the RSs on such a topic I'll happily spend weeks arguing on the talk page if that's what it takes to improve the encyclopedia. I know how that makes me look, and it makes me an easy target for those who think the only good fringe theory or religion article is one that says "this is crap" in the lead, infobox and every second section. If that's what he's been up to, well good. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• This takes us well of course (and if continued should probably move to a talk page), but your comment highlights one significant divide in this debate: Is this a religious article, or a historical biography? I treat it as the latter, myself. Resolute 17:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• It's an article about the historical figure. The religion he founded is certainly a major topic, but the article is not about Islam, nor do Islamic editors have any special claim to influence over its contents.—Kww(talk) 17:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Solution of this case starts with a very heavy topic ban here. Carrite (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Ludwigs2 is topic banned

1) Ludwigs2 is topic banned from the area of Muhammad images, broadly construed, for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Insufficient to prevent further wiki-wide disruption from him. Ludwigs2 makes uniformed comments just about everything and stumbles into countless disputes, especially involving images. Talk:Pregnancy and Talk:Cat are further examples of this. He was already banned for his behavior from Astrology, but only because WP:AE doesn't allow those involved on his side to vote in his defense. Is he going to be serially topic banned from every article he disrupts? I think he had enough chances. Site-wide ban seem the most appropriate outcome for him. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If we mention the pregnancy case, then I think it's worth bearing in mind that Ludwigs2's view was the one the community eventually, after a long and painful process, came round to adopting. --JN466 04:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You can mention it if you like, but just as good content contribution doesn't negate disruptive behavior (e.g. Betacommand, ScienceApologist), being agreed with in the end doesn't excuse the rocky road of how Ludwigs arrived there. One could argue that the "long and painful process" would have likely been shorter and less painful if he hadn't been a party. Just as productive discussions on the Muhammad images occurred during his absences. Tarc (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with ASCIIn2Bme. Ludwigs2's battleground approach is not limited to this topic. The fact that out of a number of editors that share his view he is singled out as disruptive speaks volumes. - BorisG (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• It's very early days, but I don't think Ludwigs' contributions to this dispute have been as disruptive as this proposal implies. However, Ludwigs was topic-banned from an unrelated subject in October, so if a topic-ban was required, I would take the previous ban into account and instead propose a site-ban. If an editor is disruptive enough to be banned from two unrelated topics, they are too disruptive to contribute to Wikipedia at all. AGK [•] 02:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. This viewpoint would moot both of my suggested remedies in favour of Kww's site ban proposal. But, for a short look of how the issue, lets look at how many locations this has been forum shopped, where Ludwigs is a major player: RfC at VPP, attempt this past March to change NOTCENSORED specificially citing Muhammad images, failed. Begun the current mess on October 20 here, attempted to use the Foundation resolution as a basis to censor the article, failed. He initiates an arbitration request on October 24, basically asking ArbCom to change policy against the wishes of the community, case rejected. Jayen moved the discussion to Jimbo's talk page on November 3, where Ludwigs again re-argued the same points that were previously rejected, failed. He tries again on November 9, failed. On November 4, he started anothe RfC, this time at WT:NOT, which will likewise fail. Most recently, his own proposals in this very case are another attempt to have the arbitration committee change policy to suit his own beliefs where the community will not. And in all cases, the arguments are the same: "They are offensive, therefore they are trivial." In call cases, his arguments have been rejected. Yet here we are, on at least the sixth or seventh forum, with him arguing the same points that have never succeeded in gaining traction.
  • Also, from my evidence, he has stated on at least two occasions that he anticipates he will ultimately be banned for his actions. He was even chastized by SirFozzie in this very aritration request because his answers regarding a binding RfC indicated his level of acceptance was tied directly to whether he supported the outcome. Despite all of these failures to turn the community as noted above, he notes in his proposed principle #1 that he intends to try yet again with yet another RfC question. Ironically, he was complaining about how multiple RfCs on the same thing were a waste of time at Talk:Pregnancy: [73], [74]. The difference between the two cases is that he supported the outcome of the original RfC at Pregnancy, but opposes the outcomes at Muhammad and NOTCENSORED. We are stuck at a point with Ludwigs where he has given every indication that this will not step away from the issue until he gets what he wants. He has shown this behaviour at Muhammad and Pregnancy, was topic banned from Astrology, and someone else mentioned he even had issues at Talk:Cat (which I have not verified for myself). If anything, the evidence that he is not capable of editing in a collaborative environment is mighty strong.
  • And that does not even touch on the personal attacks. Myself, I have been accused of trying to destroy Muslim tradition, of being unethical and unconscionable, of having no conscience, had my competence questioned, was lumped into a group for whom the entire purpose of this debate is anti-Islamic bigotry, and of being a sociopath. There is probably more I forgot about, and if I hadn't simply worked to tune him out at some point, I am certain the attacks would have continued. All of this is entirely, and exclusively, because I disagree with his viewpoint on the matter. He's done the same with other editors. Resolute 20:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Though some might perceive Ludwigs2 as simply "forcefully presenting his case", the diffs do appear to be showing that he is frequently commenting on the contributors and their perceived motivations, rather than strictly on the content of the dispute. --Elonka 22:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

      If you look a bit closer you will realise that Ludwigs2 is a clear case of a mobbing victim. He is continuously targeted by unfounded personal attacks, even from moderate editors who distance themselves from him to score a quick point. In this situation it is perfectly normal for him to retaliate occasionally. He cannot report the offenders to ANI because experience has shown that that's where the mobbing gets worst. I guess he was the only editor ever who was blocked for appropriately reporting QuackGuru, a world class IDHT artist with a long ANI career. Hans Adler 13:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

      If you believe that, Elonka, you are not reading the diffs. As a rule, what I generally am suggesting is that editors sound as if they are making racist, anti-Islamic, or deeply unethical statements. It's unfortunate, but after an editor makes a certain number of assertions that (e.g.) fanatical Muslims are lined up waiting for a chance to pillage the project of images, and that all Muslims should be denied a voice on project as a consequence, racism becomes a credible concern that must be raised. Remember, not all racism is overt, and people are sometimes unaware how racist their expressed attitudes are. If you want to bust me for expressing concerns that there's racism in this debate, you'd best make damned sure that there isn't any first. Otherwise you'll find yourself on a side of the debate that I do not think will appeal to you. --Ludwigs2 19:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

      • I would tend to think that the person making the accusation in the first place is the one with the "damned sure" obligation. This is skirting a bit close to the kind of stuff found in many Israel-Palestine debates here on the Wikipedia, a "I'm not saying Person X is an antisemite, but..." type of thing. Tarc (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

        Sorry, Tarc, but it doesn't work that way. You regularly make statements which could reasonably be construed as racist; it is up to you to justify them so that we can all see that they are not. I don't know (and I don't really care) what your actual attitude towards Muslims is; all I know is that you typically cast them as a fanatical minority that must be suppressed. If there is a way to interpret that attitude which is not racist I'm open to hearing it, but as it stands you have merely continued to assert it as a truth without bothering to justify it. AGF extends far enough to give you a chance to explain, but not so far that you can make such claims with impunity. --Ludwigs2 22:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

        Can diffs be provided that show what you think would constitute a reasonable construction of racism? I don't recall ever seeing a remark that I would contribute to racism so I would like to see what exactly you are referring to. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

        He's digging his own grave with these sorts of remarks, just let em go. I've never in my life encountered something so ludicrous as requiring someone to prove that he isn't racist. Tarc (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

        No Tarc, I'm not. Diffs can and have been presented, and I can present more as time permits. But the general issue is clear to see for anyone who looks at the discussion. Tarc, ASCII, Resolute, Robert, Kww, and etc.: you all rest your arguments on the assertion that anyone who tries to remove these images is guilty of the promotion of Islamic viewpoints; you frequently make claims that if we remove even one of these images, images will be excised from all over the project; you consistently try to cast anyone who asks to remove the images as a fanatical Muslim extremist (or if you can't, as in my case, then you go for Muslim apologist). Most of you have done it here, on these case pages; diffs are not difficult to find. You collectively paint a picture of Islamic editors (or in Kww's case, religious editors more generally put) that is loaded with negative presumptions about their behavior and intentions, and you keep trying to pass it off as though it were an established and unquestionable truth about Islam/religion. Even AGFing that you all have the best intentions, you are collectively doing one heck of a good job of mimicking prejudice. I've cut you a lot of slack from the beginning - I've always asked you to justify these questionable statements in non-prejudicial terms, and never outright condemned you for your attitudes - and I've gotten nothing but grief for it. You still have that slack here; this time I suggest you use it. --Ludwigs2 00:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

        One more with feeling, Ludwigs2: that's not what I'm saying. That's not what I've ever said. I've said that if we consider the sensitivities of the Sunni, we must consider the sensitivities of all. I don't expect, for example, aborigines to begin a campaign for us to remove all images of dead people. It's unlikely that they would start doing that, and it's unlikely that they would choose Wikipedia as their starting point. Thus, we wouldn't censor our imagery in their favor in the same way that we had towards the Sunnis. That would leave Wikipedia in a biased position, which is unacceptable. I don't expect yielding on this issue to begin a campaign of massive censorship, I expect it to set a precedent for small-scale, targeted censorhship, which I consider to be highly detrimental to the neutrality of the encyclopedia. You, on the other hand, have stated that your motivation is to remove images that Sunnis find offensive, for the reason that they find it offensive, and you don't think the value of these particular images justifies offending them. I, on the other hand, don't think offending them matters, and certainly isn't worth introducing editorial bias. Please stop misrepresenting my position, and don't misrepresent your own, either.—Kww(talk) 00:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

        So the statement that as policy stands is wikipedia does not remove things based upon offense then telling you it is pandering to that group to do so is racism? Even when I go to the point (and I stand by this) that if someone can prove to me that a burning flag should go on the main page for the US I would support this (assuming good reasoning of course), taking into account I am of the opinion that yes it offends me? In short you just said because we don't count offense as a reasonable objection per WP:NOTCENSORED we are in fact being racist is not a viable argument because as it clearly states for the umpteenth time that objections grounded within a religious order are not sufficient for removal. Once that policy changes (if it ever changes) I will count in people's feelings, and until that time the only yardstick you are holding it up is the pictures are offensive so they have the responsibility of doing more than any other picture on this site, which is not grounded in policy. Tivanir2 (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

        Kww: You have yet to explain why considering the sensitivities of all is a bad thing. but leaving that aside, your argument about "small-scale, targeted censorship" is a new one - first time I've heard it from you or anyone, at any rate - and I'm curious about it. can you give an example? I'm having a hard time seeing how "small-scale, targeted censorship" is different than normal editorial discretion.

        Oh, and I expect you to provide a diff of me saying that my motivation is to remove images that Sunnis find offensive, or else strike your statement. no nonsense, please.

        Tivanir: I really don't understand what you just said, except that I get the very strong impression that you're trying to say that we must follow the literal text of currently written policy in the idiosyncratic way in which you personally interpret it, without thought or deviation, until such a time as said policy changes. To which I can only say nonsense, and that I'll take a pass on the kool-aid, too. --Ludwigs2 02:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

        Plain as day, Ludwigs2: "I'm not worried that your stance will result in massive censorship, I'm worried that your stance will result in highly selective censorship favoring some large groups, which is a more damaging result by far." As for the statement about Sunnis, are you objecting on the basis that you usually say "cultural groups"?—Kww(talk) 03:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

        I am not trying to say I am following a literal interpretation, I am actually attempting to do so. There is a huge difference between thoughts and actions. Likewise I would like to see an argument that actually says we should have zero figurative images that isn't grounded in offense. I don't drink any kool aid and trying to imply I am a card carrying cult member (other than foamy the squirrel -- but that is different he wants cream cheese not mass suicide) is offensive to say the least. Tivanir2 (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

        The reason people try to follow policy is it sets the guidelines for what they do. There are policies everywhere in the real world to ensure standards are met and maintained. Most jobs from aircraft mechanics to the guys who flip burgers at fast food places have checklists and requirements. Insisting that the editors actually following how the rules work are a problem because they won't bend over something that is clearly grounded in policy as something they need not bend for is ridiculous. And other than a religious proscription against figurative images there is no reason to remove all pictures which you are lobbying for. Tivanir2 (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

        Kww: oh, you did make that argument before. The problem, of course, is that your argument doesn't really hold up under examination. You've posited (if I understand your argument correctly) an aboriginal tribe that has a proscription of some sort against depicting dead people. Assuming such a tribe exists, then it probably would be respectful not to use unnecessary images of dead people on its article, and I would certainly start wondering about the ethics of any editor who insisted that we must add barely relevant images of dead people to the article, just because. There's nothing selective here at all: where there is a long-standing cultural more that can be respected without violating the integrity of the encyclopedia, it ought to be respected. Obviously there needs to be a sourcing to demonstrate the more; obviously mistakes might be made (e.g. it may take some time before the issue about the tribe gets raised, since few people would be aware of it); obviously the informational integrity of the encyclopedia comes first. But if we can satisfy those without violating the culture's rules, why shouldn't we?

        Or it's possible that you're suggesting the 'selective censorship' issue is between major cultures: e.g. we decide images relevant to Islam in a way different than we decide images relevant to Christianity… but if so, that's very odd logic - something like "It's unfair that we don't use images that Muslims object to because we do use images that Christians don't care about." Is it unfair to Christians when a restaurant doesn't insist that Jews get served pork chops like everyone else? Perhaps Jews can all just push the pork chops off their plate if they don't want to eat them?

        Per your last point, no. I'm objecting because I NEVER have suggested that we remove anything because of offense. I have ALWAYS claimed that cultural mores should be one factor weighted into our image choice decision. When I first started this discussion I held the belief that not one of the full-faced images should be used because the value of each was significantly outweighed by its potential for offense. My attitude has changed with respect to some of the (given some very good argumentation I've seen people like Jayen and Mathsci use), and I now think that some of them are valuable enough to outweigh their potential for offense (particularly if they are used in a proper context). I'm objecting because you've made a caricature of my actual argument and presented it as truth, and that's a nono. Now please strike your comment as I asked.

        @ Tivanir: if you are actually following a blindly literal reading of NOTCENSORED, then you should take some time and review the philosophy of policy on project. Policy is not meant to be iron-clad rules or quasi-religious proscriptions. Wikipedia has one purpose - to write a good, reliable, unbiased encyclopedia - and policy which get in the way of doing that should be summarily ignored. We do not write articles to conform to policy; we write articles to cover a topic in an encyclopedia, and policy is merely a tool we use when and where it helps. --Ludwigs2 04:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

        Funny i always thought that using rules was a guideline to ensure we write an encyclopedic description so that we didn't need to quibble over every single point. And again I am not blindly following I am willfully following because if someone can make a good case for something I tend to agree with it. Hell I even agree with an overall reduction of images, and have even nominated some for deletion (both figurative and non, both rejected but at least I am attempting to do something constructive.) If there was a lack of rules ever single issue would have to come to arbitration over and over again to rehash the same issues. IAR exists so that if a consensus exists to remove something that is problematic or doesn't work people can do that. However trying to say we can IAR when the status quo is against what you want when there is no clear consensus shows grasping for straws because the other arguments don't work. Tivanir2 (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

        Well, your first line is more or less correct, but the rest of the paragraph is nonsense. The part of policy you are 'willfully' following (the last line of NOTCENSORED) was actually added by one of the partisans in this dispute (ASCII) several months ago - had I noticed it then I would have opposed it then, because it is deeply problematic. but I didn't, so now you are using wording thrust into policy by a partisan in order to blindly enforce your preferences as though they were the will of the community, and in essence running a wild end-run around the process of consensus and reason in order to get your way. I'm not suggesting you conspired or anything like that, but our system of developing policy is so bad here that it encourages monomaniacal gamesmanship and suppresses intelligent discussion. Policy is useful for guiding us through minor problems, but in any contentious area it's almost guaranteed that one side or another has gamed policy in petty ways to give themselves an advantage in talk page dog-fights, and such gamed policy cannot be used in a rigid, thoughtless manner. sorry. --Ludwigs2 03:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is the absolute minimum that should be considered. An indefinite topic ban of not less than one year would be a preferred phrasing. Carrite (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 is placed on probation

2) Once his topic ban expires, he is placed on indefinite probation, during which he may be blocked without warning by an uninvolved administrator if he resumes a battleground mentality on the topic of Muhammad images, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I include this because Ludwigs has a history of "testing the waters" periodically and has shown he will not drop the stick: [75]. In my view, a one-year topic ban will only mean he comes back in 366 days to resume his crusade. That would not be problematic in and of itself, but there is no reason why anyone should have to deal with the monstrous waste of time his battleground mentality has resulted in yet another time. Resolute 00:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Well, if the ArbCom adopts the board resolution without paying any attention to the distinction on "sacred" material made in the Harris report, you can assume that religious crusaders of all kinds will have free reign on Wikipedia to remove whatever bothers them not just images. So it won't matter much if Ludwigs2 is in or out. Might as well ban everyone else and hand him the keys to the project. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by Elonka

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agreed. Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Totally. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Hans Adler 22:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Hopefully this is one that everyone can agree on? --Elonka 19:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project

2) Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and it is essential that all editors work towards compromise and a neutral point of view in a good-faith fashion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Compromise? Where is that in our pillars? Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Can't agree with the "compromise" bit. There are occasions where compromise is appropriate and others where it is not. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Even in cases like Ireland's title where compromise might not be appropriate the winning side could give some ground in another way and that would probably be a positive step. -- Eraserhead1 <talk>

Some form of compromise is almost always appropriate and necessary. The present dispute is ultimately about a choice between two compromises, although one side tends to use the rhetoric of uncompromising authority. (Example from 21 October [76].) This principle is correct, and it may or may not be helpful. Hans Adler 22:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens, without compromise how can we resolve any serious dispute? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Compromise is not always appropriate, such as when one side demands something unreasonable or consists of a vanishingly small minority. Sometimes editors just have to be told that they are wrong. @Elonka, if anything, that case you cite reinforces the point that when a minority pushes against a majority over and over and over, it can be considered disruptive. Reaching a consensus does not always mean that it comes via compromise. Tarc (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is being done in bad faith that should be covered under WP:GAMING or WP:DISRUPT. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Hopefully this is another that all can agree on? --Elonka 19:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Jclemens: This wording has been used in another case. --Elonka 19:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes, compromise is a bad thing. I, for one, find it hard to compromise with people that won't concede that worshiping something creates a bias about that thing, and then worry about others' failure to compromise.—Kww(talk) 22:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have conceded that. Maybe not as much as you would like but I have conceded it up to a point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I noticed. Unfortunately, you stand pretty much alone among those that would like to see the image count reduced.—Kww(talk) 22:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

WMF Resolution on controversial content (2)

1) The Arbitration Committee acknowledges that the Wikimedia Foundation in 2010 commissioned a study on controversial content, and in May 2011 passed a Resolution concerning controversial content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Noted. In addition to the sections highlighted below, please also note "We support the principle of least astonishment: content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain. " Risker (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's there. It also looks towards a media filter to solve problems with users self-selecting to not see religious imagery they dislike. Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agreed. --JN466 04:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed, and the current position reflects this, and would reflect it better if image preferences were available. The key part of the resolution otherwise is:"We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement." Categorization is not relevant here, but, as mentioned above, the placement of images depicting Muhammad has changed, and you now have to go down five screens (on my machine) before encountering one. The "educational" issue has been opened above, and will be divisive, and no doubt discussed much more. Johnbod (talk) 05:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Image preferences would be nice as something beyond WP:NPOV. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The connection between the WMF resolution and the Muhammad images is tenuous at best. IMO it was aimed at addressing some public black eyes of the project's past, such as the Commons being little more than a free porn (kiddie and otherwise) repository, or some articles where nudity was truly not needed to enhance the subject matter (e.g. the sub-section that public urination redirects to used to contain an image of a naked woman relieving herself on a beach). Invoking the WMF's findings to try to strip images from the Muhammad article is like performing a heart operation with a club rather than a scalpel. Tarc (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I support the committee acknowledging the existence of this resolution. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This acknowledgement should be included as a part of any case, and the arbitrators should be mindful of the WMF's studies and statements on this topic. --Elonka 03:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The resolution mandates that a personal image filter be developed. ArbCom can't do anything about that since they have no control over what software runs on this site. That's entirely within WMF's powers. And we all know how well that the development of that image filter went. [77] So, if you're going to have a FoF on this, it better be up-to-date. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

ASCII, I don't think the issue is as simple as that. If you read the WMF's report, it is clear the purpose of the study is to inform the communities how Wikimedia should treat controversial content (including images). The recommendations of the report was to develop software that made it easier for a reader to opt out of controversial content, but I don't think the software is being forced upon us or any other project - and the English Wikipedia could conceivably 'opt out' of the image hiding filter.

Elonka, I agree that the final decision should acknowledge the WMF report and resolution, which was an important development, and concede that work in this area is ongoing. However, the image filter has relatively little to do with this dispute. If we had the filter at our disposal today, we would still be required to make an editorial judgement about the use of controversial images at Muhammad. The purpose of the filter is not to make it easier to include images that some readers may find offensive (with the thinking that they could simply hide the images if that is their preference), but to improve the reader's ability to cope with articles where our judgement about image balance did not accord with the reader's own views. AGK [•] 16:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

AGK, I said nothing about the filter. I believe your response is intended for ASCII, not me. --Elonka 18:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

AGK, the Harris & Harris report said that the personal image filter is the only realistic solution for dealing with offense caused by "sacred" stuff like the images of Muhammad. [78] The report did not recommend any editorial changes in that respect. The WMF board then made a broad and vague statement about "pay[ing] particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content", which turned into mana for the tendentious editors in the religious imagery area. It would be helpful if ArbCom were more discerning in their reading the Harris & Harris report than the WMF board was. See also my proposal for distinguishing between two broad classed of controversial content, which is similar to what the Harris & Harris report proposed in that respect. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

(Moved my response to ASCIIn2Bme here from above, where it was out of place.)

ASCIIn2Bme, The report of the Controversial Content Working Group to the WMF Board said:

We suggest urging the community to continue actively reviewing and curating (especially controversial) content; this is a re-wording of [Harris & Harris'] recommendations 4,5 & 6 (reviewing sexual images) that is more inclusive to all kinds of controversial content, and that recognizes that content curation is a part of ongoing work on all projects. We frame this as a continued call to action.

Harris & Harris 4, 5 & 6 (pointed to by ASCIIn2Bme, above) excluded controversial "sacred" content. The working group, in its report to the board, expressly included controversial sacred content and expressly applied their recommendation to all projects. The subsequent board resolution was broad but not vague:

We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement.

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, yes, most of my response was about the resolution itself, rather than your proposal. I included my remarks in my response to you because the image filter is a critical component of the resolution and the preceding study. ASCII, I agree. AGK [•] 02:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion continues on the talk page [79]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Standard discretionary sanctions

1) All Muhammad-related articles, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

Comment by Arbitrators:

• On the button! I think discretionary sanctions is already going to be a component of the final decision. AGK [•] 01:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, though the arbitrators may wish to consider whether or not to expand the topic area to "controversial images", to save trouble later. --Elonka 02:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Quite necessary. I doubt however that an arbitrary extension to "controversial images" is wise. AE would be flooded with all sorts of image disputes suddenly "controversial". However an extension to all "controversial 'sacred'" images (as defined by Harris & Harris) might work. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by User:ASCIIn2Bme

Proposed principles

Limitations of NPOV with respect to images

1) By their very nature, images are always presented "in Wikipedia's voice" (even if their captions might not be). The method of creating a NPOV article by wrapping attribution around conflicting POV statements is not applicable to images. Therefore, when sources disagree about the suitability of an image in a given context, it's impossible for Wikipedia not take sides (if it has an article on that topic). There is no visual construction equivalent to saying "source A says this image is suitable here, but source B says it's not." The image is either included in the article or it isn't. The placement and sizing of an image may mitigate this fundamental limitation to a certain extent, but cannot overcome it completely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No. Multiple images can be presented depicting different takes on things, commentary can be used to explain images... this is a non-starter. Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

• Partly agree. There are some images that relate to particular factual "viewpoints" of the sort NPOV deals with, but not these. For example an image of a Creationist diorama showing humans and dinosaurs living at the same time, like this, is effectively making a controversial factual statement. There is no equivalent issue here, not even as to the widespread use of images of Muhammad. Also, the many factors affecting the choice of images by commercial picture editors cannot really be construed as "when sources disagree about the suitability of an image in a given context" - to use one image or type of image is not to "disagree" with the use of others. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Mostly agree. NPOV was probably not written with images in mind, but it is the best fit for disputes such as this one. For obvious reasons, people's emotional reactions to images are often much stronger than their reactions to text. That's why we need to get controversial images right.

However, I don't agree that placement and sizing of images is less effective than attribution of statements. I believe that proper contextualisation such as moving the nude image from the lead of the pregnancy article to the 2nd trimester physiology section, or moving many depictions of Muhammad to the dedicated Depictions of Muhammad article, is just as effective as attribution – if not more so.

I also don't agree with ASCIIn2Bme's rationale. "True NPOV if we only followed sources" is problematic when seen as (close to) a mechanism for automatic writing, but it is no more problematic here than it is elsewhere. NPOV is not a small spot that we need to hit with an article. Rather, it is a large, fuzzy field in which we can place the article. This field is so big that it doesn't matter if our methods for determining its boundaries carry some uncertainty. Methods such as examining Muhammad biographies for illustrations are good enough to decide whether our approach is clearly inside reasonable bounds, clearly outside, or near the border. Hans Adler 23:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• NPOV is never an exact science, neither for text nor for images. In practice, there is always a range of possible article versions which we will accept as a fair stab at neutrality. Placement of images can certainly make a difference – using a picture of an aborted foetus as the lead image in abortion, or a picture of flag-draped coffins as the lead image of an article on the US army, will be undue. Now it is true that there will be many sources that use neither type of image at all, and we can't reflect their POV of not having such images at all if we also want to reflect the significant minority viewpoint that may rely on such images to make its point. But that's just the same as with text – there will be sources that don't contain any criticism, while others will focus mainly on criticism and contain no praise. We solve such problems every day, by having both praise and criticism in due proportions. The resulting article is like neither source – because it differs from both of them in featuring material each has excluded – but it is still neutral, because it assigns due weight. The same can be done with images. If one type of image is rare or absent in authoritative sources, but present in a significant minority of them, we will use images of that type, but will reduce the weight we assign them accordingly. Tools we have to do that include positioning and the actual number of such images we include. --JN466 00:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Proposed as self-evident, but I have the impression that some participants here believe this myth that "true NPOV if we only followed sources" is somehow possible with respect to images. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources do not dictate every aspect of Wikipedia articles

2) Customs, mores and conventions used by an article's sources may not override all Wikipedia presentation standards. Attempting to follow all customs or requirements that sources explicitly or implicitly follow (in the name of NPOV) can have absurd effects, including overriding NPOV itself or violating other fundamental pillars like the purpose of Wikipedia, as illustrated in the following (amusing) example:

FSG is something very cool, and so it has a lot of fans/worshipers. All materials produced by these sources are only audio or audio-visual recording. Listening to one of these recording reveals why that is so. There is an explicitly stated rule followed by all fans of FSG that you're not allowed to write anything about FSG, you may only speak of it and record yourself if you want. There are very few outside sources that wrote about FSG. (But it's still wp:notable, for instance FSG has been covered on TV.) May Wikipedia have a typical, text-centric article about FSG without violating NPOV? Not if you think that NPOV implies that the majority of sources decides the Wikipedia document structure/format.

Some more serious examples:

• Most math sources have proofs. Wikipedia math articles usually don't have any. Does that make them fail NPOV?
• Most non-science works don't have an abstract. Does that make LEADs, by their very existence, fail NPOV in many Wikipedia articles?
• Most science papers do have a conclusion section, and many science books have end-of-chapter summaries. Does lack of conclusion sections in Wikipedia's science articles make them fail NPOV?
• While certain type of material like ship or gun data can be found in tabular form in sources, please show me some biographical dictionary that has the elaborate infoboxes we have for persons. E.g., pick the article of some U.S. president. (And even if you manage one such source, it's the majority of them that matter at the NPOV count.) If Wikipedia's biographies fail NPOV that way, those for living persons automatically fail BLP too, don't they?
• All the little rules at WP:MOS may or may not be followed by the majority of sources for any given Wikipedia article. Per-article MOS is needed (with a rigorous survey) or NPOV is being ignored? One very applicable issue here is that most sources about Islam have phraseology like those enumerated in WP:PBUH, while Wikipedia explicitly disallows that. WP:PBUH = NPOV fail because it gives the reader the overwhelming impression that [most] texts about Islam don't have any of that?

Comment by Arbitrators:

The first sentence reads well and sensibly. The rest... gets too wordy to use as-is. Jclemens (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I think most of your examples (except the maths proofs) refer primarily to structure rather than content and structure is covered by the extensive WP:MOS. Even proofs are covered by the manual of style however. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This principle would be a lot more convincing without the (hypothetical??? -- I could not even find out what "FSG" is supposed to be an abbreviation for) main example. I agree with the general point and can add the example that low-quality American sources tend to drop all diacritics in foreign names but Wikipedia correctly follows other English reference sources and doesn't, even when a topic is only covered in such low-quality sources otherwise.

However, the application to the present dispute is not accurate. While we don't and shouldn't follow the practice of sources automatically, whenever we do things very differently in a specific case, we must have a good reason. The main strictly good faith argument that I have seen for putting so many depictions on the Muhammad article, and putting them into the strictly biographical sections, is that it seems natural to use such depictions in any biography where they are available, regardless of accuracy. That's an extremely weak argument and not sufficient reason to depart from the overwhelming practice of sources. Hans Adler 23:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with first bit (er, what is FSG?). In particular the factors and processes governing the choice of images in sources are often very different from those governing the text. Budgets for picture rights and expensive picture printing are often highly limited, selection may be made mainly by non-specialist picture editors, and be subject to corporate interference to a much greater extent than text. Johnbod (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Fun exercise, isn't it? Just follow the structure/conventions/mandates of the sources?! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• Okay, added more serious examples. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• In the first 4 examples, the first question to ask is what possible POV could be present in those choices. In the 5th, there is no requirement that any article follow "all the little rules" at MOS anyway (too many people forget that), but in your specific case, MOS:PBUH explicitly enforces NPOV in text, since use of any honorifics at all necessarily adopts the POV of the group bestowing the honour, and repeated or constant use reinforces the POV. As a grounding to oppose relying on source usage to determine WP use of images, this doesn't get there for me. Franamax (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• No, by the JN466 version of NPOV, if the majority of sources have PBUH in them, so should Wikipedia! We should simply do what the majority of sources do. Any deviation is a violation of NPOV. PBUH is WP:DUE according to that logic. Wikipedia articles lacking PBUH give the false impression that majority of sources don't use PBUH! Heresy. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • ASCIIn2Bme, we already allow flexibility in MOS matters, where mainstream usage differs from our MOS default. And we have to, as the results would otherwise be insane. See for instance the exceptions listed in WP:NCPEER. You needn't worry about PBUH; I can assure you that among English-language sources, those that use some version of PBUH are in a distinct minority. --JN466 00:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Censorship vs. gratuitous offense

3) Wikipedia has a default policy that its articles are not WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia also has a guideline for dealing with material that some people may find offensive. In particular, since October 2011, this guideline recommends avoiding WP:GRATUITOUS offense. ("Wikipedia is not censored, but Wikipedia also does not seek to needlessly offend its readers.")

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agreed. Piss Christ is gratuitously offensive, and designed to be that way. Including it in an article on Jesus Christ would be as inappropriate as putting some of the controversial cartoons in Muhammad. Still, is that really the main focus of the case? Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Might work as a FoF as well, but ArbCom may wish to reaffirm it. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Relying on WP:Offensive material which you have heavily edited since proposing this is at best unwise. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Given some of the changes came after this and this discussion I'm not sure unwise goes far enough. I've reverted the changes, if you think that is unwise feel free to revert. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Two broad classes of offensive material

4) Although some type of visual material may elicit disgust in humans in near universal fashion, other material is only offensive for those adhering to certain socially constructed rules, shared only by a subgroup of humans. (This distinction was made in the Harris & Harris report as well. [80])

Comment by Arbitrators:

technically yes, though this is one case where I think the committee getting involved in content is not needed (on preliminary glance). See, this is ubiquitous, we also don't have lead images of famous people which are clearly unflattering (e.g. drunk, falling over, without makeup or with a black eye etc.), so is a pretty universal custom. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• This probably skirting the nature/nurture debate, but I think it's important to make this distinction. In the case at hand here, it's pretty easy to decide that offense is clearly caused by cultural/educational differences, and it's not remotely close to a biology-related response. Show the images in question to a hypothetical random person that has not heard of Islam, and you almost certainly won't cause him to puke or get sexually aroused/distracted. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Retracted because the WMF explicitly refused to make this distinction, and Jimbo Wales has decided to impose the WMF resolution as Wikipedia policy. See #General discussion, below. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's core principles may be culturally offensive to some people

5) Not all humans share the principles on which Wikipedia is founded, for instance the implied plurality of views from NPOV. Such people may simply declare offense at the very notion of not being able to impose their perspective at the expense of all others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Bingo. I think it fair to say that this is part of the problem in this dispute. Jclemens (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• As shocking as this may sound, Wikipedia is not neutral about everything. There are some values that Wikipedia itself stands for. We've seen that in the Italian censorship law proposal, when the WMF backed up the protest. See Italian Wikipedia for details and references. So, no, Wikipedia can't always be the cute, gentle, roll-over puppy that some think it should always be. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles aim for a unified presentation style, which includes images

6) Wikipedia articles as a whole aim towards a cohesive user experience, for example by having a unified core manual of style. This style includes various considerations for use of images, which are often favored, e.g. "Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation." and "It is very common to use an appropriate representative image for the lead of an article, often as part of an infobox."

Comment by Arbitrators:

No. I do not want to give MoS-partisans any more hammers with which to beat others into compliance. Different things can appear different ways, and the value of standardized presentation is often grossly exaggerated to justify inappropriately removing local control from articles. On the other hand, an image in an infobox is a pretty reasonable thing to expect in any article. Jclemens (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I know that multiple community-sanctioned choices exist in certain areas, e.g. WP:CITEVAR, but it's not terribly important to mention that here. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Tweaked. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The typical article style of a given Wikipedia may be culturally offensive to some people

7) Because many editorial decision are taken by WP:CONSENSUS, it's impossible for a Wikipedia article to be entirely independent of the cultural values of its editors. For example, the Arabic Wikipedia articles on man [81] and woman [82] do not include any pictures of humans or even anthropomorphic drawings thereof, something that editors from other cultures may find shocking in terms of material included or excluded.

Comment by Arbitrators:

So what? Are you saying we should similarly reflect western values, or non-western values. This seems WP:WAX to me. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

To be fair we generally we don't consider what other wikipedia's do to be relevant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I guess pictures of people are generally of "limited value" in the ar.wiki culture. I for one find their articles of limited value in part because of that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Locus and nature of the dispute

1) A dispute exists between:

• editors who primarily desire to illustrate the article on Muhammad with images comparable to those found in any other Wikipedia article on historical figures, for example historical drawings or paintings commemorating significant events involving said figure, and
• editors who consider that one or both of the following special concerns are of greater significance than the one described above:
  • a desire to avoid upsetting readers who may choose to take offense at images contravening the customs in some parts of the Islamic world, namely the prohibition against anthropomorphic representations of Muhammad, and/or
  • a desire to use the structure of the Wikipedia article on Muhammad to covey the message that anthropomorphic depictions of Muhammad are rare in the contemporary Islamic world.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This misses the point. As orientalists writing about Muhammad make absolutely clear, we know next to nothing about Muhammad except through the Quran and some other religious writings and traditions. In other words, our knowledge of Muhammad has been filtered by Islam (and more precisely by several competing Islamic groups) in much the same way that our knowledge of Jesus has been filtered by Christianity. The Muhammad article, like the Jesus article, must therefore be considered a hybrid between a realistic biography and the biography of a literary character. Both articles are inherently religious to a large degree, and each is the central article for a major world religion, more so than the respective article on the religion itself.

This does not imply that concerns of religious NPOV and accurate depiction of religious context overrule everything else, but they simply cannot be marginalised in the way some editors are arguing they should be. Hans Adler 23:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Agree. Re to Hans Adler: We face exactly the same problems of sources re any historical figure from the same period, whether an Anglo-Saxon king, Chinese painter or Christan saint. Muslims object to calling their religion "Mohammedism" as the West once did, and would find the proposition that the biography here is "the central article for a major world religion, more so than the respective article on the religion itself" entirely objectionable, and rightly so. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

De facto it is the most important article -- probably even for Muslims, although they may proclaim otherwise. Or maybe I am wrong and it's only the second or third most important article. So what? And what's the significance if Muslims should consider what I said here objectionable?

I agree that we face the same problem with Christian saints, but we don't with Anglo-Saxon kings or Chinese painters. In the latter cases, we have only few sources, but they are not tied to a living religion in the same way as Muhammad. There is a reason why a lot of editors believe that the Muhammad article is also a religion article, whereas nobody makes such claims for Anglo-Saxon kings or Chinese painters. Hans Adler 19:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It think this sums it up. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

@Hans Adler: This is certainly a problem, but it's one of perception. Muhammad isn't a religious article. It isn't about a religion. It's about a ruler that unified the Arabian peninsula, and is now revered by a religious group.—Kww(talk) 20:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Cultural differences and WMF resolution

2) It is not inconceivable that different groups of editors, residing in different parts of the world may place different weights on the concerns above. For example, the ar.wiki article doesn't include anthropomorphic depictions of Muhammad, but the fa.wiki does include them, even though the corresponding article has FA status on both of these wikis. Mindful of issue like the above and with the stated intent of giving the readers the ultimate choice with respect to images displayed in an article, the WMF board has decided to implement a personal image filter, which is still in the design stage [according to CEO's statement from November].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. The Farsi article has 6 images, the same as us in a shorter article, of which 2 are veiled and 4 not. Johnbod (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The expectation that editors can just apply some NPOV-type, "just count the sources" algorithm here and they'd all agree is clearly contradicted by empirical data. And the WMF knows that the reader offense issue isn't entirely tractable at the editorial level. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Images in articles about persons

3) Wikipedia articles about persons commonly include anthropomorphic depictions thereof. In the case of historical figures who lived before the invention of photography, artistic representations are often used.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• Agreed, see table 2 of my evidence. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• True, but it doesn't follow that this is the right approach in all cases. Such images are often used just because they are available and articles somehow look more complete with images. Where depictions can make no claim to historical accuracy, such as for Muhammad, Jesus or King Arthur, they illustrate how the subject was seen by posterity rather than illustrating the subject himself. E.g. it would be problematic to replace the existing images in one of these articles by a consistent set of idiosyncratic paintings by a single artist illustrating the key events in the subject's life.
  The rationale is simply false. It's not a "de facto cultural/stylistic standard", it's how things are because in most articles the images have never come under the same kind of scrutiny as those in the Muhammad article. See WP:OTHERSTUFF on the community's general position on the validity of this kind of argument. Hans Adler 00:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Whether some people like it or not, Wikipedia has this de facto cultural/stylistic standard. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Nature of images in dispute

4) With exception of one Russian painting, the other images in the present dispute come from a past Islamic culture (Ilkhanate-Timurid). These were not created with the intent of causing offense within their culture, but are regarded as offensive in [some] other Islamic cultures.

[I will propose an alternative later. I found out that veiled images of Muhammad are offensive too in the Arabic culture. These originate in the Safavid–Qajar period, and are possibly more widespread geographically, e.g. I need to check the Turks. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am not sure the Persian miniatures from Ferdowsi's Shahnameh are regarded as "offensive in other Islamic cultures"; "some other Islamic cultures", perhaps. I would imagine that nothing at all, even wikipedia itself, is popular with the Taleban: Herat, where many of the images were first created, is in modern day Afghanistan. As far as the use of historical images of this kind is concerned, unfortunately almost no direct information is available concerning their reception in the populous Islamic countries in the Far East, e.g. there seems to be a lack so far of any academic texts on the subject from Indonesia. We know that copies of the Shahnameh are currently actively studied by academics from multiple disciplines in universities across the globe. Copies are held in major collections (Iran, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, British Library) and the images of Muhammad have been on public display in several recent high profile exhibitions. The images themselves are part of Iranian heritage and are undoubtedly some of the finest images on wikipedia (or commons). France, where a fifteenth century illuminated manuscript of the Mir'aj has been on display, has one of the largest Muslim populations in Europe. France may have multiculturality, but it is subject to French law. These general issues, however, lie somewhat beyond what can be meaningfully discussed on wikipedia. The compromise solution takes into account the preferences of individual readers who prefer not to see images. Images are used sparingly and only where appropriate. Their educational value is undeniable. Mathsci (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

While it is true that the French may have a large muslim population they are also extremely secular. In publicly run schools you are unable to wear a cross for example. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

<off-topic, but seasonal>I really couldn't say. Last week my organ playing was interrupted by an unscheduled 11 o'clock pre-Christmas mass for students from the college of Sacre Coeur. I couldn't see from where I was, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the girls were wearing crucifixes. Just as I have seen burqas sported, if that is the word, on the Cours Mirabeau. C'est comme ça. (I still remember Elonka eating foie gras here: with oysters, it is de rigeur for Noël.) </off-topic, but seasonal>Mathsci (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Et joyeux Noël à tous. Mathsci (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Principle is good overall though. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• This could probably be phrased more clearly, but I think the fundamental fact here is that the images in dispute here are nothing like the goatse-designed-to-shock stuff. They are not even Everybody Draw Mohammed Day poke-your-eye-in-the-name-of-free-speech material. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Some" inserted per Mathsci's suggestion. Thanks for the in-depth comment. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support, with the Mathsci qualifier (And Merry Christmas to you as well!). --Elonka 18:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, same to you. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. They do not all come from the "(Ilkhanate-Timurid)" AT ALL. Must we go over the basics every time? Better to say: "come from a variety of islamic cultures, both Sunni and Shia." Johnbod (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps noting that Sunnis had these too is important (the Timurids were actually Sunni even though they occupied modern Iran!). But I'm trying to narrow down the geographic and time period of the controversial images presently included in the article. So:

1. File:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg - c. 1307?-1315? Jami' al-tawarikh -- unveiled
2. File:Mohammed receiving revelation from the angel Gabriel.jpg also from Jami' al-tawarikh -- unveiled
3. File:Maome.jpg "17th century Ottoman copy of an early 14th century (Ilkhanate period) manuscript of Northwestern Iran or northern Iraq (the "Edinburgh codex")" -- unveiled
4. File:Gagarin PropovedMagometGRM.jpg Russian painting in the Western views section -- unveiled

• The rest of the anthropomorphic images in the article are veiled or flame-like. Are those controversial/offensive too? In any case, this is the list:

1. File:Siyer-i Nebi 298a.jpg veiled image from Siyer-i Nebi (1595%???), Ottoman royal commission
2. File:Muhammad destroying idols - L'Histoire Merveilleuse en Vers de Mahomet BNF.jpg flame-like image (1808), Kashmir

• If I missed anything, please propose corrections. I think the proposed FoF, including the Ilkhanate-Timurid part, does reflect the status of the article presently and also at the start of arbitration. Perhaps Johnbod is referring to when/where such images were common in general instead of just those that are in the article? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, specifically where those in the article came from; the latest is 307 years after the end of the Persian Timurids, and the total time-range is some 500 years. Two are certainly Sunni, and, oddly, none are unequivocally from a Shia context. I'm dubious that veiled/unveiled actually makes any or much difference to those who object. Certainly veiled or flame images are objected to by many. Modern Iranian images are mostly veiled, but not all. The FA on Muhammad in the Farsi wiki has 6 images, 3 the same as ours (they begin with 4 on the 4th screen down on my m/c), of which only 2 are veiled (all are Islamic, but not all Persian). The case that these are less objected to needs to be made. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• a) The Iranians, who speak Farsi, don't have a particular issue with unveiled images of Muhammad. b) We generally don't follow what other language wiki's do. By that argument I presume it would be appropriate to remove the images of men and women from man and woman as per the Arabic wiki? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

@ASCIIn2Bme, from the French on the BNF page the last (flame) image appears to be Persian/Iranian as well and was merely found in Kashmir. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

So you keep saying, without the slightest evidence. It is catalogued by the BnF as "Kashmir", which in the normal way of catalogues means that that is where they believe it was produced. Find the full catalogue entry if you don't believe me. As the date is so specific there is probably an inscription settling the matter. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at some more stuff you seem to be right, however it is written in Persian. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Persian was the dominant literary (and diplomatic) language across large parts of the Islamic world (see Persianate), including parts of Muslim India far south of Kashmir. Johnbod (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

WMF report on the images of "sacred" (incl. those of Muhammad)

5) The WMF-sponsored Harris & Harris report proposed that personal image filter is the only reasonable solution for readers' offense when dealing with images of the "sacred", including those of Muhammad. [83] The report also recommended that such controversial "sacred" images be displayed by default to all readers, and that only registered [logged-in] users be given the means to opt out. ("we have recommended that registration be necessary to affect these images")

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Added as FoF to emphasize the distinction between the actual report and the broad/vague WMF board statement. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Retracted because the working group serving as intermediate link between the Harrises and the board explicitly said the distinction is not important. (See my /Evidence for link). Images of poo and Persian miniatures are in the same generically controversial bucked to the WMF. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Current opt-out method on English Wikipedia

6) The English Wikipedia offers a method for logged-in users to opt out from seeing images in the Muhammad article. Talk:Muhammad/FAQ Q/A #3.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Certainly that its technically clumsy should be mentioned. But otherwise, why not - as long as its not just content. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Agree; it may be clumsy, but it's there. Johnbod (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

May wanna add something that it's technically clumsy, but otherwise is in line with the Harris & Harris report. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Assumptions of bad faith

7) Some editors advocating for the removal of images assert that they are present mainly to humiliate Muslims (e.g. Hans Adler) or because of the Islamophobia of the editors wishing to retain the images (e.g. Ludwigs2). ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes indeed, I assert this. AGF is not a suicide pact. We routinely and uncontroversially censor material that is deemed inappropriate by a large majority of editors all over the project. Examples are hard to find because due to the uncontroversial nature of the censorship most are buried deep in the page histories. In the majority of cases, censorship only gets called censorship and is only treated as controversial when a sufficiently large number of editors want to keep certain content because certain groups which they hate find it offensive.

A good example of uncontroversial routine censorship can be found in the history of Yourname (talk · contribs). The user got indeffed with little fanfare after inserting into human defecation postures and some related articles a photo of human turd production taken from below and insisting that it stay there. The user got no support whatsoever from editors claiming against all likelihood that it wasn't clear that there were copyright problems with the photo, or from editors insisting that seeing a turd in the process of leaving a female human anus is educational, and more so than seeing the same in an animal, that it does not matter how little educational it is, and that the educational value, however marginal, renders the image immune from removal under an idiosyncratic reading of NOTCENSORED claimed to be the only reasonable one. Or that all other articles have detailed photos of their topics, where available, and that it is simply against policy to keep the illustrations in shit-related articles close to the bounds of what a professionally edited encyclopedia would consider appropriate. Hans Adler 21:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a distinct issue with the idea you accuse others of wanting the pictures there out of a sense of hate. The problem is somehow people have come with the distinction that these pictures have to somehow do more because they are of muhammad. The provide the same level as any other figure's biography or more similiarly to any other religious figures biography. Quite frankly if people hated muslims they would be arguing dante's inferno should be the lead image and we should use cartoons and everyone draw muhammad day sketches instead of high quality art works. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I note that you are not engaging with my argument but only with my conclusion. Would the following make any sense? "The problem is somehow people have come with the distinction [sic] that these pictures have to somehow do more because they are of defecation. They provide the same level as any other medical article or more similarly to any other article on a biological process. Quite frankly if people wanted to troll Wikipedia by breaking universal taboos, they would be arguing that the lead image of the homo sapiens article should be a penis." Editors are constrained by what they can get away with while keeping a good opinion of themselves. I am still collecting evidence on individual editors and will present it when ready.

@ASCIIn2Bme: Maybe you want to become a party?I am not sure why you are not a party. Hans Adler 01:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I argued with the conclusion because it is flat out incorrect. People aren't going out of their way to offend people they hate. The vast majority of editors follow WP:Offensive material because nothing is there to offend. Further people have never contested that removal of pictures is impossible (hell I myself nominated one for deletion) and saying that groups sensibilities trump information is hogwash. For biology the relation would be tenuous to have any articles of feces to begin with (unless you were in a section on digestive tracts) and again the editors of the article for defecation would have to weigh pros and cons for inclusion of such on that article. However if the consensus was for keeping it because it added something, I wouldn't fight against it just like I am not lobbying now for inclusion of such since I don't assume massive competence issues with everyone around me. And once again I will point out that with few exceptions these pictures would be considered acceptable and encouraged if it was suppose to be anyone else except muhammad, and I don't think we need a different measuring tool simply because offense is inserted into the equation. The simple fact is in each case you state above the community came to a consensus to exclude not walked in, attempted it, didn't achieve consensus and then forum shop the hell out of it trying to make a change. Tivanir2 (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm glad the WMF agrees with Hans Adler that images of defecation and Persian miniatures are interchangeable topics in the realm of controversy. Jimbo already declared the images "very fringe" so I'm waiting for blocks and bans to start raining. And the press to start writing. Again. Because the topic of Muhammad's images in Wikipedia was in the news before. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Ludwigs2

Proposed principles

Scope of NOTCENSORED clarified

1) a) NOTCENSORED is intended to protect the encyclopedia from the loss of informative content. It is not a guarantee of free speech for Wikipedia editors, nor does it protect all controversial content in a blindly mechanical or compulsory fashion.

1) b) NOTCENSORED should never be used to enforce editorial preferences. NOTCENSORED is a 'principle of last resort', invoked by the community as a whole when normal content discussion processes fail and a clear and obvious threat of censorship exists.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1a is fine. 1b is unclear to me. What is that supposed to mean in practice? Jclemens (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Not sure about 1b, about NOTCENSORED being "invoked by the community as a whole when normal content discussion processes fail"; what do you mean? 1a has merit. It's not enough to check whether material is offensive, and, if the answer is affirmative, thereby automatically to conclude that we must keep it. We also need to check that the material is WP:DUE. --JN466 17:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

1b is intended to make it clear that 'censorship' is not something one or two (or three) editors can assert as a lever in what would otherwise be a simple content dispute, but that there has to be some credible issue of censorship present. The aim is to prevent editors from putting controversial material into an article and then spinning out more-or-less paranoid fabrications of censorship to justify keeping their preferred version. I'm specifically thinking about argumentation I've seen on both the Pregnancy and Muhammad (and other) pages: people opposing removal because THEY are out there, and THEY will see that act as an opening to ravage other pages across the encyclopedia. 1b asks that there be some community discussion first about whether THEY actually exist as a concrete threat to the project, and that it be shown that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the specific removal in question is actually THEIR work.

Both the Muhammad and Pregnancy issue should have been simple matters of editors discussing non-critical image choice, but in both cases a group of editors asserted that fanaticism (of Muslims and Prudes, respectively) was a clear and present threat to the integrity of the project - with no real evidence or logic to back it up - and used that assertion and to gum up discussion with hyperbolic examples and rampant fear-mongering. When someone starts from the POV that THEY are out there, waiting, conversation is futile and collaboration is impossible.--Ludwigs2 19:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED is not a "principle of last resort". It is a policy on English Wikipedia. --FormerIP (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this in general seems sensible. Both pregnancy and this case should have been resolvable with significantly less effort. 1b) probably violates WP:POLICY though. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Your giant two-month RFC at WT:NOT failed to achieve the changes you wanted, Ludwigs. ArbCom is not a vehicle which you can use to drive policy change by fiat against community consensus. Resolute 21:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Just as an aside, that hasn't failed - it's just paused for the moment while a proper RfC is being developed. Don't count your chickens yet. --Ludwigs2 00:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so what were the first several RfCs then? "improper"? Resolute 06:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this comment is pointless. No one is expecting to keep incidental material, the issue is that people stagger in declare something incidental and attempt to remove it against consensus. If editors were convinced it was incidental the images would no longer exist within the article itself. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What is "obvious threat of censorship"? Someone threatening to blow up the WMF office? Cut off the head of Jimbo Wales? Or just showing on the page an saying: "this image offends me, it's banned by my church/party/country (which is usually in red on this list)"?ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of speech (or in the private educational context, academic freedom) is a fundamental principle upon which all others depend. Nothing good can come of any circumscription of this basic principle, whether it is on the level of the individual editor or of the completed article; nor is it the role of ArbCom to overturn pillars of Wikipedia, but rather to uphold them. Wnt (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Controversial material should be used judiciously

2) Controversial material must be used judiciously and circumspectly, taking into account both the needs of the encyclopedia and the preferences and standards of the readership as a whole. Injudicious use of controversial material draws Wikipedia into real world conflicts and damages its reputation as an independent, neutral source of information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No. This is an excuse for ongoing partisan bickering, and "preferences and standards" is an excuse for people to argue over what the world wants to see. Moreover, this would actually support mass undeletion of fictional elements, individual Pokemon, etc., whose popularity exceeds the needs of the encyclopedia, as determined by past consensus. Jclemens (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The problem is drawing a line at just where "controversial" ends and "censorship" begins. Tarc (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. On a scale ranging from "cautious" to "reckless", Wikimedia has generally been firmly at the "reckless" end of the spectrum, compared to reliable sources. The board resolution, intended as a corrective for a known issue, reflects that, just as the earlier BLP resolution addressed a known problem. .--JN466 01:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this proposal means very much unless the word "injudicious" is clearly defined. --FormerIP (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. --Elonka 00:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Written under the hugely mistaken assumption that Wikipedia is not part of any "real world conflicts" otherwise. Like the fight against censorship. Like I said in my own proposal, go read the article on Italian Wikipedia to find out where the WMF stands on censorship. Oh, and I think ArbCom banned all edits from CoS-owned IPs [84]. How's that for a real-world conflict? They could probably buy the WMF a few times and still have change left for a coffee (plantation). ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a Kinder, Gentler project

2) Where an article can be constructed in a way that avoids offense to a given segment of our readership without sacrificing the integrity of the encyclopedia, it should be so constructed. Pursuant to the recognition of multiplicity (below), we include offensive material in the encyclopedia at need, but not as a matter of casual disregard for the preferences of segments of our readership.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

That's the Christmas spirit. :) The exercise of "kindness and gentleness" is an area where Wikipedia has room for improvement. The content point is somewhat related to WP:GRATUITOUS, as well as the board resolution on controversial content. --JN466 17:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

"At need" is an unnecessarily high threshold. Editors include material, in the general sense, in an article when they feel it will make the article better. Everything after that is gravy. Tarc (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, we can lower the threshold some, if you care to make suggestions. The point is that there must be some threshold. Remember, there are plenty of people out there who think that any article can be improved by adding a picture of a penis. what threshold would you like to set? --Ludwigs2 01:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we already have policies and practices that deal adequately with the random placement of pictures of penises. --FormerIP (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Such as? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Such as WP:PERTINENCE. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Click on "random article" at the top left of this page, add a picture of a penis to the article you arrive at and see what happens. --FormerIP (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

And which policy/guideline are they going to remove the picture of a penis under? Or is it going to be under the principle of WP:DICK? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Could be. That or WP:COCK. They'll probably tell you which policy they are using, though. --FormerIP (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I misread your point, you're right that it would be removed under normal practices - thinking some more a policy would probably only be useful for hard cases so meh. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

@ASCIIn2Bme, nice. I retract the point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Muhammad images of limited value

1) The figurative images of Muhammad are of limited value to the article, neither representing the topic accurately nor filling any clear or obvious purpose for the article. They are not overtly inappropriate, but primarily serve decorative or illustrative roles that are of little consequence to the subject matter of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Committee does not have the necessary expertise to determine the historical and artistic value of a given image. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I cannot state enough how odious this proposition is, and how much it runs against both the spirit and the letter of the project's core policies. Tarc (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you stated it just a little bit, because what you just said makes no sense to me. Why is it odious? How does it run against the spirit and letter of policy? Please explain. --Ludwigs2 01:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

As this is a content issue far outside of Arbcom's purview, I really don't see the usefulness of elaboration at this time. This point was talked to death at /images, WT:NOT, and Jimbo's userpage, I believe. Tarc (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the number of times this argument risen makes it a behavioral issue, not a content issue. --Ludwigs2 01:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree in the strongest possible terms. Visual depictions of the subject is always of good value to an article. Beyond that, this is yet another card you've played over and over and over without ever coming close to achieving anything resembling consensus support. You are just hoping to use ArbCom to defeat the community. Resolute 21:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Also disagree with this. Visual depictions help visual learners, thus they are educational. Also all images are depicting important events within the life of the subject (muhammad) and do so in an tasteful artistic sense. These are not scribbles from a childrens coloring book and have the same value similar images in other articles hold. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree for a raft of reasons. But to judge from the Arbs' acceptance comments, not all of them feel these issues are outside their purview. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that all depictions of Muhammad are from long after his death and are in no way based on what he looked like or on depictions that existed in his lifetime, this statement would be correct without any doubt if the Muhammad article were purely a biography, ignoring the cultural and religious impact. It is inconsistent to argue that the article should be so restricted and then reject the present statement. I will research which editors, if any, are doing that and introduce this as evidence for bad-faith behaviour. (It is of course entirely possible that among the editors who are promoting Muhammad images, there are those who believe in one thing and those who believe in the other, with no overlap, resulting in the impression of bad faith where none is present.) Hans Adler 20:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

ContentCom too? I can only imagine the headlines: Wikisupremes rule that Persian Miniatures have "limited value" thus need be removed. Subhead: They didn't rule how valuable Wikipe-tan is. Presumably more so, because it's still there! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge, none of the parties here are saying that the images should be removed entirely from the project. The dispute is as to which images, and how many images, should be used in which article (specifically the article Muhammad). I think everyone is in agreement that the images can be used elsewhere on the project, such as at Depictions of Muhammad, and other appropriate articles. --Elonka 15:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

This is true of the vast majority of images on Wikipedia. There's no reason to hold these images to a higher standard.—Kww(talk) 16:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Recognition of multiplicity

2) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia intended for the use of a multicultural, multi-faith, multi-ethnic, and otherwise broadly diverse readership.

Comment by Arbitrators:

So what? It's intended to provide "all human knowledge" to the greatest extent it can. That's not necessarily compatible with where this principle is going. Jclemens (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The Wikipedia as a general project, yes. But we're on the English Wiki here, and while we do attract a global audience, let's not get all hoppy on political correctness and pretend that we're a happy, everyone-gets-a-share melting pot. 2/3rds of the contributions come from the US, UK, and Canada. This is the Western world's encyclopedia, and the West has a standard of religious freedom that is found lacking in other parts of the world, particularly in the Middle East. We have no obligation or expectation to make our content cozy for those who are, for all intents and purposes, outside of the project's purview. Tarc (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, that's the point to be cleared up, isn't it? If in fact Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is intentionally written from a particular worldview, where all other cultural perspectives are obliged (so to speak) to sit in the back of the bus, we need to spell that out explicitly so that people (like myself) who prefer universalism are no longer confused on the issue. I'll be curious to see how we rationalize that in terms of NPOV; seems to me we'd need doublethink to manage it (War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, Bias is Neutrality...). well, we'll see… --Ludwigs2 01:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you ever see that episode of South Park where they kept removing item after item from the Christmas play that anyone found offensive, til the end result was the kids dancing in a silent, Phillip Glass-like minimalist performance? I don't want the project to be that, something where all the sharp edges are shaved down into non-threatening nubs. Tarc (talk) 02:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

How dare you mention South Park on this page?! Don't you know how offensive they are?! [85] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, that's not a realistic concern. The project is bound by its need to be complete and accurate, so it can never be whitewashed down to Glass-like minimalism. Besides, you seem to be confusing 'political correctness' and 'respect for difference'. PC is whitewashing, in which controversial material is simply avoided; respect for difference means exactly what it says, that we respect different worldviews and handle controversial material judiciously. What's wrong with being respectful and judicious? --Ludwigs2 03:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Really, not a realistic concern [86] [87]? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, really. What ar.wikipedia does in not our concern here. incidentally, I'm curious why I have a message on the ar.wikipedia version of my account. I've never been to that domain before. I assume it's some sort of welcome template, but I can't read a word of arabic. bizarre. --Ludwigs2 05:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Being "respectful and judicious" is not a concern of this project, doubly so it would compromise the project's ability to provide a quality article to the public. Tarc (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Beg pardon? "This is the Western world's encyclopedia"? Which policy states that NPOV is determined by community demographics? --JN466 05:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Common sense? That "en" over there stands for something, y'know. If a reader comes to the English Wikipedia to look at an article of Muhammad, the expectation that the article will contain images that are contrary to the teachings of Islam should be 100%. The English-speaking nations of the world do not adhere to any one religion over another; it follows that an encyclopedia in the primary language of these nations would not show preference or deference either. Tarc (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You realise that more countries speak English than just the US/UK? English is the second language throughout India, and it is an important language in muslim countries like Malaysia. Additionally it is widely spoken worldwide by the global elite and in the tourism industry etc. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

@Ludwigs: I like to think of the encyclopedia as though it were written for an alien race that might one day discover the remains of a long extinct human species. They would be completely free of our petty biases, and presumably, if they came all the way here they would want to know as much about Earth and its prior civilizations as possible. When you think about Wikipedia in this vein your raison d'etre is to provide the most accurate and full possible description of our world. If this was my wiki, I would have an article for every asteroid, every human being, every molecule and a catalog of every photo ever taken (people/photos organized into notable and not notable categories, of course). I realize that this will never happen, and I also realize that an alien race will likely never discover wikipedia, but the principal stands that knowledge is, per se, important, regardless of how it might subjectively impact those who have yet to rise to a point where the thoughts and actions of others are not bothersome. When we start restricting content based on offense, we make the mistake that every enemy of art, every book burner, every person who has ever destroyed or excluded something because they found it offensive or painful. So forget "worldwide view" and start thinking "universal view." If we can do this, then we're on our way to creating a truly neutral encyclopedia (unless of course we join a galactic consortium of some sort. Then we'd have to deal with alien bias :D). N^oformation ^Talk 08:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@NoFo: I don't embrace that particular vision of the project (for reasons detailed below) but if I take it as read for a moment I'd like Wikipedia to be one of the few human endeavors that alien race finds that doesn't convince them we were absolute a**holes (or whatever metaphoric excretory process they might have). Of course, our talk pages will put the lie to that in any case, but still…

That being said, you are making the mistake that I often find in students: you are confounding 'information' with 'knowledge'. Freshman always make the mistake of thinking that they have to get and read and memorize every detail of everything they are exposed to. After a few months (if they don't burn out completely) they learn to distinguish between the chaff and the wheat, picking out the parts that are important knowledge and ignoring the mass of irrelevant information. We ought to do the same on project. there's no knowledge wrapped up in these figurative images of Muhammad - at least not for this article - there is just interesting but ultimately unimportant information there. I get that you don't make that distinction, but you should. If you did, you'd recognize that NOTCENSORED applies to knowledge but not to information; since you don't, you end up trying to apply NOTCENSORED to everything and make headaches where headaches don't need to be made. --Ludwigs2 17:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand how you could see that in what I wrote, but it's less a mistake in understanding than it was a mistake in expression. I agree that there is a difference between knowledge and information (in a very literal sense too). Looking at it from the alien perspective again, any and all information and knowledge would seem to be important if keeping in mind that I'm assuming a long extinct human species for this scenario; this means no museums, no more hard copies of literature, paintings, etc. Jimbo early on used a phrase akin to "complete consortium of human knowledge," and I took this quite literally - it's one of the main things that drew me to the project. N^oformation ^Talk 20:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Definitely worth mentioning. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Of course. Can I point out to Tarc who said

  2/3rds of the contributions come from the US, UK, and Canada ... We have no obligation or expectation to make our content cozy for those who are, for all intents and purposes, outside of the project's purview.

that there are plenty of Muslims in the US, UK and Canada, and your implicit exclusion of them from the purview of this project is stunning. And "Being "respectful and judicious" is not a concern of this project" is a socially incompetent perspective that is inimical to the goals of this project.

N^oformation, our readers aren't Martians, they're people with feelings. No one's discussing the removal of educationally valuable images, just offensive images that serve no real educational purpose. We must treat our readers as healthy humans, rather than as people who have sunk to a point where the thoughts and actions of others are not bothersome.

Kww, wrt "The responsibility resides with the reader, not the author.," the author has a responsibility to not gratuitously offend the reader. Common sense and decency demand that, and so does the Foundation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point of what I wrote. Yes people have feelings, but this isn't a self help book, it's an encyclopedia of knowledge and disseminating knowledge is literally the only goal of wikipedia - all policies, guidelines and pillars are simply the details on how to best accomplish said dissemination. If we write as though we are writing for martians, we can better provide an objective consortium of human knowledge because we don't have to consider that some people find certain types of knowledge wrong; if we're writing for people and willing to consider emotions and offense, we necessarily restrict the knowledge we can offer. As an encyclopedia I think this is wrong, for all the same reasons I think banning Catcher in the Rye is wrong. N^oformation ^Talk 10:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I don't expect you to agree with me. We have very different world views. In my world view, peopole should be offended by almost nothing as I find that being offended is simply allowing someone or something else to control your emotions. Contrary to assertions of autism or racism, etc, I just learned a long time ago that being offended is a huge waste of time. Since nothing offends me (not to confuse offense with the Uncanny), and since it was a pretty easy conclusion to come to for me, I honestly do not have empathy for people who choose to be offended - and yes, it is completely a choice.

My world view may seem alien to you, but it's the world view of most of the people with whom I spend my time, who are, incidentally, scientists. As such, to me the majority of the world is completely mad and although I understand the idea of being offended (having at some point in my past been offended), I cannot grasp how people can continue to live like that.

Really though it's not my problem; I spend my time with the smartest people in the world, none of whom give a shit about this kind of stuff, and I avoid the masses 99% of the time. I'm here to disseminate knowledge and to do so within the framework of WP's rules. If at some point NOTCENSORED changes to a version that allows for offense to be considered, I'll leave the project rather than fight it, simple as that.

But please drop your arrogance at the door. Implying that someone is not a "healthy human" because they aren't bothered by the thoughts and actions of others is seriously condescending. Don't take that to mean that i am offended, btw; nothing anyone says here offends me, I only embrace the idea of keeping personal commentary off Wikipedia because I believe it to be the best way to further the goals of the project (that is, dispassionate discourse is more conducive to neutrality). N^oformation ^Talk 10:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, we're writing for the 99%. Gratuitously offending them is stupid. Whacking gratuitous figurative depictions of Muhammad on Muhammad will have a similar effect on the average Muslim reader as slapping a gratuitous porno photo on Bread, but more so, because the Muslim will look at the image, know there is no real educational merit in the photo and, reasonably assume it's been put there deliberately to offend Muslims. The hypothetical gratuitous porno photo is obviously put on Bread to offend everybody. I'm sorry you don't see this the way I do.

You refer to those who have yet to rise to a point where the thoughts and actions of others are not bothersome. I refer to people who have sunk to a point where the thoughts and actions of others are not bothersome. Why is my viewpoint the arrogant one? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Nofo - you just said (paraphrasing) that "You yourself don't get offended by things, being offended by things is a huge waste of time, and other people should not be so easily offended". But you've entered evidence against Hans for saying something you didn't like about you, you've said you'd leave the project if things don't go your way, you're complaining about other people's arrogance - those sure sound like offense to me. granted you are not as hypocritical about it as some editors in this discussion (who will tell other editors that they ought to grow thicker skins if they are offended by the images, but who scream civility, civility, civility!!! at the mere suggestion they themselves might have a bias), but still…

More to the point, however, we live in a world in which people have strong emotional attachments to other people, to things, to ideals… I understand the academic bubble - academia is a protected environment where we can work with ideas free of the turbulence of the political and social world, and a bit of that bubble ought to extend to Wikipedia. But academics never get in people's faces professionally, and neither should we. There is an occasional need to say socially unpleasant things, but few academics will go that route without double/triple checking their data and treading very, very carefully (you only need to recall the Bell Curve debacle to see what the academy does to scholars who are incautious advocates). Academics put their reputation on the line every time they challenge social mores; Wikipedia puts its reputation on the line every time it challenges social mores. That's not saying it can't be done; just that it ought not to be done without good cause. --Ludwigs2 18:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I did explain this above. It is not that I am offended by Hans or Anthony, it is that I believe that the best way for Wikipedia to function is to keep personal feelings about other editors out the project. When I say I would leave if NOTCENSORED changed, I don't mean that I would rage quit :). I mean that I am here for certain reasons and at the moment Wikipedia policy seems to coincide with those reasons. If the policy changed to that extent then it would no longer be a framework within which I could work. No hard feelings, just wouldn't be worth my time anymore. And yes, you are spot on regarding the academic bubble, I wish I had used that phrasing myself. That is exactly how I treat wikipedia. I do obviously disagree that we shouldn't "get in people's faces" though, but I have a feeling that neither you or I will change our opinion on that matter. N^oformation ^Talk 20:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@Anthony: (i) No. Putting depictions of bread would be the analogy to draw. Or perhaps depictions of Muhammad in a porno. If you cannot see how a depiction of Muhammad is more relevant to Muhammad than porn is to bread then I'm not sure we can continue the conversation. (ii) You may call it "sinking," but if that is the case then you are essentially saying that hard scientists in general have "sunk," because as I wrote above, this is an attitude that is common among those educated in the sciences. Go to your local university's physics department and ask what they think about Muslims being offended by depictions of Muhammad. Expect to see blank stares. Basal human emotion is the default position of all humans and it's a decent amount of work to elevate yourself to a point where you can think of reality in the context of the universe: our insignificant squabbles are astounding. N^oformation ^Talk 20:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• I hope that doesn't entail applying the sum of all human prejudices across all articles. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with the multiplicity principle. --Elonka 00:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• True, but it is beholden on all individuals to recognize that when they are reading material that hasn't been specifically tailored to their culture, they will encounter things that are considered unacceptable by their culture. The responsibility resides with the reader, not the author.—Kww(talk) 16:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Precisely. While we can recognize that Wikipedia is viewed by people of many cultures, we cannot allow ourselves to be beholden to them. Something the WP:Content disclaimer itself alludes to. Resolute 21:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

'Offense' clarified

3) The term 'offense' has dual meanings which should not be confused or conflated in the application of NOTCENSORED:

1. A violation of the rules, laws, standards, codes of conduct, or other well-defined and strongly established principles of a culture or group.
2. The feeling of displeasure an individual feels when confronted with something perceived to be insulting or disrespectful.

Causing offense in the second sense is rarely (if ever) a concern for the encyclopedia; Causing offense in the first sense can make the encyclopedia look bigoted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't think there's as strong a delineation as presented here. If adopted, this would be a recipe for removing, say, Piss Christ as well as the images under discussion here. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed, though I may need to reword it later when I'm feeling less offended₍₂₎. --Ludwigs2 13:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose'. This is basically a proposal for a policy change whereby NOTCENSORED would cease to apply where religious or social morality is a factor. --FormerIP (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose as well. In fact, this proposal would be colossally damaging to the project. Resolute 21:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I have to oppose. How small a group would you accept? I'm more dubious about Kww's point about religions, but the main reason for that is that the number of mainstream religious beliefs isn't particularly large. The number of groups of people is definitely breathtakingly large. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. No one has a right to be unoffended. Tarc (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Again. Saying that a groups right if they are large enough trumps everyone elses is the equivelence of the women's article should be showing only people with, at a minimum, a veil since it is the same demographic that finds issues with both. The majority of the world does not have issues with pictures thus I say pictures should abound. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose. This simply tries to elevate religious perspectives by assigning them the status of being a principle of a culture or group.—Kww(talk) 16:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is a tremendously misguided proposal. The Harris & Harris WMF-sponsored report in fact arrived at the opposite conclusion with respect to offenses over "sacred" images. [88] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Mathsci interaction ban with Ludwigs2

1) Mathsci banned from commenting on any matter concerning Ludwigs2 for an indefinite period of no less than 1 year

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: I don't normally ask for sanctions against other editors (because I dislike the system we use on project), and this is a bit off the track for this arbitration, but I'm sick of having him breathe down my neck. Mathsci has sought sanctions against me multiple times in the year or so since the Race and Intelligence arbitration, generally appearing on an issue he has not previously edited solely to ask for sanctions against me. That is how he first became involved in this case (he entered an ANI dispute to try to drum up a topic ban for me); that's how he first entered the R&I dispute (he resurfaced after months absent from the discussion, ignored the mediation page and went straight to ANI about me), and there have been several times where he has popped in unannounced on one page or another just to try to convince some admin to sanction me. I have tried my best to avoid him - I don't edit in his topic areas or on pages he frequents, and have not entered into adminsitrative disputes that have centered on him - but he just keeps coming after me every opportunity he can find. I'll provide diffs later (because I'm too tired of him to want to look at his material at the moment), but an interaction ban would do no harm to the project (the only places he and I generally interact are where he's trying to get me screwed) and would generally make everyone's lives more pleasant. --Ludwigs2 09:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment There have be no interactions for a year and a half in editing space between Ludwigs2 and me. I have been involved in only a minimal way with image discussions, mostly limited to finding sources, creating/editing a few biographies on those involved in the Islamic art world (Ernst J. Grube, Stefan Weber (Orientalist) and Edmund de Unger), locating and uploading high quality images from Persian manuscripts and helping build consensus in the compromise solution. I have given evidence in a previous case in which Ludwigs2 was a party, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling. The above statement seems to be a reaction solely to my evidence in this current case. The diffs were collected in answer to a query of Elonka on this page; it was Ludwigs2's requests to NuclearWarfare that led to them being presented as formal evidence. Normally remedies need evidence (diffs that are relevant to the case). In this case Ludwigs2 has provided no diffs. If he has grudges from previous ArbCom cases, in particular WP:ARBR&I, they would have no relevance here, as was already the case in AESH. On the basis of the evidence so far a case could be made for unilateral interaction bans between Ludwigs2 and several users, but I don't seem to be one of them. Mathsci (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC) ??? Mathsci (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• As I said, diffs will follow. for the immediately curious, however, Mathsci involved himself with the case he mentioned, a dispute I had with Ronz, I believe with the issue I has with quackguru that led up to the sanction handling issue, and two or three noticeboard disputes. I do not believe there is a single time that I have been mentioned on an administrative page in which Mathsci has not weighed in to ask for sanctions, regardless of context. Nor should this be surprising to anyone. Mathsci - for all his skills as a content editor - has a long history of extremism in conflicts with editors. He is regularly accused of trying to OUT editors under the guise of COI, and has a habit of gross misrepresentation of other editors (usually through extensive attack subpages that pile on misinterpretations of massive quantities of diffs in an aggressive smear campaign). Don't get me wrong: I welcome his content additions to this discussion, but here as elsewhere his content contributions come as an afterthought to a failed effort to get me sanctioned. most of his contributions to this case are pure, unadulterated slander. Telling him that he can no longer discuss me as a person or as an editor will in no way hamper any discussions or remove any valuable viewpoint, it will just preclude a whole lot of vicious nonsense that doesn't need to said regardless. --Ludwigs2 14:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

??? Mathsci (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Kww

Proposed principles

Religions are not popularity contests

1) Religious perspectives cannot be evaluated by determining the number of followers. The religious beliefs of large groups, such as the Sunni, must be considered to be of equal value to the religious beliefs of smaller groups.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'll do you one better: why on earth would Wikipedia be trying to evaluate religious perspectives at all? We describe them, using appropriate sourcing, NPOV voice, etc. We don't say who's right or wrong. Jclemens (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I think this depends on the context we are talking about. In some cases, WP:PARITY would suggest that the number of people who subscribe to a given point-of-view is highly relevant to the amount of coverage that should be given to that view in Wikipedia. In the present context, the question is about the relevance of the views of non-Mulisms, Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims who never got the memo about conforming to the expectations of Wikipedia editors. These are clearly not fringe views. But, as has been pointed out at various points on various grounds above, balancing different people's views makes less sense and is less do-able when we are dealing with the question of whether or not to display particular images. --FormerIP (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This seems likely to violate WP:DUE. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. I get what you are trying to say, but I don't quite agree with how it is said. I think this can be taken in two directions. First: that people who argue "Muslims are offended" are making two faulty assumpions: (1) that all Muslims are the same and (2) that said views have been consistent throughout history. Second: If we are going to argue that one religion's views must be explicitly honoured, then we must respect all religious views. So if we are going to censor this article to suit some Muslims, than we had better get around to deleting Xenu and replacing all uses of "God" with "G-d". Never mind the views of smaller religions. Resolute 21:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

[89] --JN466 05:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Arguments of this type are perfectly appropriate when combating attempts to force a government to treat creationism as scientific. But Wikipedia is not a state. Principles such as freedom of speech and freedom of/from religion have echos here but do not apply directly. This proposal is an attempt to exclude a legitimate concern from editorial considerations by appeal to the continuum fallacy. It would legitimise arguments of the type 'I am offended by the letter Q for religious reasons and nobody takes this into account, so we may never take religious taboos into account for any purpose.' Hans Adler 14:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support as proposer.—Kww(talk) 17:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The sum total of all religious proscriptions is breathtakingly large

2) Examining the religious beliefs of the world, one can find prohibitions against the depiction of a wide variety of subjects, ranging from dead people, to people, to women, to specific articles of clothing. Thus, it would be impossible to create a useful encyclopedia that shielded all religious beliefs from images that were offensive within the context of each faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support, although I would note that the statement leaves aside the question of whether we can pick and choose. --FormerIP (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this really true? The number of religions with even a million followers is actually pretty small.

With things like dead people, organisations like the British Museum have returned dead bodies to the Australian aborigines. Even though they have not returned the Elgin marbles to the Greeks. If the British Museum can tell the difference it should be possible for us to do so to some extent. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is here, EH. If it's about affording respect to beliefs held by large numbers of people, with a million as a benchmark, the behaviour of the British Museum does not seem to back you up, simply because there are far fewer than a million Australian aborigines and far more than a million Greeks. The fact that the notional cash value of the Elgin Marbles would make Bill Gates gulp, whereas the notional cash value of two piles of ash probably wouldn't even make me gulp may also have something to do with it. --FormerIP (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, on the number of Aboriginies I thought there were more than a million. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but I would re-word to include all content, not just images. Resolute 21:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly we should do that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a transparent attempt to legitimise a fallacious argument that goes as follows: We cannot prevent every instance of offence to everybody in all articles, so we must not prevent any instance of offence to anybody in any article. The same editors who are now promoting a fundamentalist reading of NOTCENSORED that raises the standards needed for removing offensive content when compared to universally acceptable content would no doubt misinterpret this principle in the same way. Hans Adler 14:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the standard is, and has always been, the same as with any other content: Build a consensus that supports your proposed change. That your arguments of "it offends" has failed to sway the community does not mean that there is a different standard at work. It just means your argument was not convincing. Resolute 18:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Whether it is at work or not, the higher standard (which I believe exists de facto as a result of the dynamics of this site) has been claimed more or less explicitly by some editors: FormerIP [90], Noformation [91]. These are the diffs that I could find immediately, but I think I have seen other, even more explicit statements to this effect.

Basically it boils down to this: Are we not censored in the sense that people who feel offended can't force us to remove content, or are we not censored in the sense that we will ignore these people and others who think similarly, in a way we wouldn't if nobody had tried to force us? Or, even more extremely, are there entire category of otherwise valid arguments that we must exclude from our editorial deliberations? The first reading of NOTCENSORED is conservative. The other two are in tension with NPOV and mix content decisions with advocacy. Hans Adler 01:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support as proposer.—Kww(talk) 17:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Well said. It's even one of Wikipedia's core disclaimers, WP:Content disclaimer. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

There are dozens of images of deceased Aboriginal persons on Wikipeida, see Lists of Indigenous Australians. Does anyone think this is wrong and/or violates Wikipedia policies (given that in various indigenous Australian cultures displaying and viewing such images is considered taboo)? - BorisG (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Your comment was in the wrong section, so I moved it. It was originally in reply to Eraserhead1. This is an illustration of my point. My understanding is that the aboriginal beliefs are against images of dead people, not of dead aborigines. No one even pretends that honouring this belief would be a good idea. However, I don't think anyone could give a logical explanation as to precisely why offending them is unimportant but offending Sunnis is a problem. By any objective standards, the two beliefs are equally reasonable.—Kww(talk) 18:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of realpolitik answers to that, but on Wikipedia we pretend principles matter, so "they are mainstream" is going to be the jimbolic answer to complement that the Shi'a are "very fringe". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Boris, this is false analogy. If we had a photo of Muhammad, or even a painting by someone who knew him, everyone on this page, as far as I can tell, would support its inclusion. So no, I, and probably everyone else on this page, will not be arguing for the removal of photos of deceased aborigines, because, unlike imaginings of painters remote in time and place from their subject, photos of the subject of an article have real encyclopedic value.

Kww, for the record, I'm pretty sure it's just pictures of aborigines that they have a problem with. On Aussie TV we have warnings before shows that depict aborigines who have since died. But I'm no expert by any means on aboriginal culture. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Equal treatment requires scrupulous ignorance

3) The only method by which all religions can be treated equally and still have a useful encyclopedia is to scrupulously ignore religious objections to material. This must be interpreted in both a positive and negative direction: while material must not be removed due to a religious principle, it equally must not be included simply in order to offend a religious principle.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not following the logic here, or how it relates to the specific case we're dealing with. Risker (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose as essentially an OR argument that will make Wikipedia stand out against reliable sources, by being consistently and systematically more insensitive than reputable sources. We should simply follow NPOV. We have nothing to prove – other than being able to observe NPOV. --JN466 00:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Support otherwise we will be forced to draw lines which will get the tag of us discriminating against groups. Discrimination is against the laws of the united states especially for jobs on the religious side so we would need to sanitize everything, or we can ignore all of it and try to cause little disruption. As it stands now we can claim we cater to no religion so they are all treated equally but if that changes to we cater for some eventually it will be we must cater to all. I will point out that their are individuals that would love a case like this to argue simply for internet censorship rules.Tivanir2 (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think arbitrators will appreciate that after reading a number of arguments of this quality it's hard to AGF. Hans Adler 14:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

See that comment doesn't make sense to me. If anyone reads what I post I always point out that I also do not make exceptions for things that cause me offense. We don't bend for Scientology, we don't bend for the christian sects, we don't bend for anyone else. We are being asked to bend for the simple reason that Muslims have a lot of adherents. To me that is silly since us assigning value to groups based upon shear numbers is saying to everyone else that they aren't important enough to consider. Also my other argument that where do we draw the line goes hand in hand with this. Almost all of the same community that has problems with these images demand that women be veiled, why would that not be considered a reasonable request if we are counting them as being a large enough portion of the world to change this? The alternative is we can try to make everyone happy and widely sanitize wikipedia of both writing and images, but I doubt that is what the aim of the project is.Tivanir2 (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose. This insane principle is a relative of the automatic writing (or in Jimbo's words: "transcription monkeys") theory of content production. Hans Adler 14:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Support as proposer.—Kww(talk) 17:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• @Risker: simply stated, if we are to treat all religions equally (which I believe we must do), then we cannot accommodate the SunniShiite objections to images of Muhammad without being prepared to accommodate all objections by all religious groups. I doubt that anyone is willing to do that, and not one editor has argued that we should. No one is willing to remove all images of women, or of people, or of dead people, or any of the myriad of other objections. To accommodate any one religious objection without accommodating all of them is to introduce a specific religious bias into the project. The only method to avoid introducing such a bias is to ignore all religious objections. People bring up some arguments about particularly vile images, and I think all of those are covered under are policies against attack images: nothing about my argument should be interpreted to be applicable to images that are being included specifically to attack a religious group.—Kww(talk) 04:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • In Iran (a Shiite country, and one that places great emphasis on being an Islamic Republic) popular images of Muhammad do not attract major opprobrium. It's Sunnis (representing 85–90% of Muslims worldwide) who are genuinely distressed by such images, and are frequently quite unable to believe that any Muslim would ever have depicted Muhammad. --JN466 05:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. Ignorance is not the way to go, and is not in line with the WMF resolution. Instead, it is better to remain aware of religious customs, so as to best present information. As the WMF resolution states: "We support the principle of least astonishment: content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain." So it would be inappropriate to (for example) make the primary image on the Jesus page a picture of Christ upside down on the cross, or nailed to a Star of David, or for the Muhammad article to show an image of Muhammad being tortured,[92] because those are not typical images within those religious cultures. Within Islam, though there is some variation, the #1 way that Muhammad is represented is through words and elaborate calligraphy, not through imagery. Every major encyclopedia that I have viewed respects this practice, so it would make sense for the Wikipedia article about Muhammad to reflect that practice as well, rather than trying to force some other minority representation that does not reflect widespread usage. This doesn't mean to remove all images of Muhammad from the project -- there are still appropriate places for images of Muhammad in more detailed scholarship, and on Wikipedia, such as at Depictions of Muhammad and other articles. But on the core biography article of this particular individual, images should be used only sparingly. --Elonka 18:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• How can you justify doing so without doing so for all other religions, large and small?—Kww(talk) 21:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• How is the British Museum able to return dead remains to Tasmania without risking their entire collection? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• The British Museum has its own policies, and that obviously does not include affording equal treatment to all religious groups. I'm not saying that it is impossible to avoid offending Muslims while not caring about whether we offend other religious groups. I'm saying that it would be wrong to incorporate their sensitivities into our editorial policies without equally incorporating all religious sensitivities. Since we cannot accommodate them all, we must accommodate none.—Kww(talk) 02:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Does it not? The British Museum have clearly appeased a pretty minor religion/cultural group here. If the British Museum feels it can accommodate the Australian aborigines, of whom there are only a few million at most, then I think we can accommodate significantly larger groups. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Given said artifacts were basically stolen in the first place, your example is rooted more in legality than it is editorial policy. Resolute 17:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Basically stolen" applies to a large amount of the stuff in the British Museum and every other major world museum. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed, which is why this example is only distracting the discussion. Kww's argument that we should strive for consistency is valid. What others do is not relevant to us. Resolute 21:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• You miss my point: unless it has equally appeased all groups, large and small, it has improperly given preferential treatment to some groups.—Kww(talk) 16:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Obviously they don't think they have. The counter to that, which is backed up by the British Museum's stance, is that the number of cultural groups with equivalent objections to the Australian aborigines is so small that it doesn't matter if you appease them in cases where the value of the objects is low.
• I suggest we agree to disagree. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the header should be amended to avoid the ambiguity of the word "ignorance". Obviously it is not to be recommended that WP be edited in an uninformed manner. But our coverage of any topic should be disinterested, so that we avoid knowingly presenting information in pursuance of political or religious principles. --FormerIP (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Question for Elonka: How heavily illustrated is "every major encylopedia I have viewed"? I've been looking through Google books and am finding it hard to locate high quality tertiary sources that don't include pictures of Mohammed, except where you would not necessarily expect to see one in any case.--FormerIP (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I've looked through multiple different encyclopedia editions in the past at libraries (I was curious about the topic), though of course the nearby libraries are closed today for the holidays. Here at home though, at least in terms of tertiary sources, I have access to hardcopy editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Webster's New Explorer Desk Encyclopedia, the Oxford One-Volume Illustrated Encyclopedia, the Time-Life Timeframe March of Islam, the Harper-Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, and a few other works by lesser-known publishers. They are all illustrated to some degree, some of them heavily so. But not a single one includes an image of Muhammad. --Elonka 06:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

What I'd be concerned about in that selection is the ratio of images to text. The 2007 EB has about 0.27 images per entry [93], Webster's Desk has about 0.06 [94] the Oxford 1 Vol Illustrated has about 0.12 [95] and the HC Catholicism has about 0.07 [96]. As a ballpark, how many images do you expect the WP article on Mohammed to have? --FormerIP (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not understanding the point of trying to calculate exact proportional numbers of images to text. The Oxford Illustrated Encyclopedia is an illustrated encyclopedia. Trying to use numbers to say that it's not illustrated, just seems bizarre to me. I have the encyclopedia here, on my desk. There are images on nearly every page. It's illustrated (shrug). To go into more detail though, here's another point of reference: I spent some time yesterday at a major bookstore to research the prevalence of images of Muhammad in current published works. I did my best to be extremely thorough, with my goal to go through every encyclopedia, every reference work, every almanac, every work of world history. I checked the Reference section, World History, Philosophy, Eastern Religions, Art, Biographies, even the bargain bins. I won't bother listing every book that I reviewed, but they included reference works on Islam, Muhammad, histories of the world, desk encyclopedias, and all kinds of other books, from publishers both academic and popular (I even went through the "For Dummies" books). In the entire store, most works included no Muhammad images at all, except for three books, one of which showed his name in calligraphy, and two that each showed one 16th century image with Muhammad's face veiled. My point being, that images of Muhammad are rare. Just because we can go to Google and find one in a few seconds, does not mean that they are commonly used in sources. The vast majority of publishers, even major academic ones, choose not to use the images. So for Wikipedia to prominently display images of Muhammad, when the vast majority of other sources do not, would violate the "principle of least astonishment". To answer your question of how many images of Muhammad would I expect the WP article on Muhammad to have, my answer is: "0-2". If it were up to me, I would put a calligraphic version of his name in the lead, and then 1 or 2 images down in the "Depictions of Muhammad" section, and the rest I would move off to Depictions of Muhammad or other more specific articles, such as Isra and Mi'raj, Black Stone, and so forth. Note I am not saying that the entire article should only have 0-3 images. There are plenty of other images that would be appropriate to include: Maps, books, architecture, those are all fine, and would match with typical usage in outside sources. --Elonka 17:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, nothing you have described demonstrates in any way that depictions of Mohammed are rare in sources. My point about text-to-image ratios is as follows. If a tertiary source, such as an encyclopaedia, has images in only about a tenth of its articles (as seems to be the case with the illustrated encyclopaedia you mention) and you see that the article on Mohammed has no image, this is obviously completely unremarkable and tells us nothing about what Wikipedia should do. Even in the case of the EB, about 75% of articles picked at random will have no accompanying picture. So you haven't demonstrated any particular scarcity to images of Mohammed.--FormerIP (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, I'm sorry, but this is getting into the realm of WP:IDHT. It's not about calculating text to image ratios and quibbling about whether sources are illustrated or not. In my research, I did go out of my way to seek out illustrated sources, and even so, in the vast majority of cases, they still don't include images of Muhammad. They'll include images of the Kaaba, Green Dome, Grand Mosque, Dome of the Rock, the Foundation Stone, the Al-Aqsa Mosque, samples from the Koran, pictures of clothing, weaponry, or representative images of what typical Arabian people from Muhammad's time may have looked like, but they don't include images of Muhammad himself. I invite you, or anyone, to replicate the experiment in any bookstore or library. Review a dozen major tertiary sources of your choice, turn to the index, look up "Muhammad", check the section on him, and see if the source includes an image of him. What you are going to find is that in most sources, there is no image of Muhammad, it's as simple as that. --Elonka 22:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That may well be true. I'm not sure why it's relevant. Wouldn't the issue be whether we are treating Muhammad the same as we treat other similar topics under our editorial policies? Shouldn't we expect Genghis Khan and Muhammad to be illustrated in similar fashions? Doesn't the difference between the two articles already show substantial deference to Sunni sensibilities?—Kww(talk) 22:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kww. In general, I don't see the equivalence as being between one Wikipedia article and another (per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), but instead it should always be between an article and its related sources. To my knowledge, there are plenty of images of Genghis Khan in Mongol-related sources (as well as statues, coins, stamps, etc.), so if someone challenged that the Genghis Khan biography shouldn't include images (not that I've ever heard of such a request), it would be an easy response that the sources routinely carry images, so the article could carry images too. Which also fits WP:V, "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." If images aren't challenged, then there's nothing to worry about. If images are challenged though, then we should look to the sources. And from my own research, the sources tend to not use images of him. --Elonka 23:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

One of the principles that people are claiming applies is this "least astonishment" thing, which provokes a question: are people more astonished by seeing an article differ from its equivalent in another source, or by seeing it differ from every equivalent Wikipedia article? I don't think conclusions can be drawn from a comparison performed along only one axis.—Kww(talk) 23:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. And there is going to be some variation depending on the audience. For someone very familiar with the topic, it would be "astonishing" to see images of Muhammad, since it would be different from how other sources treat biographies of Muhammad. For someone completely ignorant of the topic, it might be astonishing to see no image in the infobox at all (then again, plenty of Wikipedia biographies have no images in the infobox). So there's no one clear audience. That's why I think a compromise position makes sense, with the most common cultural representation, calligraphy, in the infobox, and another image or two further down in the article, leading to the Depictions of Muhammad article, where the topic is covered in more detail. But perhaps this discussion is more appropriate for Talk:Muhammad/images? --Elonka 01:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, would it be fair to say that the sources you have actually listed (with the possible exception of the TimeLife book, which I haven't been able to find decent information about) actually do not contain any images within their entries on Mohammed? I'm able and willing to check, but you could save me time. I'm mildly interested that your bookstore trip turned up some material containing images of mosques or whatever, but I'm not finding it very compelling evidence.

Just for info, I spent some time yesterday copying URLs from Google Books. I'll post the results of that in talk shortly.--FormerIP (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, as I said above, the entries on Muhammed do contain images, just not of him. The images are generally of calligraphy and architecture. As another datapoint, I went to my local library today, and again engaged in a thorough search for images of Muhammad. I checked everything that I could find in the Reference, Biography, and Islam sections (about 40 books in total). I found one (1) image of a veiled Muhammad (the same actually that we are using at Isra and Mi'raj), several images of calligraphy, one image of a riderless Buraq (again from the Mi'raj), numerous images of Islamic architecture (most commonly the Kaaba, Green Dome, and Al-Aqsa Mosque) and one image of the cave of Hira. To repeat: The articles do have images -- they are just not of Muhammad. --Elonka 03:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time do do that research, Elonka. --JN466 05:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that by that reasoning entries for both men and women would need to include a fair amount of nude photography since if we go by what the world does more porn is produced per year than standard normal conventions of dressed individuals. Also it is not a factor of astonishment to go to a biography and expect a visual representation of the subject. In the article of muhammad I would expect images but in the Islam article I would not, as in the Islamic article it goes over his anicionic stance and is about the religion itself not about the person. Actually I am surprised more images during this time frame haven't survived though that could be for a variety of reasons. Tivanir2 (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV recommends assessing prevalence in the "best and most reputable authoritative sources". Would you count porn sites among them? --JN466 03:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The question is why wouldn't they be? They outsell regular movies and articles and arguably can show the human body very well from different perspectives. My point is that simply because mainstream does it doesn't mean we should follow suit. On a side note if it really came down to best and reputable someone could argue just taking the big name higher resolution images would suit this. If the majority comes from pornography but we turn our nose up at doesn't mean we are following the majority it means we are following the good judgement of the editors that have reached consensus of what has occurred on those sites. That being said consensus can be reopened but new talking points should be introduced if that is the case. I am itching for this to be over so we can actually finally get to the image review that has been kicked around for the last 2 and a half months. Tivanir2 (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Picking up on Elonka's point, an encyclopedia article should not astonish experts familiar with the subject matter and its presentation in the relevant literature. If it astonishes them, then it clearly is not a very good encyclopedia. On the other hand, an encyclopedia article may astonish people who at the time of their arrival on the page know nothing whatsoever about the article's subject matter. If an article astonishes ignoramuses, while presenting exactly what experts would expect it to present, then any astonishment is indeed educational. --JN466 03:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Heightened scrutiny is not acceptable

4) Proposals to examine the relevance of images more closely or more carefully because of religious offense are indirect methods of paying attention to that religious offense, and are not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not following the logic here at all. In all articles, images should be selected in relation to their educational value, their descriptive or illustrative value, or their aesthetic value, and all images should be able to be justified; one doesn't just throw images in because they're available. This has nothing to do with this particular article; it is the norm for *all* articles. Risker (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Harris & Harris expressly excluded "sacred" images from their discussion of "sexuality and violence" for the reasons cited by ASCIIn2Bme below, but the board working group expressly included sacred images in their recommendations regarding the curation of controversial content. The foundation followed the working group's suggestion and passed a benign, broad but definitely not vague resolution. I agree with the board's resolution and oppose this proposed principle as being diametrically opposed to the best interests of this project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If you consider that Commons:COM:Sexual content has twice been rejected, and the personal image filter discussions were met wtih a lukewarm reception at best, I would assert that the community itself has decided the Foundation's resolution is of marginal relevance. Resolute 17:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Also the WMF also wanted to create a way for people to self censor if things offended them through the image filter. They did not at any time say they wanted to censor articles for the benefit of any group and that unjust offense should not occur. I support the idea that unjust scrutiny should not be placed on something that is offensive unless a very good replacement that does not offend is available and approved by consensus. Tivanir2 (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Risker: It's a repudiation of "We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement" from the Foundation resolution on controversial content. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that it is work in progress. It has imperfections almost everywhere. One way in which Wikipedia is improved is that one of these imperfections comes under scrutiny for some reason, then a lot of editors together try to solve the problem, and in the light of the result other, similar problems are solved as well.

The normal reaction when some aspect of Wikipedia is getting a lot of attention (even unwanted external attention) is to try to get it right. The proposed principle intends to derail this natural process in certain cases, for reasons that have more to do with advocacy than with a reputable encyclopedia. It would elevate OTHERSTUFF to a valid argument in these cases. It seems clear to me that this would lead into chaos. Hans Adler 14:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. When the accuracy or neutrality of an article is challenged, we go and check our sources. That's standard, and indeed part of policy. It doesn't matter whether the concern relates to an article on politics, science or religion. The proper response to a challenge is the kind of research Elonka did, and reported on, in the section above. --JN466 19:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support as proposer.—Kww(talk) 17:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

@Risker: Of course there are numerous reasons include or exclude images. Religious offense simply isn't a reason to include or exclude an image. It shouldn't be evaluated.—Kww(talk) 03:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

@Jayen466: Your response seems to be at something different than what I wrote. I did not propose ignoring objections based on article topics. I argued that when the only objection someone raises is religious offense, it shouldn't be taken into account, nor should it provoke any higher standard for image inclusion. Feel free to disagree, but please at least disagree with what I said.—Kww(talk) 19:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(Got carried away a bit. To skip TLDR #press here.) I agree with this, even though the WMF board decided otherwise: "We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement." (I've emphasized the key aspects.) No English Wikipedia policies or guidelines currently support that part of the WMF resolution in part because it's rather meaningless bureaucratese. And I suspect that if put to a broader community RfC, I think it will fail. The attempt (by Ludwigs2/JN466) to introduce that wording in WP:NOT failed. [97] This begets a more important question: is ArbCom allowed to produce a finding contrary to what the WMF decided with regard to Wikipedia's content if the Wikipedia community doesn't support that position? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The key issue here is the definition of "least astonishment". The image filter implementation referendum committee, of which sitting/active arbitrator User:Risker was part, wrote a FAQ explaining their understanding of that principle: "The principle of least astonishment means that users should never be surprised by content they were not expecting to encounter on Wikimedia sites. If you click on an article about cycling, you do not expect to see images of nude cyclists. If you click on an article about locks, you do not expect to see graphic images of - for example - sexual bondage. The image hiding feature allows you to make decisions for yourself that will reduce these possibilities." (Emphasis mine.) Leaving aside the first sentence, which is an absurd idealistic view that totally ignores WP:Content disclaimer, the examples do not support religious offense as a case to pay particular attention to, even though the fabled Harris & Harris "expert" report gave it as example using the Muhammad images in particular [98]. PolicyCom fail. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The thing about the WMF statement is that it is limited to what it actually says. It's not "meaningless", IMO. It is simply benign, and probably intentionally so. If had been intended to say more, it would have done. I think it is fair to say that we have already met the bar of paying "particular attention" in this case. But the statement does not take away the ability of projects to reach conclusions according to their existing policies.--FormerIP (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Although I'm not particularly fond of the Harris report, it recommends that images of the "sacred" such as those of Muhammad be treated differently than naked cyclists. "That is why, we believe, potential decisions on the restrictions of these types of images must be decided by individual users and why we have recommended that registration be necessary to affect these images. A more general prohibition of them, given their nature, would seem to be moving too far, in our opinion, in the direction of general restriction of the projects. ¶ The reason we have come to that conclusion stems from our observation that pluralistic, multi-faith, and secular communities are a common feature of many societies around the world today (and the values of the international virtual community of the internet) and that in these societies, questions of the appropriateness of the display of “sacred” images, as defined by one community, are inevitably decided within the context of other communities who do not value the same images in the same way. It is about the struggle between the rights of some individuals to define the limits of appropriateness of some images for themselves and others, versus the rights of others to know, and the question of the amount and quality of respect that should be offered to each by each other." (Emphasis mine.) See also my proposal for two classes of controversial content. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The nutshell version is that the Harris & Harris report did not recommend any editorial changes in how we treat images like depictions of Muhammad, but explicitly said the personal image filter is the only realistic tool to avoid offense in this case. The WMF board then made a vague and broad statement about "all kinds of potentially controversial content", and of course some editors jumped on the bandwagon an interpreted it as applying to whatever images they want to remove, including those of Muhammad. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

ASCIIn2Bme has misunderstood the situation. I have explained the problem and asked him to strike this and other comments here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Religiously biased sources must be used cautiously

5) Sources which are written, edited, or strongly influenced by people that believe the topic to be divine have an inherent bias that must be recognized while constructing articles. Such sources can be used in articles with due caution and attribution. Such sources cannot be used in attempting to determine appropriate editorial treatment of topics within Wikipedia, for example while determing appropriate image content or placement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree, up to the extent that we generally apply to sources that are bias for political reasons, for other religions or for other cultural reasons.

I know Kww wants to apply this standard for all religions but in my view we should be cautious to make sure we aren't in reality enacting a stricter standard on Islam than we do for other religions as per WP:Systemic bias. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Often academics in theological studies have their own beliefs and it is not normal practice to assume that affects the way they write. In the case where an academic writes a popular book presenting their personal views and interpretations of a religion or religious movement (e.g. the book by Omid Safi on Muhammad), content derived from that text should normally be included with attribution. Otherwise there is no reason at all to assume inherent bias in those sources. Mathsci (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, per Mathsci and Elonka. This is not a standard applied in academic discourse. --JN466 19:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support as proposer. To me, this is self-evident. It is also apparent that a substantial portion of the sources that Elonka and Jayen466 are using in their arguments aren't valid comparison points.—Kww(talk) 16:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you all need to read my words again, and pay careful attention that I am addressing the formation of editorial policy, not content. If we are to consider other sources' policies towards representations of Muhammad, we must consider what those other sources are. If they believe themselves to be bound by their religion not to depict Muhammad, they are not a valid comparison point for establishing our policy. They may have perfectly valid content. They may be perfectly usable as sources. That's why I proposed the use of "due caution", which is in no way a prohibition. Are they usable as a model for editorial policy? Absolutely and emphatically not.—Kww(talk) 23:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I would be concerned about how we defined a source as "religiously biased". Any quality tertiary source is going to rely on experts to write its articles. So someone writing an article on Islam, is of course going to be very knowledgeable about the topic. Does that mean they are "strongly influenced" or biased? I would be concerned that this type of principle would open up a can of worms, where the religion of the author -- even if they were a highly respected academic -- would be considered a factor as to how we regard their reliability. And that would be a bad thing, if we were to start saying, "Well, Dr. so-and-so may be a tenured professor at a university and have written 20 books about this topic, but since they're a Muslim, they're obviously biased." Better is to stick with the usual definition of reliable sources, meaning reliable publishers, with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. So just because a work is entitled "Encyclopedia of Islam" or "Encyclopedia of Judaism" doesn't necessarily mean we should discount it as biased. --Elonka 18:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Ludwigs2 site banned

1) Having demonstrated that his goals are incompatible with producing an encyclopedia, Ludwigs2 is site banned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

??? Ludwigs2's goals are entirely compatible with producing an encyclopedia – more so than the goals of those disagreeing with him. And unlike some of his opponents, Ludwigs2 is open to source-based argument. --JN466 19:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Arbs who have followed some of the evidence diffs carefully enough to understand their context will realise his intentions are entirely benign and constructive. I hope the committee will admonish him for ABF and bickering, with the threat of sanctions on the former. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

@Jayen466: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence#Ludwigs2's editing history has been largely confined to attempting to misapply WP:NPOV in order to provide undue weight to religion, superstition and fantasy would indicate otherwise.—Kww(talk) 19:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look at your first link. Not only does it not bear out what you're asserting ("dedicated to the proposition that Buddhism is not a religion"), given that Ludwigs2's first draft used the word, but what I am seeing is a really good-natured, collegial and constructive discussion that resulted in a new lead. --JN466 21:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Why, Jayen466, thank you for the courtesy of looking at 17% of a post that attempted to demonstrate a pattern, and arguing that looking at the other 83% of the post is unnecessary for determining whether I successfully demonstrated a pattern. Me, I've always tried to actually read and understand 100% of someone's argument before responding. Just think, by following your example, I'll be 6 times as productive as before.—Kww(talk) 21:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, you'd make all of us 7 times more productive if you hadn't bothered posting this at all. It's a ridiculously vague claim. You haven't bothered to explain what goals I'm purported to have, or how these purported goals are purported to be incompatible with making an encyclopedia, and then you've tossed in some seemingly random diffs from ancient history that purportedly demonstrate this purported thing which you haven't bothered to explain what it is or how it's meaningful. You'd have been clearer if you made a Madlib ("Ludwigs2's ____(noun)____ is/are ____(adverb)____ ____(verb)____ for a ____(noun)____…"). Then, at least, people could have had fun filling in the blanks rather than trying to guess at your meaning. --Ludwigs2 23:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at the second link, Jesus myth theory. Ludwigs added reliable sources supporting the overwhelming scholarly consensus that the theory is extremely fringe, supported by no current university-employed historians, religious or secular (the last time I looked, about a year ago). Kww backs this fringe theory, and tries to dis Ludwigs because Ludwigs backs the overwhelming scholarly consensus. I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't some kind of ideological crusade on Kww's part. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hans Adler cautioned

2) Hans Adler is cautioned that fervently believing in his side of an argument is not a justification for demonizing or belittling his opponents.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disproportionate in light of the quality and substance of the comments Hans replied to. There is something profoundly incongruous about editors claiming the right to make belittling remarks about whole nations and cultures in discussions on Wikipedia, only to then portray themselves as victims of belittlement if they are criticised for making such remarks. --JN466 20:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hear, Hear! --Ludwigs2 22:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Hans: provide me a diff where I made belittling remarks about any nation or culture, or where during the Muhammad debate I ever personally attacked another editor in any way. I did no such thing, I simply do not believe that we should restrict content based on offense (religious or otherwise). And yet, Hans accused me of being anti-Islam, indirectly called me autistic, etc - see the diffs in my evidence section. This is never acceptable here and WP:NOTTHEM applies if someone else does it first - this is why we have AN/I. N^oformation ^Talk 08:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Here, just today, you belittle everyone who is capable of feeling hurt, while presenting yourself as a member of an elite who do not have to care about the masses who have feelings that can be hurt. --JN466 15:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And to which nation or culture do those people belong so that I may be described as racist or a bigot? Remember, Hans accused me of being anti-Islamic; I may be a bit of an elitist but in no way do I single out Islam or any other religion. That is the crux of the issue here. Yes, I think being offended is a waste of time and those who choose to be offended need to deal, but no I am not a racist. Also, this is from today - I guarantee you will find nothing in the Muhammad debate resembling that. I'm offering some personal stuff for this work shop but 99% of the time I talk only policy, and that's all I did for this debate. So Hans had nothign to go on but "Noformation interprets NOTCENSORED conservatively, therefore he is racist and autistic." Paraphrasing of course. N^oformation ^Talk 20:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Is there a reason not to topic ban him from discussing the images of Muhammad? I've not seen substantive contributions from him in that area besides popping in to accuse others of bad faith. (It's true that enormous archives of Talk:Muhammad/Images have been jumbled by some weird technical process making it rather impossible to read them in any semblance of an order. If Hans Adler has made positive contributions there, the technical issue prevent me from finding them.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there enough evidence of bad faith to justify such an action? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there is. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

His first edit there was late this October, & he has made I think 19. I doubt you're missing much. Johnbod (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jayen466: Can you point at a single "belittling remark about whole nations and cultures" I have made? Saying that religious objections are irrelevant to an encyclopedia's editorial policy doesn't belittle religious people in any way any more than saying that oil and water don't mix belittles oil or water.—Kww(talk) 20:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I still had the "stone age mythology" comment from another editor ringing in my ears when I wrote that. :) But you too have made statements that I would consider belittling; for example, "Common practice in the Muslim community shouldn't create any expectations on the contents of an encyclopedia.—Kww(talk) 14:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)". If you compare that to an equivalent statement like, "What Americans think should have no bearing on what it says in an encyclopedia," I believe most any American would feel belittled and disenfranchised by that, because it basically says, "You don't matter, because you are an American". Now, I am not making any argument based on religion or nationality, either in the pro-Islamic or any other sense; I am not saying that Muslim sensitivities ought to be driving our editorial decisions. But I am arguing that the way to be neutral, and being able to prove that we are neutral, is to follow the most reputable and authoritative sources. --JN466 21:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

But that isn't what I said, and isn't even remotely parallel. What I said was more akin to "Common practice among pipefitters shouldn't create any expectations on Papal encyclicals". Religious groups are completely irrelevant to encyclopedias. That doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with a religious person contributing to an encyclopedia, which is a completely different thing: a Presbyterian may have perfectly valid insights on a scientific topic, for example, but he should expect an article on electricity to conform to the editorial standards of his church. Similarly, I have no objection to Muslims editing Wikipedia so long as they don't expect our articles to conform to the editorial standards of their religion.—Kww(talk) 22:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

None of that thinking about whose practices should or shouldn't be relevant to an encyclopedia is necessary if our aim is simply to follow the most reputable and authoritative sources (as policy actually requires us to do). --JN466 05:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in our policies requires us to refer to religiously biased sources as a source of editorial practice. Would you use People Magazine as the source of editorial guidelines about celebrities?—Kww(talk) 06:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not speaking of religiously biased sources, but the most reputable, authoritative mainstream sources. Or are you saying those are all biased? (Incidentally, did you know that an Islamic encyclopedia from the middle ages was still used as an authoritative textbook in European university teaching 500 years later? [99]) --JN466 06:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that every source about anyone written, edited, or compiled by someone that believes the topic to be blessed, divine, or otherwise involved with supernatural forces has an inherent bias. With due caution, they can be usable as sources. They are, however, completely unusable as a model for editorial policy. The choice of images and their placement is a function of editorial policy. How many of your sources had no one participating that did not believe Muhammad was divine in some sense or another?—Kww(talk) 15:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Kww, by that logic, you would discard any article written by a Muslim academic, simply because they were Muslim? Can't you see how wrong that is? Should we ask everyone participating in Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism to avoid the topic, if they are Catholic? Or to avoid using any sources that were written by someone who was a Catholic? That would be absurd. --Elonka 18:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course not, and that's not what I said. I said they would be "unusable as a model for editorial policy". You and Jayen466 are using works by Islamic authors as evidence that it is the norm to respect Islamic restrictions on images. Of course Islamic authors respect Islamic restrictions on images, much the same as I would expect authors of any religion to respect their sect's restrictions on images. They are free to do so, but it isn't reasonable to cite their behaviour as a model for how the rest of us should behave.—Kww(talk) 22:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Kww, I'm sorry, but you're just completely wrong on this. First, it's disrespectful (not to mention illegal in some places) to tell any academic that because of their religious belief, it's not possible that they could write a neutral reference work. Further, I never mentioned any author names, so how do you even know the faith of the authors? Just because someone is writing about Islam, doesn't mean that they are themselves Islamic. Next, you're making an assumption that I only sought out works by Islamic authors, and that's false as well, as I sought out all works, with no filter whatsoever. What if I told you that some of the reference works were written by Jews, or by a Catholic nun? That you are wanting to disregard sources because of an assumption that the authors (who you don't know) must be Muslim, and that therefore they must be biased, is saying very poor things about your ability to assess sources in a neutral manner. --Elonka 22:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, you did not list your sources, so I retract that. Jayen466 did, and included an author that considers Muhammad to have received divine inspiration from God. I am not disregarding all of your sources, but I am saying that any Islamic sources need to be disregarded as a model for editorial policy related to Muhammad. Not for content, but as a model for policy. That's a significant and substantial distinction. Second, the neutrality of anyone writing about someone or something they worship is suspect. I don't know how you can believe that not to be the case.—Kww(talk) 23:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no, we should not discount a source because of concerns about the personal beliefs of the person who wrote it. Reliability of sources is determined by editorial control, peer review, publishers with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, that kind of thing. Not by making judgments about the personal life of the author. And again, I invite you to repeat my experiment for yourself. Go into any bookstore, any library, pull out a dozen tertiary sources of your choice (anything you regard as reputable), and check their articles on Muhammad. It doesn't much matter the medium. Check books, films, video documentaries, and the "Muhammad" entry in as many different encyclopedias as you want, but I am confident that regardless of author, regardless of publisher, regardless of medium, that if you actually go out and do your own research, you will find the same thing I did: Reliable tertiary sources tend not to use images of Muhammad in their biographies of him. They may well illustrate the biography with other ways, such as with images of calligraphy and architecture, but they generally don't use images of Muhammad. Images of Muhammad are rare. --Elonka 06:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Kww, if you check the history, you'll notice that I never introduced Watt into the discussion, nor made him part of my argument. The reason we're talking about Watt is that ASCIIn2Bme mentioned him a couple of days ago. --JN466 07:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Elonka, are you telling me that if a professor at Brigham Young University wrote an article about Joseph Smith that was then published by Brigham Young University that there is no point in that process where we should identify that affiliation as a possible source of bias?—Kww(talk) 15:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that is more than a little different to accepting works written by a muslim that is published by a major University press that is a secular institution. Shades of grey and all that. I have no idea if the reputation of Brigham Young University is strong enough that the aren't would be fairly neutral, but it is far greyer than the sources I presume you are talking about here - which would affect its standing a source accordingly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Kww, I am not familiar with the works of Brigham Young University, so cannot comment on that particular example. However, I can say categorically that just because someone may follow a particular belief system, does not mean that they are incapable of writing neutrally about the topic. The most crucial element in determining a source's reliability, is not the religion of the author, but the editorial control involved. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The way to determine reliability is editorial control, peer review, and acceptance by other sources. If you were to try and add something to WP:RS or WP:V saying that "Islamic authors cannot be treated as reliable sources when writing about Islam", I think you'd find yourself reverted pretty quickly. That stance is just not in line with policy and practice. --Elonka 19:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And who exactly is "neutral" between a believer in the religion concerned, a believer in another religion, and an atheist? Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll just once again point out that I didn't say that. I said that "Such sources can be used in articles with due caution", which is substantially different than "cannot be treated as reliable sources". I still see this as a completely different issue than "determining appropriate image content or placement". Even Sunnis that are perfectly capable of being totally detached from Islamic topics would be extremely unlikely to use an image of Muhammad in an article, and using that behaviour to support the idea that encyclopedias shouldn't use images of Muhammad isn't reasonable. I also didn't say that only Sunnis honored the prohibition. I will maintain that evaluating a list of sources for a topic with religious implications without analyzing them for religious bias is a woefully complete evaluation.—Kww(talk) 21:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Kww: the problem with that approach (as ever) is that you privilege one bias over another. You have a cultural bias towards secularism, and many of the statements you make are deeply colored by your own idiosyncratic beliefs on the matter. So why should your cultural bias be allowable while a Sunni's cultural bias be rejected? I know your answer to this: you're going to insist that your bias isn't a bias at all, but rather is the correct way to view things. But that is precisely what anyone with any cultural bias would say, so that's not really a credible argument.

The only credible solutions to the problem is (as Jayen suggests) to use NPOV and create a balance that reflects what happens in reliable sources. I really don't see why you don't see that. --Ludwigs2 22:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"Correct" in some kind of cosmic absolutist sense? No. "Correct" in so far as no one has suggested an alternative that doesn't bias the project towards some religions in favor of others without completely gutting the project? Yes, until someone makes a reasonable counterproposal. So far, the only counterproposal on the table is to bias the project in favor of large religious groups that believe everyone should honour their restrictions on image use.—Kww(talk) 02:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Kww, again, I would ask you to review WP:SCHOLARSHIP. There is nothing there that implies that we need to use "caution" for a source because of the personal beliefs of its author. Instead (and I'm feeling like a broken record here), we base our opinion of the reliability of a source on its editorial control, on whether it's been peer-reviewed, on whether it's cited in other sources. If there's a source that you don't think is reliable, bring it up, post about it at WP:RSN, get other opinions. You might find support for discounting a source because it hasn't gone through sufficient editorial control. But we're not going to discount a source because the author happens to be Muslim. If you disagree with that stance, fine, go try changing the policy at WP:V and WP:RS, but I don't think you're going to find support for it. So in the meantime, we stick with Wikipedia policies as they are, and it would be helpful if you would acknowledge Wikipedia policies on this, rather than trying to make up your own. The way we write articles here is we look at lots of different reliable sources (some of which will indeed be written from different points of view), and then we try to summarize those sources in Wikipedia. We try to present the differing views in the proper proportion, and just neutrally report the general academic consensus. --Elonka 02:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Elonka, in turn, WP:NPOV has never been a part of our image selection policy. To the extent that I'm guilty of attempting to rewrite policy, it is only in response to the effort to corrupt WP:NPOV to allow censorship. I'll happily stop if you acknowledge that WP:IUP doesn't include the concept of surveying sources to determine majority usage in other contexts. Nor does WP:Choosing appropriate illustrations. Nor does Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Nor does Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts. My effort to extend WP:REDFLAG to include religious bias has a better foundation than your claim that our image selection policy should be guided by other sources.—Kww(talk) 03:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Kww, to my knowledge, no one here is trying to censor anything. No one is trying to get images deleted. The dispute is revolving around the proper use of images, meaning which article they're on, how many we use, etc. But just because we're saying, "Let's not use this image on this article, let's use it on another article instead," doesn't mean we're "censoring" the first article. It means we're trying to use images in the proper proportion. That's not censorship, it's balance. For you to accuse others of trying to "corrupt WP:NPOV to allow censorship" is a bit of an overstatement, don't you think? --Elonka 03:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't believe it to be an overstatement. Many of the participants in this discussion have made it clear that their intent in removing the images from the article is to make it inoffensive to Islamic readers, not to conform to academic standards. Since this runs afoul of "Wikipedia will not remove content because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations.", Ludwigs2 attempted to rewrite WP:NOT#CENSORED to specifically not cover what he considered "incidental" material, and the images of Muhammad in this article were listed as an example. You seem to have joined the effort in good faith, but for others the purpose is to remove the images, and misapplying WP:NPOV is simply another effort to achieve the goal. It used to be "the principal of least astonishment", but that is in the process of being soundly rejected by the community. If the NPOV argument is rejected, I'm quite certain that another argument will be attempted in its place.—Kww(talk) 04:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Kww: seriously? The Muslim community is (apparently) engaged in censorship; scholarly sources are (apparently) engaged in censorship; "Many of the participants in this discussion" are (apparently) engaged in censorship. Who isn't engaged in censorship on this issue, aside from you and a handful of other editors? And still you claim - somehow - to have a consensus supporting your position. I need to work through the math on that...

Plus, I'll point out that this clause was added to NOTCENSORED less than a year ago April 20, 2010 by Arctic.gnome, without (so far as I can tell) any discussion whatsoever. That hardly makes it unquestionable ironclad law on project.

What this comes down to, Kww, is that you don't like the kinds of compromises that have been suggested because you think that would be kowtowing to religious belief. You end up claiming that effectively everyone-not-you is engaged in censorship - a really unsupportable stance, mind you - because NOTCENSORED is the only leverage available that can keep what would otherwise be a straightforward consensus from solidifying. Do you think that's an unfair assessment of this situation? --Ludwigs2 05:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

From memory, you hate religions, right, Kww? I happen to hate them too, so we're on common ground. That said, I believe in the existence of the human reaction known as offense. Do you? It disaffects people from the cause of the offense, and induces hatred in them if the offense is seen to be deliberate and unnecessary. All I, Hans, Ludwigs and others are proposing here is that, where it's possible to do so without harming the educational value of an article, we should always choose the least offensive option. It's the polite and sensible thing to do.

You are expressly ignoring offense, as though it doesn't exist or doesn't matter, and framing our motives as kowtowing to religious diktats. Clearly that's not the case with me, given my genuine hatred for theocracy. I'd appreciate it if you would at least acknowledge that, and begin to consider the serious negative implications of the perspective that offensiveness doesn't matter. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No, Anthony, I don't "hate" religion. I don't think it's relevant to encyclopedias. I don't think people should be making an encyclopedia's content conform to one. I haven't argued in favor of offense, or argued that we should seek to offend anyone. I've argued that we cannot take religious offense into account.—Kww(talk) 12:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And that's because of the slippery slope/floodgates argument, right? If we take account of gratuitous offense to Muslims then we won't be able to gratuitously offend aborigines, Mormons, etc. either? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never argued "slippery slope", Anthony. I believe that if we remove these images due to offensiveness, our only option to preserve balance is to actively remove most images from most articles, because most images offend some religious group. To worry about offending Sunnis without worrying about offending all religious groups would be wrong. It's not a slope, more like a steep high cliff that I would rather not jump over. Still, it would be a necessary step to preserve a balanced editorial policy.—Kww(talk) 13:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm just going to jump in here to make a comment and this is my first comment in this entire Arbcom case, but I noticed that no one is actually reading what Kww is saying. Or, at least, they are not understanding him. He is saying (from what I gather) that the number of images used in any article whatsoever has nothing to do with the sources used (or not used) in that article. Sources have nothing to do with the correct number of images. The number of images to be used in an article is entirely up to editorial community discretion and has no relation to the sources or opinions of subjects in regards to the articles in question. Silverseren^C 12:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That's my understanding of his view wrt letting reliable sources guide controversial image curation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• A reasonably accurate summation of my views towards the images/NPOV argument. And yes, SilverSeren, I sometimes feel like no one reads what I actually write. It's frustrating.—Kww(talk) 13:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, my understanding of Kww's position is that the choice and position of images on a Wikipedia article is solely an editorial decision for Wikipedia's editors, and not one that is dictated by external sources (reliable or otherwise). This makes sense given that we are illustrating our article based on the content we have, the images available to us and the technical possibilities and restrictions that are the result of being a wiki. We are not illustrating the articles, books, magazines or newspapers, etc. we refer to as sources, nor do we serve the same market. A newspaper, a book, an academic journal and a general-purpose encyclopaedia serve different purposes and consequently are illustrated differently. None of our sources are online, free content, uncensored, crowd-sourced general encyclopaedias based around the principle of the neutral point of view aimed at a global English-speaking audience (although some sources are some of these) so they will of necessity be making image choices based at least in part on factors not relevant to us, just as we make image choices based on factors not relevant to them. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The POV balance should reflect the POV balance in reliable sources, or at least the POV balance in English-language sources. It should not reflect the POV balance among Wikipedians, if that differs from the balance in RS. --JN466 16:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Seren: That's not quite true to what Kww has said. It's accurate as far as it goes, but recognize that Kww takes a fairly radical secularist view that religious POVs have absolutely no place on project. Yes, he says editorial judgement (not sources) determines the images to be used. But in his view 'editorial judgement' automatically excludes any opinion that the images should be limited in number (because any opinion that the images should be limited in number is - in his mind - religious advocacy that must be denied). In short, he's created a rhetorical black hole in which any position he disagrees with is sucked out of the universe of discourse. It's an elegant form of POV-pusjing, I'll grant him that, but it's still POV-pushing.

If you recognize Kww's secularist POV for what it is, then you can see this issue as conflict between two real-world POVs; when you see that, this becomes an obvious NPOV issue, and then using sources to resolve it suddenly looks like a natural and good idea. --Ludwigs2 17:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the way you put things sometimes: "a rhetorical black hole in which any position he disagrees with is sucked out of the universe of discourse". I agree that we are seeing some of the POVs underlying editors' positions surfacing, unmasking them as just that – POVs, some of them quite alien to mainstream scholarship. --JN466 17:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you like Ludwigs2's misrepresentation of my position, Jayen466. I don't see every effort to reduce imagery as religious advocacy. I see every effort to reduce imagery made by editors that have publicly stated that they want to reduce the image count in the article because the images are offensive as being based on religious advocacy. It's true that I see every shift in logic and argumentation that Ludwigs2 performs as being goal-driven as opposed to genuine, and his goal is to reduce the number of images because they are religiously offensive without sufficient counterbalancing value. He's stated that enough times that I see no reason to doubt it. Likewise, Anthonyhcole has stated that the religious offensiveness is his motivation in desiring to see the number of images reduced, and I see no reason to doubt that, either. It's possible that you genuinely see this as an NPOV issue, but I do see that logic as flawed.—Kww(talk) 18:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Kww: that was in such incredibly bad faith that I really can't do anything but laugh. You have stated explicitly multiple times that you believe religion has no place on project (first of many in this discussion, before my third post on the thread). Don't back-peddle now by trying to claim that you are only objecting because Anthony and I have publicly declared ourselves 'religious advocates'. I can diff out dozens of places where I have explained that my aim in this debate is to achieve NPOV (including the post that the above diff was a response to). if you choose not to see it that's your business, but trying to spin me as a foam-at-the-mouth religious nut is insulting. --Ludwigs2 19:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never denied that I think all religious objections to content should be ignored. I've been extremely consistent on that. I've argued that the images in this article should be subject to precisely the same standards as we use to evaluate images in any Wikipedia article, discounting any and all religious objections. You have stated that you believe the images to be offensive to a large group of people, and wish to remove them because of that. You've acknowledged that the source of that offense is their religious belief. I did not paint you as foam-at-the-mouth religious. I didn't say that you personally find them offensive to your own personal religious beliefs. I don't believe that, and haven't said that. I have said that your motivation to remove images is that you believe them to be they are religiously offensive without sufficient counterbalancing value. You've attempted to use the "principle of least astonishment" to do that. You've attempted to use NPOV to do that. Underlying that is your belief that causing religious offense is a problem, and, so long as you believe that, I expect that you will continue to change tactics until you find one that succeeds. I'm certain that you believe your efforts improve the encyclopedia, and that's all the WP:AGF demands of me. I am of the belief that your efforts have the precise opposite effect.—Kww(talk) 20:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Kww: this is about religion for you, not for me. I am taking the - eminently sensible - position that we should as a rule not be offending the mores and standards of our readers unless we have a damned good reason to. If you actually wanted these images treated like images on any other article that would be fine, but you're the one arguing for special treatment by insisting that certain kinds of arguments cannot be made here. It's nonsense. There is no reason to exclude religious perspectives on project; all we need to do is ensure that they are properly balanced (per NPOV). Do you think that religious editors are incapable of making reasoned choices? Because that's the only explanation I can find for your desire to block all religious perspectives from participation. --Ludwigs2 22:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I think the two of you are seeing things that you wish to see rather than what is actually there. Seren pretty much nailed it; how other sources use (or not use) images should have no bearing at all on how the Wikipedia uses images. If that point of view encompasses certain religions that forbid the use of certain images, then so be it. Just because someone holds an opinion that a follower of a religion may be offended by does not mean that that opinion, or the person behind it, is anti- that religion. Any more than holding an opinion critical of Israel or its policies makes it antisemitic. The problem we're running into here is, just as there are actual avowed antismites who make similar criticism of Israel, there are avowed and actual Islamophobes that go out of their way to inflame Muslims by purposefully showing depictions of Muhammad. What both of you...Ludwigs and Jayen...are doing right here in this tangent is taking the opinions of editors like Kww or myself, holding them up to real, honest-to-goodness racist opinions that happen to run in the same general direction and tarring us as racists by association. Ludwigs is especially blatant ion this guilt-by-association tactic. I am hopeful that when it comes down to evaluating the mountains of evidence and workshop stuff, that the arbs can see clearly just how deceptive your argument really is. Tarc (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure no one's saying you're bigots. But what you're doing is implementing and defending an essentially bigoted policy, that facilitates the gratuitous offense of the members of a major world religion. Ignorant and bigoted is what I'd call that policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, this is like having a winning lotto ticket dropped into one's lap. Anthony, you just iron-clad sealed and delivered on exactly what I said above. I hold Opinion A, a bigot also holds Opinion B, where A and B are similar...possibly even the same...but the motivations for each differ. My expression of A does not mean I support Mr. Bigot; to say that I do is the kind of logical fallacy that one learns about in freshman seminar, to be frank. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought you'd appreciate that one. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, bull. I don't think that being critical of the state of Israel is anti-semitism by itself, but what would you say if a bunch of editors went to the Israel article and started arguing that Jews should not be allowed to edit the article because they are biased? Does that still seem proper to you? What if they insisted that the article contain many images of Israeli soldiers killing Palestinians, of israeli Jets bombing Gaza, of Israeli settlers bulldozing settlements in the West Bank, and claimed that no one could remove those images because the only people who want them removed are Jews offended by negative imagery? Does that still seem proper to you?

We point out the things you actually do, and you accuse us of calling you names. nonsense. If you don't like the way you look when you voice certain opinions, then you should either stop voicing those opinions or explain why those opinions are not as objectionable as they appear. You don't get to run someone over in your car and then sue the person who calls the cops for slander.

We're not making you look bad, Tarc; your own actions are making you look bad, and we're just pointing it out. See the difference? --Ludwigs2 20:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this discussion really going anywhere useful beyond making more people eligible for topic bans? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

probably not, but that's the political gambit here. Tarc et al are gambling that they can win out on the 'victimization' front, getting enough people banned from the discussion on trumped-up behavioral charges that they can make the issue disappear for a while longer. I suggest you and Anthony and others leave me to carry that burden myself (mostly, anyway) and keep yourselves focused on the topic. I can confront this line of <cough>reasoning</cough> well enough on my own, and I understand and accept the risks involved. No sense anyone else putting their necks on the line. --Ludwigs2 20:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No, not going really anywhere at all and I need to take my own advice here, but it is hard to sit by and have Ludwigs and Jayen lie about the motivations of myself and other editors. Neither of them...nor Adler, while we're at it...have ever pointed to a single diff or evidence to support their claim of racism or bigotry. What they do instead is couch it in terms of "it feels like " or "it seems like" something a racist/bigoted person would say, and then let the guilt-by-association linger for the reader. When I point out what they're doing, they don't recant, they just restate the accusation of bigotry even louder; Ludwigs did it [[over there and did it again above today. All I can do is voice my frustrations regarding being lied about as calmly and WP:NPA-free as possible and hope that the powers-that-be see what's been really going on here. Tarc (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

<sigh…> Tarc, no one's actually accused you of being a bigot - cut the drama, and follow the advice you so kindly give to others about growing a thick skin. If you really think your position is sound then you should have no problem justifying your repeated claims that all objections to the images reflect a vanishingly small number of PBUH fanatics rather than a general principle of Muslim faith, your dogged insistence that the images will not be removed no matter how many Muslims are offended, or your continued suggestion that Wikipedia is a Western POV project that should necessarily disdain Muslim perspectives. You said these things and more, so you get to make them sound reasonable and fair-minded. floor is yours… --Ludwigs2 21:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Wnt

Proposed findings of fact

There is presently no Muhammad image known, only arbitrary representations of Muhammad

1) It is false and needlessly inflammatory to declare that Wikipedia displays images of Muhammad. Barring future archaeological finds or genetic analysis of relics, there are no known photographs, portraits, imprints on coins, or other accurate renditions of Muhammad, nor even any detailed description exist from which a moderately accurate likeness might be created. The only means by which such images are identified is the assertion or implication by an author or reader that an Arabic man in fact represents Muhammad. In fact, some persons in recent times have given offense by suggesting that a stick figure, cartoon object, or even a classroom teddy bear represents Muhammad.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• To be fair the same applies to Jesus and probably other religious figures. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, though a restatement of the proposition using correct terminology would be that "no historically authentic likenesses of Muhammad exist, though there are verbal descriptions that are believed by most Muslims to represent authentic traditions, a view that many secular historians also find not unreasonable". This is not a significant issue here so long as the images used in the article are sincerely intended by the artists to represent Muhammad, using the artistic conventions of their time and place. Obviously the same can be said of all images of Jesus, and here as in many other places the opposers of images neglect to consider the difference between portrait-type images, and illustrations of narrative incidents, with all the images in the article being of the latter type. Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support as clearly factual. --Ludwigs2 23:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose. The statement may be true, but it's a ruling on content, and outside the scope of what ArbCom should be ruling on. --Elonka 17:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a valid criticism, here and below. I don't want ArbCom to declare specific policies on article content. Nonetheless, this particular conclusion seems like a pretty straightforward application of WP:V, and a way to try to pull some of the heat out of the argument, and there are times when ArbCom decides, for its own purposes, what it thinks is appropriate interpretation of the sources in order to decide who is right. I'll acknowledge that the principle may need reworking to meet this criticism. Wnt (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Pointless. The complainers find offensive that anyone dares to depict Muhammad. See Iconoclasm#Muslim iconoclasm. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed principles

Wikipedia articles should accurately describe representations of Muhammad

1) Because an image is established as an offensive depiction of Muhammad based on the assertion that it is Muhammad, rather than by any visible features of the individual depicted, Wikipedia would be mistaken to avoid offense by barring images even if its principles allowed it to do so. However, it is entirely appropriate to make clear that Wikipedia does not regard any of these images to be images of Muhammad, but rather, that they are images created by artists who use them to represent Muhammad in some context, and that is their opinion, not ours.

Comment by Arbitrators:

What? Nuanced sophistry. Any non-contemporary artistic depiction of any historical figure is necessarily the artist's own impression. I think it is overly optimistic to believe that anyone will be aided by such declarations. Jclemens (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Well, based on that rationale, the images would be better housed in art history articles rather than Muhammad. --JN466 05:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This is largely true; for example, the article Depictions of Muhammad rightfully contains more images than Muhammad. (Though per this principle the title of the article might merit some further thought, though I'm not coming up with anything better off the top of my head) I note that the Medieval Christian views on Muhammad should contain some images that were probably correctly left out of the main article, such as the fresco portraying Muhammad in hell previously mentioned [100]. (non-party) Wnt (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this seems overall to be pretty sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm having flashbacks to the courtroom scene of Miracle on 34th Street. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Many of the sixteenth century Persian miniatures accompany prayers or invocations and, according to the secondary sources that describe them, have a mystical status. Amongst other things, they reflect the historical reception of Muhammad within Persian culture. It is a question of balance, not of finding "the right place", because there may be more than one "right place" (depending on context). I am not sure, however, that this ArbCom workshop page or its talk page are intended to be an extension of Talk:Muhammad/Images. Any compromise has to be binding. At any stage arguments can be advanced one way or another for breaking any consensus. I hope that arbitrators, particularly those like Risker who are experienced with image use and filters, can help work out a procedure for discussing and then adopting a binding and stable compromise, which is still flexible enough to allow minor tweaking of images. Mathsci (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as meaningless. Wnt's vocabulary is not up to matters coming under aesthetics I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose. This kind of finding is outside the scope of the case. Better is to stick with findings related to policies and user conduct. --Elonka 17:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Won't matter anyway. You don't stop complaints with an ArbCom finding or a disclaimer. The only "NPOV" for the complainers is their religious beliefs, which prohibit these images no matter what exception clauses we'd attach to them. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should often be better illustrated than comparable printed resources

Wikipedia articles are provided online with an efficient thumbnail preview format and have had the advantage of an extensive image collection served from Wikimedia Commons, whereas many conventional printed sources are limited by color plate printing charges and even online sites may have less flexibility in delivering artwork. Therefore it is entirely reasonable for Wikipedia to include a larger number of any type of image than most roughly comparable secondary sources. Although summary style allows for the transfer of some images to more specialized articles where appropriate, the simple numerical comparison with other resources is not a reason to delete images from an article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

An excellent application of WP:NOTPAPER. Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

• Agree, plus all the other factors that constrain and affect commercial publishing's use of images, which I have given above. Johnbod (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• Obvious advantage of wikipedia over printed media, but needs saying. Mathsci (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• This is true. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• This doesn't speak to the problem at hand, which is about proportional representation and placement rather than the number of images. To be blunt, if a non-Muslim reader comes away from this article thinking that Islamic mainstream iconography works just the same as Christian and Buddhist iconography, and that there are lots of paintings of Muhammad about, illustrating stories from his life, then we'll have contributed to the sum total of ignorance in the world. A Western reader should notice a comparative dearth of figurative depictions, because that difference is educationally significant, as well as characteristic of sources in this area. --JN466 18:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• The reasonable reader could not come away with any such impression, since we don't say any of that in the article, in fact, we refute it explicitly. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There certainly is "a comparative dearth of figurative depictions", and the images do serve an educational purpose because there have been many assertions on the talk page by presumably Muslim editors that the images we show could not possibly be by Muslim artists because, you see, Islam forbids such images. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

We are in agreement on that. That's why I have said it is useful to have an (illustrated) Depictions section. That's educational astonishment. But figurative depictions aren't the mainstream; neither in reliable sources, nor in real life. We just look ignorant if we pretend it is, and it's not a good thing for an encyclopedia to do. --JN466 11:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

We explain that in the depictions section. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit like having an article on the Earth illustrated with flat-earth images, and defending it by saying: It's okay! We explain in the text that the earth is round! --JN466 20:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's only a very tiny bit like that, though. --FormerIP (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:PaoloNapolitano

Proposed principles

Religious conflict of interest

Withdrawn by proposer, replaced with the proposal below PaoloNapolitano 20:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Articles on religious topics may not promote or preach any religious views and editors who are editing and/or participating in discussions pertaining to their faith may have a conflict of interest with the subject. Comment by Arbitrators Comment by parties The first sentence is correct, but the implicit claim that it is relevant to this case is problematic. The second and last sentence is correct but seriously misleading. I am not sure that you have understood WP:COI. Hans Adler 08:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC) I am uncomfortable with this. even setting aside the second phrase (which other editors have commented on), I am concerned that the first phrase would become a tool for promoting skepticism, secularism, and atheism. All of these are strongly defined, quasi-religious belief structures in their own right, but editors often try to cast them as synonymous with 'neutral'. We'd have to cover promotion of anti-religious viewpoints, somehow. --Ludwigs2 14:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Part 1 is fine. Part 2, taken literally, would neuter a large swath of topics is such editors were removed. We all have personal biases, the trick is to set them aside when editing. Tarc (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC) You could also argue that militant atheists cannot edit articles on religion or strong Christians cannot edit articles on Islam etc. etc. this seems like a terrible way to go. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Comment by others It is covered by the "Close relations" section. PaoloNapolitano 13:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC) The first statement is correct (and may be relevant to this case) but the second is wrong. It would be wrong to suggest that Christians should not be editing articles on Christianity topics, etc. wp:coi is much narrower. What is not allowed is tendentious editing, and that may include promoting certain religious (or anti-religious) views. - BorisG (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC) I agree with BorisG. Even though some outsiders do study a religion, it's unreasonable to expect those outside a faith to take much interest in the fine points of its theology often enough to get Wikipedia articles written - and those who do may well have their own axes to grind anyway. Wnt (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles on religious topics(v.2)

Articles on religious topics may not promote or preach any religious views or give undue weight to fringe theories and beliefs. Editors with strong views or beliefs about the subject should exercise particular caution when editing such articles to maintain a neutral point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators

Religious != fringe, with certain exceptions. Speculative claims about scientific fact are treated as such regardless of the motivation of the claimant, while speculative claims about supernatural material are not evaluated by Wikipedia, since we have no basis on which to do so, and as such we merely report about them. Jclemens (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties

I can go with this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others

Do you prefer this wording over the first proposal? PaoloNapolitano 18:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of Dispute

The disputes involves whether an image of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad should be included in the biographical article about the Prophet. Some users argue that unveiled images of the Prophet are offensive to Muslims and the images should be either be replaced with veiled images or removed. A long-standing dispute has arised from the issue.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties'

I'm not sure unveiled is correct here as per Johnbod - but maybe someone else has better information. Other than that this seems reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others

Proposed. PaoloNapolitano 21:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Johnbod

Proposed principles

Different types of images

In the illustration of a biographical article different types of images perform different functions. In particular images of the subject in a narrative scene from their life perform a different function from portrait images.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

• Agree as proposer. This point is clearly not grasped by many however. All the Muhammad images now in the article (like almost all older Islamic images) are narrative images. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, and a key point. It appears that narrative images are less offensive to Muslims. At the same time they are essentially just ornamental for Wikipedia articles. Apart from informing about the cultural perception of the subject in later centuries, they merely liven up the text. (There have been claims to the opposite, but these look to me like bad-faith attrition warfare, as I don't remember seeing a single reasonable argument other than those of the OTHERSTUFF type.) Hans Adler 10:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Agree. Artist's impressions of events usually add little or nothing to the readers' understanding of the events described, particularly when the events were remote in time and place from the artist, though they can act as an aid to memory; whereas an accurate portrait by an artist who knew the subject is very valuable. I will always remember the powerful effect this image of Constantine had on me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others

Proposals by User:Egg Centric

Proposed principles

Wikipedia cannot be, and should not be, entirely neutral

Wikipedia strives to take a neutral point of view. Nevertheless, it is time to recognise that in certain respects its very existence represents certain liberal/libertarian values, perhaps best summed up in the phrase "knowledge wants to be free". Wikipedia also has a responsibility to promote these values.

Therefore Wikipedia must take a stand - to the extent that it must be prepared to take sides and fight against reactionary Islam if needs be. Its international position demands nothing else.

Comment by Arbitrators

How about Wikipedia just follows its own pillars, rather than picking fights with anyone over anything? Jclemens (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties

• No thanks. Mathsci (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Wow. No. --Ludwigs2 16:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• No way. This would be a gross hindrance in our ability to be neutral. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• You made a mistake making this about "reactionary Islam". We've no shortage of people demanding their personal beliefs be reflected in Wikipedia's articles, be they religious, political, national, cultural, etc. By their standards, Wikipedia can never be neutral. Resolute 16:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• If we actually did this it would make such arguments stronger as they wouldn't have to pretend they are being neutral when they aren't being neutral. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• At least you're being honest, but NPOV is non-negotiable. Sorry. --JN466 17:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm, either you're commending Egg Centric for being honest to state what he really means, or you're implying that others here share this belief but aren't being honest about it. or both. Tarc (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• While I do think there may be an undercurrent of anti-Islamic feeling evident in these proceedings – it would be surprising if it were otherwise, as anti-Islamic feeling is common, and I am keenly aware that there are currently no Muslim editors involved in the debate – I don't actually believe that you personally have any particular axe to grind with Islam. Your edit history in the Muhammad article is incompatible with such an assumption. --JN466 20:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record, opposed. Tarc (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others

• Agree as proposer. Egg Centric 16:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Painting Islam as being any more or less "reactionary" than any other religion isn't reasonable.—Kww(talk) 16:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That was not my intention. I don't understand why you think it was. You also entirely miss my main point. Egg Centric 16:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Calling out one particular religion certainly emphasises it. Also, we have no obligation to "fight" anything, simply to ignore this class of request.—Kww(talk) 16:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to assume that scientoligists or pagans are not terribly fussed about pictures of Mohammed. But let's drop that...

My entire point is that, actually, Wikipedia does have an obligation to fight censorship. It just hasn't realised it yet, as said responsibility comes from position rather than intention. Maybe this will be the incident that means its users will realise that. Egg Centric 16:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll give you credit for expressing (one side of) the core issue here, albeit in an awfully extreme way. We are at a cross-roads where we need to decide whether Wikipedia is a pure information source or whether it extends itself into social engineering. IF we go the social engineering route (which I oppose), then we need to be very careful about what social activism the project is going to engage in. We are past the point where we can effectively hide social constructivism behind the mantle of pedagogy. --Ludwigs2 16:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Being a fairly extremist libertarian, I oppose social engineering for the sake of it too, and in an ideal world, where it wasn't the case that everything affects everything else we could be an entirely neutral pure information source. Unfortunately, such a thing is not possible once you reach our size. So what should we stand for? By being an enormously popular information source we already stand for anti censorship. We are already changing the world. It is time to recognise that explicitly. It is in our interests. Egg Centric 17:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

We should stand for trying to be a neutral source, and we do a fairly good job of it. There are very few sources who even try, the BBC is one of the only examples I can think of. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet the BBC deviate from neutrality in certain circumstances - for example they never tell the truth about TV detector vans. And they certainly stand up for press freedom in various ways. Same thing here. Egg Centric 18:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Islam, radical or otherwise, is not a direct threat to Wikipedia. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 01:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This is in conflict with WP pillars. Islamism and Islamic missionary activity is and will not be widespread here. PaoloNapolitano 16:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This principle shares the fallacy of those protesting the images. Wikipedia does not show these images to make some anti-Islamic stand at all; rather, the goal most often to illustrate our articles to show artists' conceptions of some of the key events in early Islamic history. We don't claim these images are images of Muhammad, whose appearance is unknown; rather, they illustrate how an artist drew a scene which requires someone to be carrying out actions Muhammad took at the time. Whether the artist draws a veil over the face of the person shown, or if someone scratched out the image for religious reasons, or drew an icon or an aura or something, it doesn't matter - the figure in the image is simply a place holder to illustrate how some events played out, and the choice of how to do it was a choice made by an artist (or someone later holding the work), but not our decision. We simply report the sources we have, and the only statement we're making is that this is what our sources said. Now some people might say we shouldn't print what we see - in other words, not be an encyclopedia, and in that we must naturally disagree - but that's not us disagreeing with them, but them disagreeing with us. ;)

Proposals by AGK

The committee opened this case on 21 December 2011. Using the standard timetable for cases, the evidence phase would end on 4 January 2011, the workshop phase would end (and the proposed decision would be posted) on 11 January 2011, and arbitrator voting (and the whole case) would end around 18 January 2011. However, as was communicated by the clerks in the evidence deadline they specified when opening the case, we made the decision to extend the evidence phase by one week, to accommodate the influx of new arbitrators on the new year. We also reserved the right to extend each subsequent phase by one week, to avoid overwhelming the new committee.

At this point, I have prepared the draft proposed decision and intend to publish it here for the review of the parties. However, although I have finished writing the draft, I do not want to be seen to prejudge the case before the evidence phase formally ends. Although we seem to have most of the evidence submitted, we will honour the current timetable. In lieu of a full draft decision, here is my summary of the case - which I have already published internally. The parties can probably surmise from my explicit recommendations here what the content of the draft decision will be, and comment on the general approach or specific content of this summary is very welcome. AGK [•] 19:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Summary

Discussion of this summary

The following is a summary of my view on the dispute, what findings we should publish, and how we should resolve the dispute. My intention is that this summary will be extended into a proposed decision in the standard format.

The dispute relates to the use of images at the article Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and involves a group of contributors, most of whom were named as parties to this case. Broadly, the aim of the first faction of contributors was to retain the images used in the current version of the article, and the current order of images. The basis for this position is that Wikipedia is not censored and, as a biography, the Muhammad article must include portrayals of Muhammad; the inclusion of images is therefore a reasonable editorial decision under the principle of least surprise. In Islam, drawings or paintings of Muhammad are rare, so this faction asserted the article must rely on artwork created after Muhammad's death (such as those from an atypical period when Islamic artwork was common) because no images of Muhammad exist that were created during his life.

The second faction of contributors moved for the removal of some (or less commonly, most) artistic portrayals of Muhammad, or for the portrayals to be placed less prominently in the article. The justification for this argument was that: the images were not made during Muhammad's life and therefore cosmetic in that they added nothing to the reader's understanding; that there was little use of images in reliable sources about Muhammad; and that the wide use of images wrongly implies that artistic portrayals of Muhammad is common in Islamic artistry, which corrupts the reader's understanding of the subject. Images of Muhammad are uncommon in Islam, and the reader would be surprised to find such images included. This faction argued that the of images of Muhammad were not important to the quality of the article, and therefore that the images were unjustifiable in the context of the 'principle of least astonishment'.

Before this dispute came to arbitration, the disputants participated in extensive discussion of the images of Muhammad, at Talk:Muhammad/images. A decision was reached by consensus that some images of Muhammad should be included, although no agreement could be made about the precise number of images to include, nor which types of portrayals (if any) to use in replacement. Ludwigs2 opened a request for comment at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not about the application of the policy that "Wikipedia is not censored", and framed the discussion in terms of whether the images of Muhammad was 'incidental' to the article in that they were unessential to the reader's understanding - and therefore that inclusion was not a justified 'astonishment' of the reader. The disputants engaged in informal mediation of the dispute and discussed the issues extensively, without success. In November 2011, Resolute also proposed an alternative method of treating the portrayal of Muhammad (by basing Wikipedia's portrayal on that of secondary sources), but this was unsuccessful.

In addition to the question of striking a balance between images of Muhammad, it was suggested that more use be made of alternative forms of portrayal, such as calligraphic images (which are comparatively common in Islamic art) and veiled representations (which are more common than portrait-type images). The disputants explored a different composition of files, including more calligraphy and less images of Muhammad, and of a different order of images. The discussion was complicated by there being several possible ways to order the images, by debate about whether using less images constituted censorship, and by the question of applying the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on the 'principle of least astonishment'. The dispute has been deadlocked for some time, and its intractability has been compounded by the conduct of several disputants, which was abrasive, unprofessional, or confrontational.

Wikipedia policy is that all content must be written in a Neutral Point of View. The dispute turns on whether the use of portrayals that are not typical of artistic coverage of Muhammad is a subversion of the neutral viewpoint. The offensiveness of the image to the reader (critical to the "principle of least surprise") and the argument that removing the images must be censorship (critical to the tenet that "Wikipedia is not censored") are secondary issues. However, from the comments made during this dispute, it is clear that several parties have prioritised one or both of the secondary issues over the question of balancing the use of images. The Arbitration Committee does not adjudicate content issues, such as that of the use of (atypical) images of Muhammad over calligraphic or veiled portrayals, and we will refer the question of which images to use in the Muhammad article to the wider community.

In the decision, we will give some guidance to the disputants for engaging in similar content disputes in the future, and we will sanction a small number of editors who have been disruptive to the discussion. However, to resolve the dispute, our final decision will be to defer the dispute to the attention of the wider community - community-based dispute assistance has not been employed as much as it should - with the hope that, with our refinement of the scope of the dispute, it easier to come to a decision. As part of our guidance to the disputants, we will note that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement before our exasperation makes us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. In such cases, we implore disputants to seek the involvement of the community. We encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming consideration by the community of this dispute would be useful, and we will use standard discretionary sanctions to improve the ability of the community's administrators to exclude disputants who choose to engage in the community proceedings but whose participation is ultimately disruptive. Our advice will be that consensus about portraying Muhammad will be determined by a group of participants who did not contribute to the discussion, and in turn that the discussion be participated in primarily by editors who are not involved in this topic. AGK [•] 19:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

See, Discussion of this summary

Proposed principles [AGK]

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact [AGK]

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies [AGK]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement [AGK]

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Anthonyhcole

Proposed principles [Anthonyhcole]

Principle of least controversy

1) When curating controversial content, and multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, the least controversial option should be used.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This sets up debates about which of multiple images would be most "effective". I don't see a need to go there. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It's a slight rewording of WP:GRATUITOUS: "When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, Wikipedia does not retain the most offensive options merely to "show off" its ability to include possibly offensive materials." The wording of this proposed principle does not rely on an understanding of motive. Clarification of this would save us a great deal of time and trouble at Muhammad and other articles without costing the encyclopedia one bit of educational value. My evidence. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jclemens and Tarc, if you don't see a problem with offensiveness, you won't see a reason for this principle.

@Resolute, I don't expect you to be swayed by this; as for the community in general, everyone pretty much does this already.

@Hans, that content dispute resolution is difficult is no reason to ignore the offensiveness of candidate images.

@ASCIIn2Bme, an artist's impression of an event in a remote time and place (such as the black stone incident) is obviously no more informative about the event than a piece of obscure calligraphy. One is offensive to many readers, the other not. Hence, choosing the former to illustrate the event is gratuitously offensive. Using the same image to illustrate Muhammad#Islamic depictions would be highly informative regarding the topic of the section, and so would not be gratuitous. Should WP:GRATUITOUS explicitly include offensive use of sacred imagery? Yes, but I'm not about to edit that guideline while this arbitration is in progress; that would be improper. I hope the committee will respond in some way to the Foundation's explicit concern that this project take account of religious offensiveness, and not simply ignore the Foundation in this signal exemplary case. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

@Boris, this is what most editors (not those that think offensiveness doesn't matter, of course) have been doing all along. --Anthonyhcole (talk)

I tend to agree with ASCIIn2Bme. The only thing this change does is set up yet another round of arguments that will again fail to sway the community. Resolute 15:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

All this seems to be is goalpost-moving. Someone wants to get rid of an offensive image? All they have to do is redefine "effective", similar to what some tried to do with declaring Muhammad images as "incidental". Tarc (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This clearly goes too far, and I also agree with Jclemens. Given that we don't have effective processes to resolve content disputes, it's no wonder there is an almost universal desire to create relatively objective criteria which can decide some instances. But they often turn out not to be so objective, after all, and lead to unintended consequences when taken too literally. What we really need is a general awareness that, e.g., whether an image is necessary for an article or just incidental/ornamental is a matter of degree rather than a black/white matter. Hans Adler 18:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Another fine-sounding principle of little practical use in this case. An artist's visual depiction of an event is hardly ever equivalent to an image of calligraphy in a foreign script and language, which most English Wikipedia readers can't read and/or comprehend. Also, there are obvious problems with defining "least controversial" when one group forbids the precise type of images commonly used by rest of the world. What is least controversial: breaking the mores of one group, or abandoning the representation normally used everywhere else for the sake of one group? You should really be proposing this principle at WP:GRATUITOUS and seek community consensus there, not here, as ArbCom doesn't normally forge new policy like this. (And examples of how you see this principle applied are crucial.) ¶ By invoking WP:GRATUITOUS here, you also seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that the images in dispute here are gratuitously offensive, like a naked woman in the article on automobile would be. I know the WMF doesn't make the distinction between gratuitously offensive and "possibly controversial" material in their Resolution, but insofar most Wikipedia editors do make this distinction, by not introducing religious offense as an instance of explicitly gratuitous offense at WP:GRATUITOUS. So you are pushing your luck quite a bit with this proposal here, trying to circumvent normal policy approval methods. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• This is a policy proposal. Wrong venue. - BorisG (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole: this is what most editors (...) have been doing all along.. It is one thing what people do (out of common sense) and the other thing to mandate it. And even if we agree to mandate it, it should be done through the normal policy change. I agree the current policy is badly worded as it refers to the intent, which is hard if not impossible to assertain. But this is a wrong venue to even discuss this. - BorisG (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:GRATUITOUS is a relatively new guideline. It has only been up since Oct 2011 or so. It was not announced broadly because its text was tacked to the end of an existing guideline. There was no explicit discussion for its adoption on the talk page. A few attempts to copy-edit it have been reverted on procedural grounds by participants in this Arbitration. But I think it's fair to say that it does have some community support. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Thryduulf

Proposed principles [Thryduulf]

Wikipedia is illustrated

1) Wikipedia is illustrated. It is therefore reasonable for readers to assume that any given article will be illustrated if relevant, usable images exist.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Hopefully it should be self-evident. See also #Wikipedia articles should often be better illustrated than comparable printed resources. Thryduulf (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains images considered objectionable or offensive by some readers

1) Wikipedia contains images considered objectionable or offensive by some readers, including visual representations of people which may be protected by some cultures.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Taken from the Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Thryduulf (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Offensiveness is irrelevant

1) Wikipedia is not censored, image choice is based on relevance to the article, including the due and undue weight of choosing to illustrate a particular subject. The (perceived) offensiveness of an image to one or more people or groups is neither a reason for including nor excluding an image.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This follows from the above two principles and also from #Wikipedia is not censored [Resolute] (to save duplication I'm not restating that principle here). See also #Offense isn't enough. Thryduulf (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Religious doctrine is irrelevant

1) Wikipedia will not remove content because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations. Equally, Wikipedia will not add or show such content solely because it is not prohibited from doing so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

All but the last sentence taken directly from WP:NOTCENSORED. The final sentence is the logical corollary of it and flows from WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. See also Tarc's proposed finding of fact: #Islamic prohibitions against images. Thryduulf (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

1) The choice of a source to use a particular image does not evidence a rejection of other (types of) images.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sources choose to use and not use images for a huge number of reasons, not all applicable to Wikipedia, and many (possibly most) of which are unknowable. Accordingly, just because a source uses image A does not mean they rejected image B, nor if they did reject it why it was rejected. The title of the principle is a basic scientific principle, the text of the principle follows from it. Thryduulf (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not its sources

1) Wikipedia is an online, free-content, open-source, crowd-sourced, uncensored, general-purpose, secular encyclopaedia based on the principle of the neutral point of view and aimed at a global, English-speaking audience, its sources are not (although some are some of these). It is not a blog, book, magazine, newspaper, journal or scripture, although most of is sources are one or more of these. Consequently it serves a different audience to, and is subject to different technological, cultural and legal restrictions than, its sources. The choice of images to illustrate a Wikipedia article will of necessity therefore be different to the choice of images used to illustrate its sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The first two sentences are based on Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Introduction, Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The remainder logically follows from that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by Former IP

Proposed principles

Accusations of social prejudice

1) Where accusations or insinuations against editors of racism, cultural phobia or other forms of social prejudice can be substantiated, appropriate community or administrative action should be sought. In all other cases, such accusations constitute a serious breach of WP:NPA, particularly if they are made repeatedly against multiple editors. Moreover, they are likely constitute poisoning the well and lead to a loss of good faith amongst editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I believe this to be a root cause of some of the ill will between editors involved in the discussions. --FormerIP (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A resounding yes to this. I addressed this matter here today and in response to this one last week. Tarc (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

hmmm… does this cover making accusations of being an advocate, of being an apologist, or of having a cultural or social bias towards a religion? If it covers those, this seems like a purely vanilla call for greater attention to wp:CIV, which I can endorse wholeheartedly. if it excludes those, then it appears to be a Machiavellian scheme to ensure that only your side can use insulting language. can you clarify, please? --Ludwigs2 03:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A similar principle should of course apply to any accusation made in breach of NPA. I have picked out accusations of racism, far-right extremism etc because I have observed them. If you think there is a parallel case of other accusations being made against editors, then you should submit that to the evidence page. I do not think, though, that merely observing that an editor has a particular POV amounts to a personal attack. On the other hand, suggesting that an editor is racist, or holds other forms of unsavoury political view which they have not expressed, amounts to talkpage slander. --FormerIP (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

FormerIP's edits of talk-page image captions

These were entered as evidence of talk page disruption by JN466. For ease of reference, here's the link to the rather underwhelming ANI thread on that issue. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

My comments about this are above at #FormerIP_2. --FormerIP (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Eraserhead1 Evidence entry for EggCentric

EggCentric created a section above that more or less called for the project to acknowledge a libertarian leaning in the project and to actively protest against "stone-aged" religions. Eraserhead1 promptly entered this into the Evidence page as examples of battleground behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am becoming a bit concerned over Eraser's usage of the Evidence section. What Eggcentric posted is being unanimously rejected, it was quite frankly a pretty dumb point to make, but are we at the point here where that == WP:BATTLE behavior? IMO the Evidence page is for identifiable examples of problematic behavior, not for a person who posts one thing in the Arb Workshop. Tarc (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• The addition of those diffs raises questions about the reliability of the rest of his evidence. Mathsci (talk) 09:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• In the recent abortion case NYyankees51 got officially reminded about similar behaviour. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• He was a party to that case with a long history of involvement on the article talk page as detailed in the evidence of MastCell. It was not for making a posting on the workshop page. Mathsci (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• NYyankees also wasn't commenting on a public discussion, due to his widespread participation we know its a one off slip, and his comment is less bad than those made by Eggcentric here. Ultimately though if the committee doesn't think it warrants a finding they won't take it into account. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• If Egg centric had made any edits to articles or article talk pages vaguely related to Muhammad, this would be relevant. Mathsci (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest we agree to disagree. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Anthonyhcole's statements about Ludwigs2

I was challenged [101] to explain how my evidence describes a contradiction.

In November Anthonyhcole wrote to Ludwigs2: "Your incessant whining on and on and on about the motives, intentions, character and god knows what of those who hold a different view is making so mush noise that it's impossible, or at least very unpleasant trying, to make any progress or find common ground."

About 7 weeks later Anthonyhcole wrote about Ludiwgs2: "I don't recall him deploying anything I'd consider a personal attack. [...] No element of BATTLE applies to his behaviour."

The two statements seem contradictory to me, unless Anthonyhcole employes some totally non-standard definition of personal attack which somehow excludes comments about "motives, intentions, character and god knows what of those who hold a different view". Furthermore BATTLE states "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals." Also seems in direct contradiction with Anthonyhcole's November description of Ludwigs2's behavior quoted above. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

On 27 December Resolute accused Ludwigs2 of WP:TE, WP:NPA, WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLE. I refute that. I accuse Ludwigs2 of violating WP:AGF and ceaselessly bickering. He's wrongly being accused of lots of policy violations that I see no evidence of - at least not enough to warrant sanctions - but he is very, very guilty of forever bickering with people who bait him, and responding to ABF with ABF. That's the problem. Don't confuse these with WP:NPA, WP:IDHT, WP:BATTLE or WP:TE. They're different things. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

So, "bickering" "on and on and on about the motives, intentions, character and god knows what of those who hold a different view" is not at all prohibited by NPA, BATTLE, TE, and IDHT? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct. They're a breach of ANNOYING and AGF.--Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

So, if someone [hypothetically] retorted to you that "you are an intellectual coward, Anthonyhcole", they'd be breaching nothing besides the WP:AGF guideline (WP:ANNOYING being a red link)? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess it would have a lot to do with my history with them. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Analysis of Anthonyhcole's evidence

In his statement Anthonycole refers to a discussion on Talk:Muhammad/Images, implying that he had suggested that a photograph of the Black stone be used instead of an early fourteenth century image from an illuminated manuscript, now in Edinburgh. Looking back at the discussion, his account seems inaccurate in several respects. In trying to seek clarification as to what proposal had been made by Resolute I had made two edits. [102][103] These were my last edits to that page. I was then asked a polite but slightly confrontational question by Anthonyhcole.[104] When he received no reply from me, he raised the question in a separate section[105] and was told by Amatulic,[106] amongst others, that the matter had already been discussed some time back. At no stage did Anthonyhcole mention a photograph in that discussion which rapidly degenerated.[107][108][109][110] Mathsci (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is not a criticism of Anthonyhcole, just a commentary on his evidence. Mathsci (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaken. I don't imply that. You, incorrectly infer it. I said: "I attempted to propose this alternative on the talk page but was shouted down." I'd appreciate it if you'd strike your error, if you see the (easily made) mistake you've made. If it's not clear, I'll explain in more detail. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• You wrote on the evidence page, "There is an alternative image, a photograph of the actual stone, which I believe is at least as informative about the subject, and is not offensive. I attempted to propose this alternative on the talk page but was shouted down." But you never mentioned such a photograph in any of the diffs above. Saying now that that was your intention after three weeks of silence on the matter is not particularly helpful, nor does it seem to be evidence. Mathsci (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have always thought the black stone image is inappropriate. See the last 3 paragraphs of this November discussion:

Extended quote

If Britannica mentions it that's good enough for me. It's a delightful story that, apocryphal or not, is an important enough element of the tradition for mention in an encyclopedia, so I have no problem with us mentioning it. Now we need to seriously address the question of educational value. Leaving aside the fact that we happen to have such an image at hand (that's no argument for inclusion), that images make articles more readable (there is no shortage of images) that this image is a fine representation of the art of this era or that tradition (this is not an article or section on art, or depictions of Muhammad), does this artist's impression increase the reader's understanding of this event enough to justify the limited space it takes up? How does it add to the reader's understanding of the event? Does it mislead the reader? Please understand I'm not on a campaign of stripping images of Muhammad out of this article. I want to ensure all image use here is relevant and as educationally potent as possible. I argue (above) there are much more useful, educational and relevant images of Muhammad that deserve inclusion here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I had been waiting for a time when I thought a reasonable discussion could be had on the topic. I opened the conversation on the image; and was described as disingenuous and sly, and petulant for objecting to being called disingenuous and sly. So I quit the page at that point, before I had made my proposal. It left me wondering how many other people have been bullied off the page.

If it is clear to you that your above analysis is mistaken, I'd appreciate it if you would strike it. I've added to my evidence that I then quit the page, to hopefully make it clearer. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting on the actual image issue, I think you perhaps over-reacted [111] to comments on your edits. The episode you link to gives a good illustration of why, even with the best possible intentions, discussing this kind of issue over a prolonged period can have adverse effects on all involved. Mathsci (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Above, you say I implied something, and that this seems inaccurate on several levels, when in fact you were mistaken. I said I had attempted to propose something, and you read me as claiming I had proposed something. A simple enough mistake. Would you do me the courtesy of striking your comments, and I'll strike my responses, so we'll save others the trouble of reading them? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no mistake here at all. You claimed on the evidence page "I attempted to propose this alternative on the talk page but was shouted down", but you actually made no such proposal; all you posted was a very curt, one-line "Can someone please tell me what important information this imparts to the reader?" ("this" referring to the image in question). We don't go by what you intended, we go by what you actually did. Or didn't do, as the case may be. Tarc (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You are telling me that I made no proposal. That is correct. Had I succeeded in making a proposal, I would have used these words in my evidence: "I proposed." I attempted to propose, but failed to. So I used "I attempted to propose" in my evidence.

My attempt to propose began when I opened that thread asking if anyone can tell me what important information the painting conveys. Once that was established, I intended to argue that the photo is of equal didactic value and should replace the painting. I realise that, just looking at my first sentence, "Can someone please tell me what important information this imparts to the reader?" and without me telling you this is laying the groundwork for a proposal, you're not to know that's what it is. But I have told you, in my evidence. I said, "I attempted to propose this alternative on the talk page but was shouted down."

The reason it didn't develop into a full proposal is that you accused me of being disingenuous. Then Johnbod called me sly, and then you called me petulant for being offended by your language,[112] and I quit the page. So, I opened that thread with the intention of proposing a swap: the photo for the painting. But my attempt failed, because I don't see why I should have to deal with someone who treats me the way you and Johnbod do.

I wonder how many decent people you've driven off the project with your appalling behaviour.

So, Mathsci, I know it may not look like an attempt at a proposal, but it got cut short. Now that you know this, unless you believe I'm lying, of course, would you do me the courtesy of striking your incorrect analysis that began this thread, I'll strike mine, and we can save everyone a bunch of needless reading? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Trust me Anthony, I have driven no one worthwhile off the project. I called your behavior petulant because you refused to explain exactly what you were suggesting unless we withdrew our comments. I found the way you initiated that discussion...essentially with a demand...to be quite condescending. The fact remains that you made a claim in your statement that was never in fact happened. Tarc (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Here you point up the major behaviour problem, not just with this article, but underlying Wikipedia. In order for me to continue discussing content on that page, I am obliged to put up with insult and offense. Is it any wonder that we are losing editors and have never attracted much in the way of serious scholars? If this were a living room or conference, you and Johnbod would have been out the door long ago. But you stay, so I leave.

Your last statement is a falsehood. I attempted to make a proposal. That attempt began with a polite question.[113] Mathsci, reasonably, didn't see that in my evidence. I have now explained, and I expect that he probably does see it now. It is becoming more important to me that this thread be struck, as you continue to repeat that I made a false claim, and casual readers are unlikely to know who is making false claims here, which is bad for my reputation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

My perception of events was that you did not explain the previous decision on the Black stone when I asked a question of nobody in particular. Instead you volunteered your point of view, challenging me with a leading question. I did not give a reply. After a while you opened up a new section asking the same question but to everybody. At no stage was there any hint that you were going to reveal that you preferred a modern photograph of the Black stone. Since it can't be read from the diffs of events three weeks ago, it can't really be accepted as evidence. In ArbCom cases the story is told with diffs, whether that is fair or not. Mathsci (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Could we have an arbitrator's opinion on this please? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Anthonycole, why are you trying to hold several editors' feet to the fire for holding opinions in opposition to a content guideline ? This is nitpicking in the extreme and really unworthy of an Evidence entry, IMO. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

How dare you accuse me of "attempting to hold editors' feet to the fire"? How dare you deride my good faith evidence as "nitpicking in the extreme"? Your tone is offensive. It doesn't belong on this page, or anywhere on this project.

Plenty of people believe your view on offensiveness accords with WP:NOTCENSORED, which is a policy. If a policy and a guideline appear to contradict each other, the usual practice is for a community-wide discussion to determine how best to reconcile them.

I'm sure that, if there is anything improper with my evidence, the arbitrators will guide me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I am criticizing your Evidence presentation, not you personally. There is a difference y'know, so please, stop internalizing everything said to you. Tarc (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Anthonycole, One doesn't begin a real discussion with a rhetorical question, which is now what your evidence and your own admissions suggest you did. Doing so may reasonably be viewed by others as disingenuous (in that you already have decided the answer to your question), and sly (in that you are asking a leading question to arrive at a "gotcha" moment). When you ask a rhetorical question, you invite people to attack the style and presentation of the rhetoric. Should your interlocutors take the bait, and bite? Perhaps not, but that doesn't change the fact that your rhetoric is the provocation and any real discussion is derailed by your rhetoric before it begins. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

One may begin a real discussion with a rhetorical question. In this instance, I didn't. I began with a question that required an answer. A genuine question, which FormerIP answered. You have misunderstood the meaning of rhetorical question, so I can't really respond to that part of your personal attack, as it makes no actual sense. And I don't really know how to respond to the part where you prove that I am sly, either, because you have misunderstood the meaning of leading question and I can't really make sense of your "proof".

What you seem to be trying to assert is that, in discussion, it is somehow illegitimate to ask a question of the interlocutor that you believe you know the answer to. Again, I just have no way of responding to that.

I was bullied on that talk page. And you are compounding it here with your (sorry, I don't know how to characterise what you just did). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I was not part of that discussion. But anyone reading Black Stone#History and tradition should be able to tell why the picture showing what Muhammad did with the stone can be argued to be more relevant (in his biography) than the modern-day silver-enveloped stone (which was put in silver after it was shattered in a siege 100+ years after Muhammad's death). ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think evidence should be facts, not intentions. Attempted to propose sounds misleading to me, since, as it is hard to understand what constitutes attempting. Intended or planned appears more accurate, but then it is not useful as evidence (but also not harmful eitther). Either way, such soft evidence is very likely to be ignored. - BorisG (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, Boris. I've changed "attempted to" to "opened a thread with the intention of." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Besides, there's another typical image of the whole Kaaba building during the Hajj further down in the Muhammad article. [114] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Jimbo rules us all (here)

The outcome of this arbitration seems preordained in certain respects. Jimbo Wales has just decided that the Foundation Resolution overrides current Wikipedia policies [115]. And ArbCom decided reaffirmed that Jimbo makes policy on the English Wikipedia [116].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There has been quite a sea change since that 2006 case in regards to how much authority Wales actually has to affect policy changes unilaterally. While the admin (and higher) bits technically remain active, I think the backlash from the Wikipedia community would be shockingly swift were this or any other case decided by fiat. To his credit, I believe he long ago recognized this and would not presume to do anything of the sort regarding this image discussion. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any ArbCom or WMF decision that says otherwise. It's true that he didn't impose his desired outcome in the VNT debate, yet, but that's really a minor wording issue compared to this, and he didn't have a WMF board decision behind him on that, unlike here. Anyway, it looks like ArbCom members (who are all appointed by Jimbo anyway) are very much in favor of the resolution's universal sweep of controversial content. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be right that Arbs will be minded to try to apply the WMF statement. But I don't think they are likely to take it to mandate any universal sweeping. Probably not even a galactic dusting. --FormerIP (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So Jimbo can make sweeping changes because ArbCom says yea and ArbCom are appointed by Jimbo... seems like a visual model of circular reasoning, just saying. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention a massive conflict of interest. Resolute 17:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Also would like to point out this statement "We start with a bias towards openness but agree to limit that openness, based on respect for our users, as little as possible. That is why, we believe, potential decisions on the restrictions of these types of images must be decided by individual users and why we have recommended that registration be necessary to affect these images." which to me basically says the individual needs to censor things for themselves not the community to censor things for users. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That is from the Harries section on "sacred" images, which was overruled by the WG and board. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• I do not accept that Jimbo "rules us all". In fact, he has in the past shown some dramatically awful decision making processes that have done more harm than good to this project. His opinion is opinion, nothing more. If he wishes to go to the Foundation and have it issue an edict in support of censorship, he may do so, and deal with the consequences of that action. Resolute 17:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Um, it was my understanding that Arbcom cannot make policy. It would seem illogical, then, that Arbcom could decide that some person makes policy (even Jimbo). Arbcom is trying to do indirectly what it is not allowed to do directly. Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You missed a key element. ArbCom did not grant Jimbo that right. The blurb is in the principles section. They merely reaffirmed his right. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if they didn't say that in the first place it still is silly that the people who are picked by Jimbo are the ones to affirm anything for him that it is circular. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

They're not strictly appointed by Jimbo any longer. They are elected and Jimbo gets to regally assent their election. --FormerIP (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Mostly I am just poking a bit of fun. I haven't seen jimbo throw his weight around significantly because he can, so it isn't like a power mad person demanding everyone jump on their left foot all day. I just thought it was a little funny that it occurred like that. Tivanir2 (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Of potential interest: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Jimbo as policy maker. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing RfC on adopting as guideline part of the WMF resolution dealing with controversial material, namely the principle of least astonishment

At Wikipedia talk:Follow the principle of least astonishment. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Straw man

Many Muslims are offended by figurative depictions of Muhammad. I, and the Foundation, believe we should pay attention to the offense we may cause our readers, and minimise that as much as possible, where this would not diminish the educational value of the encyclopedia. Failing to take this degree of care is displaying contempt for our readership.

My opponents in this dispute equate my stance with deferring to Muslim superstition. But that is not the case. This is a straw man. If I were deferring to Muslim superstition, I'd be opposing the image use at Depictions of Muhammad, Muhammad#Islamic depictions of Muhammad and Muhammad#European and Western views, which I'm not. I am respecting the feelings of our readership.

My opponents don't address my actual question, why would we use an image many readers find offensive, when it adds little or nothing to the readers' understanding of the section topic? What motivates a person to defend the retention of such an image? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is based on the false premise of "it adds little or nothing to the readers' understanding". Many who wish to retain the depictions feel that it adds greatly. Tarc (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm not addressing them. I'll happily have that argument with them; I've tried on three separate occasions to do so, but was ignored and bullied. No, I'm addressing you and those like you who assert that being offensive will never be an acceptable reason to remove an image from an article. How do you justify that? If an offensive image is related to the topic but adds nothing to the readers understanding of the section, why would you leave it there? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding how I (and others) justify asserting that being offensive will never be an acceptable reason to remove an image from an article, it is very simple: doing so is incompatible with WP:NPOV. As I explained time and again during the WT:NOT discussion, NPOV requires us to treat all offensive and potentially offensive images and other content in the same way, regardless of who is offended by it and why. This leaves us two choices, firstly to be deferential to everybody who is offended by anything - Muslims offended by pictures of Muhammed, Aborigines offended by images of people who have since died, Middle Americans offended by pictures of a bear female breast, conservative Christians offended by homosexuality, Scientologists offended by inclusion of sacred text and images, people offended by portrayals of weapons, arachnophobes offended by pictures of spiders, Saudi Arabians offended by pictures of un-veiled women, etc, etc, etc. Or, secondly to be equally non-differential to all of them - i.e. ignoring offence. Given the first option includes mutually exclusive positions (one group of people offended by the inclusion of an image, another group of people offended by the non-inclusion of an image), Wikipedia has taken the pragmatic course of action and chosen the latter route, "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.", "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers.". We include in articles images that are relevant and due and do not include images that irrelevant and/or undue. We do this for all images on all articles, whether anybody finds them offensive or not. Thryduulf (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing the point of this thread. Respect is not deference. It is respectful to remove the photo of a recently deceased aborigine that is illustrating Boomerang, where another image or none at all would be just as educational; deference would be removing the photo of a recently deceased aborigine from that person's article, where the image conveys important relevant information. Respect would be removing an artist's figurative depiction of an event in the prophet's life from the section describing the event, when the image adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the event, such as here, here and here. Deference would be removing figurative depictions of Muhammad from Depictions of Muhammad, Muhammad#Islamic depictions of Muhammad and Muhammad#European and Western views, images that have real educational use in those sections. I would see the inclusion of a picture of Mormon sacred garments at Underwear as gratuitous offense; whereas such an image is essential to Temple garment.

The Harrises limited their discussion to images they described as "controversial," and meant by that images for which there is real world evidence that significant controversy surrounds their display, so this is not opening a floodgate.

You finish this post by repeating the often heard myth that "We include in articles images that are relevant and due and do not include images that irrelevant and/or undue. We do this for all images on all articles, whether anybody finds them offensive or not." I can't be sure which elements of WP:DUE you're referring to here, or what definition of "relevant" you're using, but I'm addressing real educational use, and there are images all over Wikipedia, including those 3 Muhammad images I linked to, that add nothing to the readers' understanding of the topic of the section they're in. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

From comments others have made, there is at least no consensus that the images "add little or nothing" if not a consensus that they do add significantly. Certainly at the RfC at WT:NOT, everybody who commented on the examples Ludwigs2 gave disagreed that the images of Muhammed were "incidental", whether they agreed or disagreed that "incidental" material was "protected" by NOTCENSORED.

Furthermore there is no consensus that I've seen demonstrated, nor anything I've seen in the evidence (although I might have missed something) that supported paying attention to offence we may cause readers, whatever their religious beliefs. It has even been disputed just how significant a proportion of Muslims find the depictions offensive. Thryduulf (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Ludwigs2's choice of incidental examples was problematic at that WT:NOT discussion. But, I'm not having the argument over the educational value of particular images at Muhammad in this thread (in fact I'm not having it anywhere because no one will engage with me on that point). There are editors who refuse to take offensiveness into account under any circumstances. These are the editors I'm addressing. Wrt your second paragraph, the Foundation has resolved that we should pay particular attention to real educational use when curating controversial images. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, don't drop the blame on me for the WT:NOT discussion: the problem there was editors who kept reframing what I said in nonsensical ways. Not much I can do when I say 'X' and everyone keeps going on as though I said 'Y'. But that's the problem you're having here, too, isn't it? Image proponents want to claim that the images add something but refuse to quantify what that something is, because (I assume) they are aware that the minute they quantify it their something will turn out to be practically nothing. it's like the story of the Irishman who traded his herd for a locked box, because not knowing what he owned made him feel like a rich man. --Ludwigs2 04:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thryduulf made me say it. Sorry, sorry. But, really, the Goetse.cz image was incidental? I have a lotto ticket from 2008 that I haven't checked, because it's kind of like being a billionaire, but it doesn't pay the bills. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The "it adds little educational value" argument is utterly meaningless, because it directly coincides with the "it is offensive" argument. Complete and perfect overlap. Consequently, the former argument is simply used as a shield for the latter. The intellectual dishonesty of that argument is proven by the fact that its greatest proponents have not targeted similar images that just don't happen to be controversial in the eyes of some. Resolute 05:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Intellectual dishonesty? What makes you think it's OK to use that kind of language here? You're right that this pretty much only comes up when people find the images also offensive. Educationally valueless images abound on the project, but they look pretty and can be an aid to memory, so no one really minds them being here. But when they're also offensive to many readers, they should go. That's not intellectual dishonesty, just common sense, and common decency. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A: just as an aside, I respect the 'intellectual dishonesty' challenge. If there's one thing that Wikipedia ought to make sure of, it's that we editors are making intellectually valid claims. I don't think Resolute's made a decent case for it here, but if he thinks its true, it is certainly worth reflecting on. --Ludwigs2 07:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind at all, if the claim was substantiated, but it seems to be being used simply as a casual insult. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. except I'd have used the word 'callow' --Ludwigs2 17:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Anthonyhcole: "[T]he Foundation has resolved that we should pay particular attention to real educational use when curating controversial images.". We do. It's called WP:NOTCENSORED + WP:DUE. Where there is disagreement about which images are appropriate (or where in the article they are best, etc) we discuss it in terms of the educational value, due weight, etc, both in terms of the image(s) themselves and relative to alternative available images. We do not discuss them in terms of offensiveness, because per policy and [[117]] studies that is irrelevant. At Wikipedia talk:Follow the principle of least astonishment the proposal to elevate the board's words to guideline station is currently being rejected as (depending on individual readings of it) either redundant to or in contradiction with, the existing policies.

We are here at arbcom now because that discussion has been derailed by a small number of users engaging in (it is alleged here and on the evidence page) battleground behaviour, tendentious editing, and "I didn't hear that"-type behaviour. Thryduulf (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. WP:NOTCENSORED is commonly interpreted as ruling out any consideration of offensiveness in curatorial decisions. You link to Part 3 of the Harris' report to support the assertion that we do not discuss images in terms of offensiveness. The Harrises suggested leaving the problem of controversial religious images to the reader, rather than editor curation, but the Board delegated a working group of board members to study the Harris report and make recommendations to the Board. That working group expressly disagreed with the Harrises' suggestion and recommended including offensive religious images among the images that editors must pay particular attention to. The Board report reflected this, expressly. You'll notice I oppose the incorporation of the Board resolution into policy, at present, because I believe we need some clarification before meaningful discussion on some of the finer points can be had. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@Resolute: nonsense. I have said many, many times that offense is not much of an issue where there is a valid reason for it. The issue arises when we start offending the mores and standards of entire cultures for trivial reasons. You keep wanting to argue that there is no reason too trivial to apply NOTCENSORED to, and that's just an unsupportable perspective.

And hello! Did you really just say that it's intellectually dishonest not to argue against images aren't offensive to anyone? You might want to think that point through a bit…

@Thryduulf: it remains to be seen who that 'small number of users' derailing the conversation is. I'm pretty convinced it's your side of the debate, using ridiculous policy interpretations and overt hostility to stifle what ought to have been a straight-forward content discussion. We'll see. --Ludwigs2 06:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Who determines what is and is not "trivial"? Who chooses which "cultural mores and standards" we follow and which we don't? As there are many cultures with mutually incompatible beliefs and values we cannot, even if we wanted to, follow all of them. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That's the key point; we as Wikipedia editors make these decisions, and the decisions of the past have come squarely down on the side of the depictions being not trivial, not incidental, and entirely educational. Ludwigs, Jayen, et al, have raised the issue again, but the reception to their proposals has been, at best, lukewarm. Tarc (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course we can follow all of them. We are required to reflect all significant POVs in text in proportion to their prevalence, per NPOV, and we can do so in images too. Or at least we can accept the burden that policy places upon us in this regard, and do our best to get the POV balance right where images do have a clear POV charge. --JN466 15:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Jayen: This is something that could easily be handled by NPOV if you would drop the NOTCENSORED stick and allow the discussion to happen.

And Tarc: "a local agreement among a small number of editors is not a consensus," particularly when the editors in question go out of their way to make the talk page too hostile for rational discussion. Sorry. --Ludwigs2 16:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There has been a rather sizable number of editors who have weighed in on the matter over the years to retain the depictions, with the policy of WP:NOTCENSORED to bolster that argument. You have never made a persuasive argument to change that consensus. Applying the WMF resolution didn't work, labeling them non-educational didn't work, labeling them incidental didn't work, and the RfC at WT:NOT didn't work. Tarc (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Talking 'bout a resolution

Anthony, as I understand it, your position is we need to determine if any image we use in main space is "controversial." What are the parameters and rubrics for that determination? How is that determination made? Is such a determination anywhere embodied in any current policy? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's anywhere in policy. The need for clarification of this, as well as the meaning of "least astonishment" (see Wikipedia_talk:Follow_the_principle_of_least_astonishment) and clarification of how mandatory the resolution is, all lead me to oppose, for the present, attempts to shoehorn this incompletely understood resolution into policy. The discussion here, and hopefully among the arbs, is clarifying things considerably, and I'm hoping the findings and statements of principle that arise from the case will also add to our understanding.

The Harrises, who carried out the study into controversial content for the Board say this in Part One of their report.

Because language matters, it is for this reason that we prefer the term “controversial content” to “potentially-objectionable content.” Objectionable content is, obviously, content to which any individual user takes issue, for whatever reason. Far from lacking an objective test, the designation of objectionable to content is always immediately apparent. If I nominate it as such, it takes on that designation. Who can argue the assertion that I take offense at pictures of balloons (if I am phobic about them), or descriptions of the mating habits of mammals. No one. Allowing “objectionable”, or, even worse “potentially-objectionable” as a trigger to determine potential modifications to Wikimedia content is, in our mind, much too broad a definition whose adoption would be dangerous for the intellectual health of the projects.

“Controversial,” on the other had, to us, implies a social process, an acknowledgment that certain types of content (say, images of explicit sexuality) generally create a reaction among broad groups of individuals, each acting independently, and without ulterior motive, that gives us more confidence that we might consider these reactions legitimate and worthy of consideration. There are objective tests for the concept “controversial,” we believe, whose use can ensure the legitimacy of consideration by an open Wikimedia culture of potential modifications to that openness.

The Board resolution says:

Some kinds of content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature, may be offensive to some viewers; and some viewers may feel such content is disrespectful or inappropriate for themselves, their families or their students, while others may find it acceptable. "Controversial content" includes all of these categories.

So, it's offensive content of a sexual, violent or religious nature. And the Harrises refer to broad groups being affected, as well as objective tests for controversy. Your thoughts on this, and how it should or would apply to this case would be very welcome. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if it's not in current policy, it is my understanding, this is not the place to discuss it. I will note that the board resolution offers no guidance on line drawing with respect "some kind of content, particularly that of a sexual, violent, or religious nature." That could be because, they view no line drawing necessary or wise, or they just don't know how to do it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

They're leaving the line-drawing to us, as they should. We design the policy to implement their resolution - because we have to, and because it's the right thing to do. As for whether we should be discussing the implications of this resolution for this case here, we must. This is now a guiding principle for our behaviour here, so, whether en.Wiki policy has caught up with that principle yet, or not, the arbitration committee is morally bound, and legally bound by the terms of use, to take the resolution into account. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

All those quotes are saying that "Some kinds of content are controversial" and "Some kinds of content are offensive". So what? We know that, indeed we know that some people find images of Muhammed offensive and it's therefore controversial. I refer again to the Wikpedia:Content disclaimer: "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers." and the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored, "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.", "Wikipedia will not remove content because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations." and "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article.".
Our policy explicitly tells us that offensiveness is irrelevant. You can try and change that policy if you want (here is not the venue though), but the history at m:Controversial content/Timeline and the many archives of WT:NOT suggest that you will have hard time. Until policy is changed though, everybody needs to abide by it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right about that. So many people tell me WP:NOTCENSORED instructs us to ignore offensiveness, that it must be true. I'm not changing policy here, in fact, presently, I'm arguing against a proposal to incorporate part of this resolutiom into policy. What I'm doing is telling the arbitrators that, though en.Wiki policy hasn't caught up with the Board resolution, they are cognizant of it and are morally and legally obliged to take it into account. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thryduulf: That's absurd. The spirit of NOTCENSORED has always been that we don't remove useful encyclopedic content if it's needed to make a good article. It was never intended to suggest that all of our readers' preferences and mores are censorship which we must ignore, nor was it ever intended to suggest that we must use Wikipedia to combat things we think are censorship in the real world. You're coming off sounding like an evangelical secularist, someone dedicated to forcing people to confront things that are against their religious principles whether or not it is of any value to the encyclopedia. That's wrongheaded. "Wikipedia is not censored" only means that we are not obliged to remove things just because it offends to mores of some group; It does not mean that we must include such things, or even that we ought to include such things - those are editorial decisions that should be made according to the value of the material in question to the article. --Ludwigs2 16:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely we do not remove "useful encyclopaedic content" just because it offends someone. The evidence presented in this arbitration cases shows that there is a consensus that depictions of Muhammed are useful encyclopaedic content on the biography of Muhammed. My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you disagree with this consensus (i.e. you are saying the images are not encyclopaedic and so it doesn't matter if Wikipedia is not censored or not); that Jayen466 is saying that only a strict evaluation of the prevalence of images in reliable sources can determine whether something is encyclopaedic or not; and Anthonyhcole is of the opinion that it doesn't matter if something is encyclopaedic or not, if it offends significant groups of people then we shouldn't include it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

May I? Sorry for butting in. I can't speak for Ludwigs2, of course, but I think figurative depictions of Muhammad are very encyclopedic when they increase the readers' understanding of the topic. For instance, the section on European and Western views needs several images illustrating how the West has visualised Muhammad. The section on Islamic depictions of Muhammad should be as heavily illustrated as the section size permits. But some of the figurative depictions in other sections of the article add nothing at all to the readers' understanding of the topic of the section. The reader would be just as informed on the section topic if the image was gone, or replaced by a landscape or calligraphy. In this latter case, because the images are offensive to many of our readers, the polite and sensible thing to do is remove the images. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Thryduulf: I don't believe any such consensus exists, and I think your evidence to that effect is just so much hand-waving. And you apparently do not understand my perspective (or Jayen's, or Anthony's) at all. where do you get that stuff?

I'll explain my position yet again, and I'd ask you to read it carefully before responding so that I don't have to explain it an N+1th time in the future.

• I don't believe a real consensus exists about these images; I believe the group of you have chased off all opinions other than your own and claimed a false consensus.
• I don't believe there is anything wrong with these images in themselves, except that in the particular context of the Muhammad article they serve no explicit or necessary purpose, and they bug a significant subset of our readership.
• I do believe that NOTCENSORED is only intended to protect material that serves an explicit or necessary purpose on the article, and not as a tool to protect editors' right to bug our readership for some peripheral reason.

You keep repeating the fact that these images are "useful encyclopaedic content" but you refuse to explain what's useful about them. until you do, your repeated claims are just so many puffs of air. Now, hot air will let you blow up a lot of skirts on wikipedia, I'll grant you that, but eventually people are going to notice that it's nothing but hot air. You put us in the position of having to badger you endlessly to explain yourself (and then accuse us of being tendentious because of it); but seriously, when are you actually going to explain yourself? If you don't do it now, then you'd best just admit that you can't so we can get past this nonsense once and for all.

Anthony: agreed. --Ludwigs2 18:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ludwigs, what answer could ever satisfy such a question? How does one justify the usage of Washington Crossing the Delaware in dozens of articles? Honestly, you stray into Tolstoy-ish What Is Art? territory with this sort of demand. Tarc (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, it's easy to answer that question for anyone willing to use common sense. "Washington Crossing the Delaware" is innocuous and non-problematic: if someone wants to remove that image or change it with a different one no one will will really care; a few editors will discuss it for a few days and it will be resolved reasonably one way or another. With an obviously necessary image - like a penis image on the penis article - the value of the image is blatantly self-evident; we need to show some depiction of a penis otherwise we are not fulfilling out encyclopedic purpose. The problem with the Muhammad images is that they don't have the clear mandate of a penis on the penis article and they are not innocuous and non-problematic like the image of Washington. Common sense should dictate that we don't offend a large group of people without having that clear mandate to do so. In fact, this has been a discussion sticking-point all along: those on your side keep blurring the 'value' boundary that is self-evident to everyone else: Whatever value these images might have, there's nothing that mandates they be on the article, so using them should be a matter of discussion and editorial discretion, not something that invokes NOTCENSORED. --Ludwigs2 20:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

We'll set aside the "common sense" jab and note that what you're doing is erecting (pun unintended) a hurdle for "Muhammad" that "penis" and "Washington..." do not have. We have 3 articles for which images that otherwise satisfy WP:NFCC are available, but only the former gets an extra condition; your religious offense litmus test. For everything else, "is it an image of the subject?" and "are we free to use it?" are pretty much the extent of the dissensions. What this case has really been about all along is that creating an extra condition based on religious offense is a clear and literal violation of Wikipedia policy on image censorship. Everything else...the WMF, the incidentals, and on and on, is gravy. Tarc (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't a jab, that was a statement of fact. and of course you've missed the main point about the penis image, which is that it passes the 'litmus' of value vs. offense (it just happens to be offense against cultural mores rather than religious mores). so in fact, we have three distinct cases:

• A Washington image, which offends no one and is not mandated on any article (handled by consensus)
• Muhammad figurative images, which offends a significant group of people and are not mandated on the Muhammad article (and should probably be excluded because of that)
• A penis image, which offends a significant group of people but does have a clear mandate on the penis article (and should be retained for that).

You want to ignore the possibility of the second case - that a controversial image may not have a mandate to be on a particular article - because it's inconvenient to your argument. But your desire to ignore that case leads to all sorts of bizarre conclusions (putting NOTCENSORED in opposition to NPOV, creating avenues for visual POV-pushing, …). In short, you have to go to such extremes to keep the second case from rearing its contrarian head at you that you make a mockery of logic and ethics. --Ludwigs2 22:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I and many others believe that the depictions of Muhammad are mandated on the article, that's the thing. The controversy just does not matter. We're just covering old ground again here though, I'm sorry I got sucked into this tangent. Tarc (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, the resolution addresses this project, and it specifically applies to images that cause religious offense; do you think it applies to pictures of Muhammad? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Can I point everybody to this thread?

User_talk:Anthonyhcole#What_is_the_problem_with_controversial_image_use_on_Wikipedia.3F Feel free to edit or add to that thread, if you have a problem with present image use policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A discussion on your own talk page amongst editors who agree with you is not going to affect site-wide policy one bit, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a discussion, actually, it's just a succession of concise posts; people putting their view on the problem with our handling of offensive images. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)