Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 5

← Archive 4 |

Archive 5

| Archive 6 →

STATEMENTS

Further information: Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 2

Clarity

Further information: Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 3

Refining positions

Further information: Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 3

Image Criteria: Sandbox

Further information: Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 4

Status update

Hey everyone - sorry for the break in action but I have had some difficulty getting timely replies from some participants. I have touched base with Captainktainer and Irishpunktom again to see if they are still participating. If they are not, their proposals will be tabled unless someone else wants to take them over and defend them. Thanks --Ars Scriptor 14:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC) (formerly Aguerriero)

With respect to your diligence, I suggest that it might be unrealistic to expect protracted ongoing involvement from all the editors present. Irishpunktom in particular has blanked his user pages, perhaps indicating the intent to retire from Wikipedia. More generally, if matters are indeed to be decided through reasoned discussion rather than a head count, it shouldn't matter if someone is present, so long as they feel the points they would make are being adequately represented. Where this is the case, some might conclude their participation to be redundant (as it would be.)

I wonder if anyone has found the opportunity to review my investigation of the history of the profanity guideline, or has any thoughts to offer on how this might affect its rightful interpretation to this dispute.Proabivouac 07:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish to have good outcome of this mediation however, I am really happy with the current state of article. It does not have any picture of Muhammad since long time now. If we can keep that then I am verrrrry happy :). ---- ALM 15:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well that is really a result of the fact that people who would otherwise add it are waiting for mediation to finish. 16:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay I'm going to move on. Just for the record, I would not generally wait for a single participant unless it was the person who filed the case, but these two actually submitted proposals and then didn't hang around to defend/discuss/whatever. Anyway, they have had enough time. --Ars Scriptor 22:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:Profanity

We have several other major steps to take, such as running some "test cases" with our criteria, and indeed also coming to a consensus about whether and where images are included at all. I say this because there is at least one active participant (ALM Scientist) who holds the position that images of Muhammad should not be here at all, regardless of the criteria. All in due time.

First, per the valid points brought up by Proabivouac, I think we should discuss the manner in which we would interpret WP:Profanity which is in itself not well-maintained or very well-written. I am troubled by the statement, "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." When you think about it, this is sort of a no-brainer that applies to really anything here. remove the phrase "that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers" and you still have a true statement. So why are we calling this out in particular? In other words, if something doesn't add to the article, remove it. Whether or not it's offensive is a non-issue. Just something to chew on.

I think Proabivouac also brought up the point that this guideline was likely developed by editors trying to counter gratuitous images of genitalia in articles, and other similar problems.

I propose that someone take a crack at writing a concise statement that actually says what we are trying to say, without repeating other policies. It's already known that you don't add gratuitous, non-informative images to articles. It's already known that you don't add things just to antagonize people, which is just trolling. What else needs to be said? Maybe we want to agree that an image has to illustrate something covered in the article text? I don't, just brainstorming. I wish I could have everyone over for tea - this would get done a lot faster. Thoughts? --Ars Scriptor 22:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope Ars Scriptor that we are not counting numbers here. If only me remain against images of Muhammad not to be included in Muhammad article then still it will be possible to purse that cause. Otherwise I can find many people who are reverting the article (even today .) but not taking part in the mediation. Please remember, you said it is not about numbers but valid arguments. --- ALM 09:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

To add images merely to antagonize people would be, as you say, trolling, and a look through the article history shows this particular variety of trolling to be surprisingly rare, perhaps because most new or unregistered users don’t understand how images work. The only incidents I could find involved external links to archives of controversial images, and were quickly reverted.

It would be overly ambitious for us to attempt to define an algorithm to determining the encyclopedicity of images. However, a look at Jesus, Gautama Buddha, George Washington and a number of other biographies of very important figures allows us to identify a trend: there is typically a portrait at the top right, in which the figure is shown doing nothing in particular, according to the introductory nature of the section. Throughout the remainder of the article, images of all sorts (including but not limited to depictions of the subject) are associated with events or points discussed in the text (though not necessarily directly “illustrative” of them.)Proabivouac 06:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Question Are you using the term "encyclopedicity" to mean the same thing as "informative?" --BostonMA ^talk 12:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we define an encyclopedic image if it is made some hundred years after a person death? If I make a imaginary image of Muhammad today then how can it becomes related to Muhammad who died around 1400 years ago. See examples given by Proabivouac

1. Gautama Buddha 1st Century image
2. Jesus 6th certury image (NOTE: Muhammad was alive at 6th century. Why it is not possible to have Muhammad painting of that time?)
3. George Washington a realistic image, may be made during his life
4. Muhammad most of the image made are from 16th century(see Depictions_of_Muhammad) and oldest we found so far is 1315 (around 700 hundred years of Muhammad death). These are just art work and not related to Muhammad. How can they be so much encylopidic that a book written on Muhammad should have those images? or the wikipedia? Why they are related to Muhammad and how can it has any similarties with Muhammad real image? We have in our hands surviving biographies of Muhammad that are around 150 years old as compare to Muhammad death. (That 150 year old biography even quotes earlier biographies that do not survive). If those early biographies had painting of Muhammad in them then things might have been different. --- ALM 09:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The mediator notwithstanding, there is a difference between offensive images and non-offensive images. The first should be informative, the second need only add aesthetic value to the article. Putting an image in an article "because similar articles have images" is in my opinion adding an image for aesthetic reasons. That is OK if the image is not offensive. If we do not know what socrates looked like, but we put a picture in the socrates article that is labeled "socrates", well so what. A reader still doesn't know what Socrates looked like, but it may add aesthetic value to the encyclopedia. --BostonMA ^talk 12:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternative: (1) Why cannot we have pictures not showing Muhammad face? Example: Image:Muhammad_on_Mount_Hira.jpg (2) Why cannot we blank Muhammad (alter picture showing Muhammad) and keep rest of it there (full informative without showing Muhammad). (3) Why those who wish to see Muhammad cannot go to other articles listed below and see him? You can have link 10 times in bold at the top of Muhammad article for them. --- ALM 17:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It is okay to have an article for showing depictions of Muhammad because there is not enough room in the main article. But if you do it to avoid showing images in the Muhammad article then it is a POV fork. The convention would be to have few or one images of Muhammad with a link to the article showing more.

A branched article is not supposed to be used to prohibit content in the main article, but instead the main article should have a small sample of the subject, and a link to the main article.

As for your idea of including images of Muhammad, but without showing Muhammad, I don't get the point. I think a religeous taboo is being given undue weight with your ideas. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why there is only relgious taboos and not secular taboo or atheist taboo etc? --- ALM 18:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of a secular taboo being depicted because it is on topic: Breast. This is not singling out religion. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not secular, cultural. Nudist. Further, those are in fact a depiction of the subject. We still do not have any factual depictions of the subject of this mediation. --Striver 22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Put pictures on fuck and sex articles too. Today I have deleted THREE pictures of Muhammad from Muhammad article. You people say there should be no limit on the number of pictures so add all from depiction of Muhammad article and be happy. --- ALM 08:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't want there to be no limit. The idea of a specific numerical limit has been discarded, but we still want to limit based on encyclopedic standards. The purpose of this mediation is to end the constant reversion of the image that you speak of and stabilize the article. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." For me that is quite clear and Muhammad images are offensive for Muslims (beside no real image existance). Furthermore because they have no resemblance with Muhammad (just a work of art) hence there omission will NOT cause article to be less informative, relevant or accurate. Hence we should try to find alternative solutions which exist. --- ALM 11:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This the the point where we disagree, I think they are informative, and that not showing them gives undue weight to a religuous taboo. However, no sense in arguing back and forth, this issue will be settled later through mediation. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Showing them give too much wait to non-religious taboo? That is a useless taboo thing and I even do not want to discuss on that point. However, yes we can discuss on informative thing because that is a valid point of discussion. --- ALM 15:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal by BostonMA 23:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Depictions of Muhammad, if they are encyclopedic, relevant and informative in the context of the Muhammad article should be included in the article. Images of Muhammad which do not meet these criteria should not be included.
2. Informativeness may be tested by inquiring whether a short statement may be written which describes some of the facts that might be learned from the image.
3. The statements in the test described above should be relevant to Muhammad as an individual, and not merely to Islam or to artistic movements. For example, the mere fact that some Muslim artists may have created depictions of Muhammad is a fact which is only tangentially about Muhammad.

Disagree

• Disagree with point 3. It is standard practice to show an image of the subject of a biographical article doing nothing in particular. This seems to be an extra limitation for this subject only. The manner in which a person is depicted is very relavent to the article. See the Jesus article, these are all images made after his death by people who had never met him, depictions which vary over time, region and artist. I think that a person's influence in future art is not a tangental connection, but a very direct one. Points 1 and 2 are agreeable to me. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • BostonMA, can you address this concern? I don't think point 3 is saying that Muhammad must be doing something, only that something can be learned from the image and it's not just there for aesthetics. I'm not sure comparisons to the Jesus article are useful, because no Christian objects to images of Jesus; in fact, the more the merrier. --Ars Scriptor 18:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually many people find a depiction of a white Jesus offensive, other find an image of a black Jesus offensive, nobody really knows his color, but people are still offended, and the artists depictions are still relevant. As to if these people are Christian or not has little bearing.. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• I may have explained me objection poorly. I think the main point I was trying to make was that the manner in which future artists depict a person is directly relevant to the biography of the person, not tangentially connected. My reference to Jesus was showing how depictions of this person changed over time, thus providing information despite not being necessarily realistic portrayals. The fact that depictions of Jesus are non-controversial is not important because the point I am arguing is if the images are informative or not. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah ha. So they are informative, even though they don't tell you what Jesus looked like. They tell a story, they illustrate how those depictions changed when studied as a set. Why aren't they in their own article called Depictions of Jesus? More of a rhetorical question, really, but it gets me wondering about why Depictions of Muhammad was created. It seems to have started out as an article about the contention surrounding depictions, and gradually became a repository for depictions. --Ars Scriptor 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Just one problem... there are no Depictions of Muhammad, only art made by Muslims and non-Muslims, nothing that can be stated to be a factual depiction... --Striver 02:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that is a problem. If we decide that depictions of Muhammad should be informative in the context of the Muhammad article, but cannot find such images, then we leave them out. I think that is only a "problem" if one insists on including a depiction of Muhammad even if it is not informative.

There is another point to be made, which is that being informative is not necessarilty identical to being an accurate likeness. --BostonMA ^talk 13:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That could be said for anyone who lived before cameras. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No that is NOT true. Painting exist long time before cameras. We can say if people keep duplicating paintings then the depiction is not accurate. However, in this case we are not able to find any depiction so far which not more than 650-700 year old after Muhammad death date. Hence that is a different case. I think in case of other personalities you would be able to find much old depiction that relate much better to that personality. Should I give examples or I can save my time with above text?

We have in our hands surviving biographies of Muhammad that are around 150 years old as compare to Muhammad death. (That 150 year old biography even quotes earlier biographies that do not survive). If those early biographies had painting of Muhammad in them then your point will be making sence and will has been a valid point. But right now it is an invalid point. --- ALM 09:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Valid point. Regardless, an image not being an accurate likeness does not exclude it from being informative. If nobody knows what a person looks like then it is valid to know what people imagine him to look like. I also don't see how it could be more or less offensive because of this. Even fictional prophets are often portayed. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

While an image might inform us of how people imagined someone to look like, I don't believe that such an image is informative about the subject, but rather about how he may have been later imagined. --BostonMA ^talk 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

May be such an imaginary image is informative to some people but those people can see them on other articles like

1. Depictions of Muhammad article is espacially made for them. There is no other such articles for other prophets as well as I could know. Where is Depictions of Jesus and other prophets???
2. Siyer-i Nebi
3. Persian miniature
4. Aniconism in Islam

Those 700 year old images as compare to Muhammad death, have no real relationship or resemblance with Muhammad who existed in history in real. Keep at least on article real and historically true. Majority of books (I think all except 3/4 books) and encycolpedias are written without any picture of him. If you can name only sever books here that had pictures of Muhammad then I can quit this mediation otherwise help me not to include picture of Muhammad in Muhammad article. If wikipedia articles are like book and each article should be written like anthentic book then Muhammad article without picture is much closer to a good book (as we find in libraries) then with picture. --- ALM 16:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is good discussion, but I think it's more appropriate to when we discuss where and whether we include depictions. At this time I'd like to limit discussion to our interpretation of WP:Profanity. Striver and ALM, do you have any comments about BostonMA's interpretation? In other words, if you had to have a depiction of Muhammad in the article, how do you feel about these criteria being applied? --Ars Scriptor 17:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If there was a picture or painting of Muhammad from his era or maybe 30 years after him, then i would argue that it would be informative to the subject of the Muhammad article and i would support its inclusion there. But since we do not have any such picture or art, the whole suggestion is purely abstract, like "all people become blind, is the sun still yellow?" Its irrelevant. BostonMA's suggestion is valid, problem is that it does nothing practical whether we accept it or not, since there are no pictures that would be included by the scope of that suggestion. --Striver 20:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not care much that what kind of pictures you will include if you include them. It is because I know any reasonable person (most if not all of you are reasonable people) will not allow to use those cartoon abusive images in the article even if no Muslim take part here. I am only concern if you include picture at all or not. For me a so call informative picture is as bad/offensive as un-informative picture. ALM 17:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

ALM, just so I am clear, you contend that no informative depiction of Muhammad can exist? In other areas, you have indicated that an image might be acceptable to you if the face were concealed - why is that an exception? Are there other exceptions? --Ars Scriptor 18:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes! we can argue what is meant from informative exactly. However, my stand is as mentioned in following three points. 1) An image information will NOT increase by showing Muhammad (because the picture of Muhammad will have no resemblance with Muhammad what so ever). 2) An image if found informative itself then its informativeness will not decrease by blanking Muhammad (because of reason mention above in point 1). For example: if you think Image:Muhammad_2.jpg is very informative then by blanking/whitening Muhammad image will not decrease it information. You can keep the original image (without blanking Muhammad) in Depiction of Muhammad article. 3) You can say that an image is informative because it tells how someone had imagined Muhammad etc. May be you are right however then it has a place in Depiction of Muhammad but I do not understand how an image made 700-1000 years after Muhammad death before related to Muhammad himself? Put that art work in art of Muhammad or Depiction of Muhammad article as there it might be informative.

Furthermore, there are many images which do not show Muhammad for example Image:Miraj2.jpg. They are also NOT considered good by many Muslims (including me) and in an Islamic wikipedia they will not have any place. However, this is the compromise I can do because wikipedia is not an Islamic website. But you should also try to do some compromise (not only me has to do all the compromise), only then we can have a solution. Believe me some people will remove that image too Image:Miraj2.jpg (I had also removed it several times in past) but we can say it is a compromise we have reached in (non-Islamic) secular wikipedia. -- ALM 10:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What does everyone think of this kind of compromise, where a specific image is proposed and agreed to? This has happened on many other articles where there are hundreds of "elgible" images but only one would be included. ALM has offered that Image:Miraj2.jpg would be acceptable to him. --Ars Scriptor 13:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea, offensive material should either appear in its full form or not at all. You are talking about bowdlerization, and that damages the encyclopedic value of the article. I refer to my above statements that the artists depiction of Muhammad himself is informative. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all is even better and I will be very happy to accept that. Infact I will be jumping with joy with that. Artists depiction of Muhammad himself is informative (even if no resemblance). I disagree respectfully. It might be informative but not informative enough to keep in Muhammad article. --- ALM 15:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

ALM scientist I would like to ask, why should Muhammad be held to a different standard than any other wikipedia article? Muslim readers are free to, and presumably do, access all these articles, including Depictions of Muhammad, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon controversy, and others where images of Muhammad (for now) may be found. Is there a reason why Muhammad should display a particular sensitivity?Proabivouac 08:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have recently started visited Depictions of Muhammad article during this mediation to find pictures, however previously I used to visit Muhammad article almost daily many times and had never visited Depictions of Muhammad at all. If I wish to improve Muhammad article then I can work on it, without caring about Depictions of Muhammad, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon controversy article. I think so far I have visited Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon controversy only once while following Irishpunktom edit. If I do not want to see Muhammad picture and wish to work on Muhammad article then I can do it in case you guys accept a compromise. Otherwise, If you make all Islamic articles with such offensive things and pictures then I might not able to work on anyone of them. It just like there is porn on the web but you can decide not to see it. However, if someone place it on the University website then ... I hope you can understand my point and I really wish if you help us with compromise please. --- ALM 09:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

ALM scientist, can you be more specific? Why should Muhammad be held to a different standard than any other Wikipedia article? Is it only based upon what you personally visit, or is there a more general point about fundamentalist-minded editors being owed special deference on certain articles?

If so, granted that these include Muhammad, but not Depictions of Muhammad or Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon controversy, I ask what formula we should use to determine which articles should be thusly censored, and which should follow the more usual practice of complying with WP:NOT? Is it only Muhammad? If so (or if not), why?Proabivouac 09:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

To be, or not to be

Since the topic keeps coming up anyway, I think it's time to start a parallel discussion about whether depictions of Muhammad should be in the article, period. For the time being, please assume that any image would have to meet whatever criteria we agree to.

Compromise is going to be necessary here for mediation to succeed. For the purposes of this section discussion, I am mostly interested in offers of solutions and discussion of those offers. This is a big issue, bigger than most content disputes, and I have a feeling that each "side" is going to have to give a little in order to do the best thing for the encyclopedia.

I think we can brainstorm possible compromises. Things to think about:

• If an image is sourced, well-known (maybe by a notable artist?), and something can be learned from it, can it be in the article?
• Putting all images in Depictions of Muhammad: POV fork or no?
• What other examples of this situation can we find and how has it been handled?

Look forward to offers of solutions. --Ars Scriptor 18:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

HighInBC's take

I am interested in compromise, but not compromising the encyclopedic value of the article. I do think that having no images in the Muhammad article and all of them in the Depictions of Muhammad is the definition of a POV fork. The article Depictions of Muhammad is very valid because the content is to large to be in the originating article.

I think that multiple depictions are not needed on the Muhammad article. My idea of a compromise that does not damage the encyclopedic value of the article is a single depiction with a caption linking to the Depictions of Muhammad article is acceptable.

A biography without an image of the subject is a major departure from normal procedure, and I have not seen enough reason to make this departure. There are countless religions with countless ways of being offended, we cannot follow all their rules, and I do not see why this one should be treated differently. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• "A biography without an image of the subject is a major departure from normal procedure, and I have not seen enough reason to make this departure. " Wrong. 99.999% biographies on Muhammad are without pictures and all the major encyclopedia are without picture. There is no picture in Encarta, World Book Encyclopedia, Columbia Encyclopedia, or Britannica. You cannot find number of books that are published by good publisher and have biography of Muhammad with picture. I still say find seven such books that are published by good publishers and have biography with Muhammad picture. Then I will rethink my stance. Hence here is a new more true statement. "A biography WITH Muhammad image is a major departure from normal procedure, and I have not seen enough reason to make this departure." --- ALM 08:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand what I am saying. I was comparing it to other biographies on Wikipedia, not comparing Wikipedia's Muhammad article to similar articles in other encyclopedias. We don't set our standards based on what the other encyclopedia's do, you won't find alot of potentially offensive informative images in those encyclopedia's. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if people stop comparing things around. Muhammad cannot be compared with any other personality and was unique like all other people. Every person should be taken on individual bases. For example Jesus pictures can be found in churches around the word. Can you find any mosque with Muhammad picture? Then why people compare Jesus and Muhammad. It would be easy to find book with Jesus pictures and not with Muhammad pictures. Muhammad disallowed to picture himself. Did Jesus or anyone else said so?. Why it is difficult to take each one uniquely according to their own history. We can find 6th Century image of Jesus at that time Muhammad as a young person but had no picture of that time of Muhammad. The norm to write a book or an encyclopedia article on Muhammad is to write it without picture. Hence once again. "A biography WITH Muhammad image is a major departure from normal procedure, and I have not seen enough reason to make this departure."-- ALM 15:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

While you disagree with comparing Muhammad to other people, I disagree with comparing Wikipedia with other publications. I personally don't see how the choice of a mosque or a church to show or not show an image has any bearing on Wikipedia. They show or not show the images based on religeous reasons, but at Wikipedia we should be using academic reasoning. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Proabivouac's take

Much as I dislike it, if a compromise is to center upon the number of depictions, this number should be half those currently found on Jesus. That would represent a significant number of potential images which are foregone and censored, utterly contrary to core policy, to appease a handful of editors and the fundamentalist religious doctrines to which they ask we adhere.

Regardless of the number, one component of this outcome should be an announcement at the top of the article that the article has been thusly censored, with a short description of the reason why. This will alert readers that the article does not comply with Wikipedia's usual standards in this regard, and give notice to future editors, who otherwise might be expected to proceed according to general Wikipedia policies, to acquaint themselves with the article-specific policy before editting.Proabivouac 02:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I still think the most useful compromise will be to agree on criteria for including images without placing a specific limit on the number - but we are far, far away from that. --Ars Scriptor 04:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what do you think about HighinBC's compromise above? --Ars Scriptor 04:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My edit was originally a response to HighInBC’s statement, before he moved it into this new :section. If there is to be a rank compromise, the number should certainly not be one, but should be expressed as a fraction of what is currently found on Jesus.

HighInBC writes, "A biography without an image of the subject is a major departure from normal procedure, and I have not seen enough reason to make this departure. There are countless religions with countless ways of being offended, we cannot follow all their rules, and I do not see why this one should be treated differently." I wholeheartedly agree. However, "a single depiction with a caption linking to the Depictions of Muhammad article" 1) "is a major departure from normal procedure" 2) does treat this one differently. The same is true of any number we might set, besides those that might be applicable to articles generally. Even so, one image with a link to the "adult" section hardly qualifies as an acceptable compromise. Merely acknowledging these lines of argument as potentially valid to this endeavor, such that we would see fit to set any arbitrary limit at all, is already a huge concession. A limit of say, eight or ten, would be enough to prevent the WP:POINT violation of turning this article into a vehicle for the hypothetical (so it appears to be, barring diffs) Muhammad imagery trolling.Proabivouac 06:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that we should only have one depiction of Muhammad so as to avoid offending. My reasoning twofold:

1. The article has a wealth of other images that are on topic and not depictions.
2. An article exists with the majority of depictions in it already. In a major article it is common to only give a brief example of a topic while linking to it's main article. Depictions of Muhammad is a big subject with it's own article.

So this is more of a stylistic reasoning. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why Proabivouac ???

In Muhammad article you wish to have imaginary images with NO resemblance with Muhammad at all. However, in Quran article you removes real image of Quran [1]. I feel your act really strange. --- ALM 16:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Zora weighs in

I haven't edited the Muhammad article in a while (even though at a certain point I had written most of it) just because I couldn't keep my temper and my balance. Controversial topics on which many people have OPINIONS and few people have KNOWLEDGE seem to be the cesspits of Wikipedia. They're not functioning as articles, they're functioning as discussion fora and battlegrounds.

The article was fairly stable for a long time. There was a regular cast of editors and we had come to a number of compromises. One of them was that we would have ONE picture of Muhammad, the Persian miniature with his face veiled, and that the other pictures would be put up and discussed at length in Depictions of Muhammad. Which I started. It was my understanding at the time that this was an acceptable compromise to all. There was a picture, which satisfied the non-Muslims, and it was a non-offensive picture, which satisfied the Muslims. There were pictures galore at the breakout article, which discussed the whole issue at length.

However, since that period of balance we've had endless waves of new editors, many of them with agendas. The agendas seem to come in anti-Muslim and Muslim varieties. Either people want the article to say how BAD Muhammad was, and plaster it with pictures (take that, you Muslims, neener neener), or they want it to say how GOOD Muhammad was, and remove all pictures. There doesn't seem to be much of a middle ground.

Any compromise reached now, under mediation, will last about two microseconds, until the arrival of a new editor from the BAD or GOOD camp, who will refuse to recognize any previous compromises. This is all pointless, unless there is a structural change in Wikipedia. Either we need to make it harder to edit the heavily edited articles (perhaps people should have to earn the right to do so) or we need to adopt article-specific policies that, if infringed, would merit admin action. Zora 14:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, and we may very well be working toward that sort of compromise once again. As you pointed out, this is a very high-traffic article with lots of new editors coming in all the time. It was actually semi-protected for quite a while and it may have to go back to that again.

One interesting point is that you seem not to have any faith in the mediation process, which I respect. However, there are many admins who are willing to take action to prevent disruptions that go against a mediated consensus. I, for one, intend to stick around to make sure whatever we agree to is held in place. In other words, I have no problem blocking editors who disrupt an article against consensus. Does that assuage your concerns at all? --Ars Scriptor 14:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

About Zora: First of all let me introduce sister Zora. She is one of the person I respact a lot here in wikipedia. She has been here since long time and among 100 top wikipedians in term of contributions. In term of contribution in Islamic articles she might still be among top 5 (if not amoung top 3). I like her because she is a non-Muslim but tries to find compromises many times. I wish people like her to be an admin but those people have lot of enemies too. That is a dilemma of wikipedia.

A point: Anyway I had invited her because she was a major contributor of Muhammad article and the creator of Depiction of Muhammad. She know the history and reasons behind creation of Depiction of Muhammad when there is still no Depiction of Jesus, Depiction of Moses and depiction of almost any famous personality. Hence first important point is that: If this mediation fails to have offensive pictures (for Muslims) in Muhammad article then I will nominate Depiction of Muhammad for deletion. Because it is extremely bad that we keep those picture in their own specific articleS and also have a special Depiction of Muhammad article. Depiction of Muhammad was there as a compromise that Muhammad article will not have those pictures. However, I still hope that you cool people will help in meeting the compromise we lost there once again. --- ALM 15:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to Zora and ALM scientist

Contra Zora, I don’t believe anyone has done anything close to "plaster the article with pictures," and I am fairly certain that such a counterproductive trend would be opposed by all involved here. Perhaps there is a diff Zora might provide to illustrate such an attempt, which we can compare with the number of pictures on Jesus?

There is no reason to assume anyone’s goal is to taunt Muslims, and Zora's assumption of bad faith "(take that, you Muslims, neener neener)" is unwarranted. If few other biographies had images, perhaps we'd have something to consider, but as most do, editors who add appropriately topical images are simply improving the article in an orthodox manner.

At this point, it is unavoidable that some editors - including myself, and perhaps others present here - are further moved by the desire to counter religiously-motivated censorship, but this, too, is a worthy and entirely orthodox goal. Indeed, it is one of Wikipedia's core policies, and as such in theory cannot be abridged by any consensus in the way that Zora described, or as some have suggested here.

In this regard, the taboos of fundamentalist Islam ought be shown the same reflexive deference we are accustomed to showing those of fundamentalist Christianity. Similarly, we should expect Muslim editors to show the same level of respect and tolerance for secular practices - on any article - as we expect from adherents of other faiths.

It is untrue, as ALM scientist has repeatedly alleged, that there are no comparable articles for other major religious figures: Images of Jesus, Cultural depictions of Jesus, Buddhist art (nearly all depictions of Gautama Buddha), in addition to the copious imagery adorning the main articles. Depictions of Muhammad only distinguishes itself in that it is being presented as an excuse to censor the main article.

Zora's characterization of the circumstances surrounding the earlier version only underscores that the article has been in violation of WP:NOT for some time; it falls upon us, therefore, to remedy this.

If it is true that no solution proceeding from this mediation shall have any effect upon the medium-term disposition of the article, as Zora (perhaps accurately) alleges, then there is no reason not to arrive at a solution in agreement with core policy, as to compromise these will not solve the problem. On the other hand, if the result of this mediation is enforcable, it only makes the case for upholding Wikipedia’s core policies that much stronger.Proabivouac 01:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

PB, you explicitly admit to an agenda: countering religiously-motivated censorship. You argue censorship if the Muhammad article doesn't have as many pictures as the Jesus article. Huh? Censorship means suppressing knowledge. What knowledge is contained in the pictures various editors keep trying to insert? It's not knowledge about Muhammad, since none of the pictures is anything like a realistic depiction of the guy. The pictures tell us something about how Muslims have depicted or not depicted Muhammad. They're relevant to a history of Islamic art, or discussions of Muslim beliefs re pictorial art, but they aren't particularly relevant to Muhammad, the subject of the article. I agree that pictures make an article visually appealing and easier to read, but I don't think that such a goal justifies offending a large number of encyclopedia readers.

Why engage in provocation if it's just as easy, and intellectually honest, to mention that there's a controversy and then treat it in a separate article? When I was still heavily involved in the Muhammad article, that was the general strategy for ALL disputes: mention them and then go into details in a breakout article, where there is room to present all positions in detail. When WP tries to cover disputes in a main article where there is limited space, editorial infighting escalates -- there is so much riding on each single word. Where there's room for every side to lay out its arguments thoroughly, hostility drops.

I'm just as concerned as anyone else to fight religious censorship. PB, you weren't here when we had a nasty, long-running fight at the Quran article over one picture showing a woman in a sleeveless top looking at a page from a giant Qur'an. One Muslim took offense at this picture; it was disrespectful to the Qur'an to show an immodest woman looking at it. I was one of the strongest supporters of a woman's "right to bare arms." I've also spend countless hours restoring material that has been deleted by what I think of as "delete-and-run Muslims" from anonIPs -- including the infamous Danish cartoons when the cartoon controversy was at its height. However, I don't see the point in knowingly pissing people off and then screaming "censorship" when they react as you expected they would. That's a 1960s radical tactic, isn't it? Bound on stage to disrupt a graduation ceremony and then, when the rent-a-cops come to drag you off, scream, "Now you see the violence inherent in the system!" I think the applicable WP policy is "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point." Let's not. Zora 07:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I shall respond to the points you've raised in due time, but for now I would like to ask again what diffs you might provide to support your assertion that any editors have attempted to "plaster the article with pictures."Proabivouac 08:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to respond to "which we can compare with the number of pictures on Jesus?". I think this is one problem. The Jesus article should have more images than the Muhammad one. Is this because we're censoring it for Muslims? No, it's because we're trying to represent the man and his legacy--which depictions are relatively much less important to than Christianity. If the Jesus and Muhammad articles had the same amount of paintings in them something would be seriously wrong. I think the main representation of him should be his name in calligraphy with saw next to it as is most commonly done. It's a representation of tradition. If this Muslim iconoclasm was completely revisionist then I'd disagree--but it's not, it has been a major theme all along and it must be preserved to represent history. There are the exceptions and they should be proportionally represented. There is nothing wrong with a Persian miniature somewhere in the mix. As a comparison I completely disagree with the solution for Bahá'u'lláh. Firstly, his image should not be under external links breaking all stylistic normality we have here. It also is a _realy_ representation of him so it should be in the upper right since there is no predominant alternative representation of Bahá'u'lláh (such as calligraphy) as far as I know. I don't think this is about inflaming Muslims; Wikipedia is not censored. It is about proper representation of venerated historical figures. We should not replicate certain styles of representation throwing off how the personality has traditionally been represented. gren グレン 11:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

One problem with this calligraphy is that most English-speakers can't read it. I accept that there is some value in it, but it's not appropriate to fill an article with foreign-language material, even when as is very often the case most iterations of an individual's name are in a foreign script.

It is a representation of Muhammad only in the trivial sense that it is when we write "Muhammad." That an artistic tradition had arisen around the way his name was written is informative to some degree, but also distortive in that this is a component of Islamic calligraphy in general, not a devotional act in its own right. Perhaps that article could benefit from a subsection on the writing of the name, "Muhammad," which currently isn't even mentioned.

Even considering the vast number of visual depictions of Jesus, the written word "Jesus" is far and away more common, while calligraphy and, in the age of print, font design are arts in their own right. It is only for this single issue that we are asked to assume that visual depictions and the writing of words are somehow variants of the same phenomenon, or substitutes for one another. While it's arguable that the development of Islamic calligraphy was somehow fueled by aniconistic beliefs - though it's not necessary, as calligraphy was also developed and elaborated in other regions such as the west and the far east, as noted - it is doubtful that aniconistically-minded writers of the word "Muhammad" considered that they were depicting him; else it would have likewise been prohibited.

In sum, the number of calligraphic representations of the word "Muhammad" is a seperate issue from that of depictions of Muhammad. They are only in competition with one another, and with any other images, should the article become cluttered with too many.Proabivouac 06:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"As a comparison I completely disagree with the solution for Bahá'u'lláh. Firstly, his image should not be under external links breaking all stylistic normality we have here. It also is a _realy_ representation of him so it should be in the upper right since there is no predominant alternative representation of Bahá'u'lláh (such as calligraphy) as far as I know."

I entirely agree with Grenavitar on this matter, and if one outcome of this mediation is that we will make this obvious improvement to Bahá'u'lláh, this would be a very good thing.Proabivouac 08:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Question from Striver

Please answer only "agree" or "disagree", keeping comments to a very minimum in this section, and do not answer back on other peoples comments:

Do you agree or disagree with the assertion that there are no factual depictions of Muhammad, only artist pictures created long after his death, pictures whose accuracy can not be verified, nor have any consensus on its accuracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Striver (talk • contribs)

• Agree --Striver 03:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Agree --Zora 04:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Agree --- ALM 08:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree - Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree Photo accurate no, but people must have had an oral tradition to base the images off of, and how a person is seen by history is informative. Oh, and I don't think limiting this to agree or disagree helps discussion at all, this is not a polar issue. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Agree --BostonMA ^talk 13:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree. It is unfortunate that some would turn all discussions into polls.Proabivouac 00:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

About Striver's question

You didn't want comments there--so, I will make it here. That is not the point. There are no factual depictions of Jesus--but they are extremely relevant. There are rich traditions of Orthodox iconography, Catholic paintings (and then there grew different more distinctively Protestant art). Sculptures. Anti-clerical tendencies in newer art. I am not an expert but how Jesus has been depicted has been incredibly important despite its lack of historical basis in the person of Jesus. They are important because they represent perceptions of Jesus which created certain religious realities. Your poll is obviously meant to have implications for this meditation--but, I don't think this logic should have any bearing. gren グレン 10:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agree HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Agree: People who lived 1400 years ago didnt have digital cameras. The artist's depictions are all we have for visual information about Islam from that time. These paintings are wonderful, famous and add extra information and dimensions to the article. This is as "factual" as you can get for someone who lived 1400 years ago.--Matt57 05:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Agree.Proabivouac 11:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree. I think that Striver's question has great bearing on the topic. The situation with Jesus images is very different. Jesus is commonly depicted with European features, even though we do not have knowledge of his actual appearance. The image of Jesus with dark skin is informative in the sense that it helps to remind readers that we don't know what Jesus looked like, and that dark skin is one possibility that accepted by some very early artists. --BostonMA ^talk 13:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

BostonMA weighs in

The central purpose of mediation is to help resolve disputes. As Zora points out, compromises that we reach here will only last until new editors become involved in the article. It is for this reason that I am skeptical that a compromise will be at all useful if it does not include a sound statement of the reasons for the compromise.

User:Proabivouac has suggested an:

"announcement at the top of the article that the article has been thusly censored".

I could not disagree more. Announcements such as these, as well as edit summaries describing the removal of images as "reverting censorship", or talk page comments describing agreements on the contents of article as "yielding to Islamic <fill in the blank>", are inherently inflammatory. If a consensus reached in this mediation will last only until new editors arrive, such language invites such new editors to become involved and attempt to overturn the decisions reached. In my opinion, a compromise which does not settle the question of censorship, yielding, and the like, is a compromise which will not provide a satisfactory settlement. If we can show with sound reasoning why the article should be one way or another, if we can point to policies and guidelines as the support for our decision, then we will be able to provide new editors some insight as to why they should not overturn our compromise. If we don't provide these new editors with appropriate insights, but instead present them with a compromise that seems arbitrary, a compromise that is described as censorship, or yielding to Islamic influence etc, then our compromise will have little value.

Although an attempt to reach a compromise at this point may seem the fastest way to resolve the conflict, I believe that spending more time clarifying the guidelines, will more than pay for itself in terms of conflict resolution.

Regarding HighinBC's comments regarding depictions of Jesus with dark skin. Yes it is true that some people are offended at depictions of Jesus as black. However, in my opinion, there is something very informative about a depiction of Jesus with dark skin. Although we do not know what Jesus looked like, it is extremely common for Jesus to be depicted with very pale skin. An ancient depiction of Jesus with dark skin helps to inform its viewers that we don't know what Jesus looked like, not even the tone of his skin. (Of course if all of Wikipedia's depictions of Jesus were of a dark skinned person, we would be guilty of misrepresenting in the opposite direction.) --BostonMA ^talk 16:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Matt57's opinion

I wanted to put in my own thoughts on the matter of images of Muhammad. Images bring in extra information to an article, no matter how old the images are or whether they are 100% accurate or not. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia of information and THAT should be its first and foremost goal. Anything that harms the achieving of this goal should not be entertained to any extent. For this reason, it is immaterial if a group of people (Muslims) find images on some articles offensive. The question that should be asked is: Do the images add extra information to an article? YES they do. HENCE they should be included. I'm surprised that administrators or mediators are even entertaining a debate on this matter. Again, the priority is make sure that NOTHING gets in the way of information. This is what an Encyclopedia means. This issue must be resolved for not only this article, but all related articles in which Muslims are opposed to have images displayed. I'm sorry if they find the images offensive, but this, is an Encyclopedia of information. What if I form a group and I find the display of the Wikipedia logo offensive? Are we going to have a debate to take that off the website as well? No we're not. Please people, think sane. --Matt57 21:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Matt57, you write:

"Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia of information and THAT should be its first and foremost goal."

I agree completely. Then you write:

"The question that should be asked is: Do the images add extra information to an article? YES they do."

Although you answer your own question, you don't explain what information these pictures provide, and whether that information belongs in this article rather than in another article. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If the article is about Muhammed, ofcourse its ok to give pictures of Muhammad there. Its relevant. As for what information we get from these pictures, the answer is - the SAME information we get from any other picture, e.g.:[2]. This is a popular Orthodox Christianity image. What information does it give? Is it accurate? For issues 1400 and 2000 years ago, the accuracy is not required to be perfect. What information does the Wikipedia logo give? Do we really have to have it there? --Matt57 22:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The image you mention [3] is almost certainly not an accurate likeness of Jesus, and although it provides us useful information about Orthodox Christain art, it doesn't provide us information about Jesus per se. Why might such an image be included in the Jesus article? In part, it may have nothing to do with information but it may well add to the aesthetic value of the article. When you write "the accuracy is not required to be perfect", it seems you are shifting your argument. Previously, I think you correctly stated that the central purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information. But the image of Jesus, just like the image of Muhammad, is not just not a "perfect" likeness. Rather, of the image of Jesus is no more likely to be an accurate image of Jesus than of millions of other people chosen randomly. Similarly for Muhammad. In the Maome image, for all I know, some of the individuals in the crowd might look more like Muhammad than the person standing on the platform, and any given baby picture might be a more accurate likeness of Jesus than [4]. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 23:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

BostonMA, do you not think your position should already be clear to anyone who has taken the time to read this discussion? There is no need to saturate every thread and confront every participant with the same talking point.Proabivouac 01:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

BostonMA, I ask you again: Why do we have the Wikipedia logo here? What information does it give that cannot be expressed in words? You can argue to get rid of the logo in the same way, right? If accuracy of historic information is the question, that applies to every historic old image. That doesnt mean we get rid of all historic images simply because they're not 100% accurate or 100% relevant. Those images are the only ones we have for things 2000 annd 1400 years ago, thats why we use them. Why do you think the proverb exists "A picture is better than a 1000 words" ? The plain reason that you dont want to mention is that Muslims find the images of Muhammad offensive. This is the only reason why they're arguing against the use of the images. I have explained above why this should not be entertained. You are a member of "Wikipedians against censorship". You admit that the image of Muhammad contains SOME information and so by wanting to remove the image, you are censoring SOME information.--Matt57 06:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Some tentative thoughts, subject to revision

Anyone who wants to can fork the existing content of Wikipedia and remove whatever he finds offensive. In spite of this, I have seen quite a few instances of people removing pictures of Muhammad repeatedly, against consensus, after warning, and persisting until blocked. That kind of approach is not one I would want to encourage by rewarding it. We offend some by including pictures of Muhammad. We offend others by removing images because of religious beliefs. It would be nice if accommodating aggressively expressed demands would lead to satisfaction, but my experience says it is more likely to lead to further demands. This is a bad thing whether or not similar accommodation is extended to others by the editors asking for it themselves. Any suppression of information has to be balanced by the good it does. Basing on religion any decision on page content has a big downside and no real upside. The only legitimate reason I can see for not having pictures of Muhammad in Muhammad's biography is that a consensus of editors on the page thinks we should not have them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish to ask two questions from you. 1) You said those who delete picture earn ban. Then why those who add new pictures do not earn ban? Do not you think it is against neutrality that I can add any picture to the article but if someone removes it then you will ban him? 2) You said once in Muhammad talk page long time ago (if I remember it correctly) that the single picture available in the article is also very disputed and we have added it as a compromise and left other in Depiction of Muhammad. Why now you are changing you position in the above mention post? --- ALM 09:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

My initial reasoning was that images of Muhammad were likely to offend our Muslim readers and editors. I thought, and said on the talk page, that images should only be included if they were sufficiently informative to balance that offense. Since we have no more idea what Muhammad really looked like than what Homer looked like, I opposed including them in the main article, but supported keeping them in Depictions of Muhammad where they are of course the main topic. This seemed to me a reasonable accommodation.

I have since begun to wonder if this was as reasonable a position as I thought. Would I extend this accommodation further to Muslims, or to any other group? I would not. I am not much devoted to precedent. Central policy is contrary to the whole point of a wiki. If we want to remove stuff that offends Muslims, but keep stuff that offends Christians, we can do that. But should we? Based on what I expect will happen, and on simple justice, we should not.

Anyone who causes disruption by edit warring is subject to block. If someone repeatedly adds a picture of Muhammad against consensus, they can be blocked. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm confused. What is the consensus?--Sefringle 21:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Our mediator left prior to complete resolution of this issue. Although some interest in continuing the mediation have been expressed by some editors, I think there is a period of internal processiong going on. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 21:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow's Opinion

My opinion basically coincide's with Tom Harrison's here. Right above, he's said that "My initial reasoning was that images of Muhammad were likely to offend our Muslim readers and editors. I thought, and said on the talk page, that images should only be included if they were sufficiently informative to balance that offense."

I agree completely. Many people here seem to be taking a rigidly ideological position that the possibility of people taking offense at something should not influence the inclusion of information in Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form. That is simply misguided. Wikipedia is an intrinsically practical, not a political, entity. If we are doing something that needlessly interferes with the dissemination of accurate and relevant information to the largest number of people possible, we are doing the project a disservice.

Specifically, I believe the inclusion of a picture of Muhammad near the top of the Muhammad article violates this simple test of balance. It goes without saying that such a prominent display of an image is likely to cause offense to a large percentage of Muslims. For many, this article will be their first experience with Wikipedia (along with Islam). Once they see that picture, and then discover that contrary to the picture's prominence in the article the history of lifelike depictions of Muhammad is in fact of minor historical importance, many will concluded that it was placed there specifically for a political reason, and will form a negative impression of the encyclopdia. - Merzbow 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Some questions for Merzbow:

• "If we are doing something that needlessly interferes with the dissemination of accurate and relevant information to the largest number of people possible, we are doing the project a disservice."

How would you envision this happening? Is there any evidence that this is occurring, or is in danger of occurring?

• "...many will concluded that it was placed there specifically for a political reason, and will form a negative impression of the encyclopedia."

Isn't it also possible that some would see the conspicuous absence of images as political - as it would be - and form a negative impression of the encyclopedia?

Proabivouac 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a few articles, of all kinds, without any pictures, and I don't think readers will conclude that this is due to some deep-laid political plot. I read a great many books without pictures and I don't feel that they're censored. The concern is misplaced. Zora 00:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you assume that if an article about Muhammad were accompanied by depiction(s) - for example, if an article about the march on Mecca were accompanied by a depiction of Muhammad and his men marching upon Mecca - that this was "due to some deep-laid political plot"?Proabivouac 00:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To point 1: I think it's a reasonable inference. Do you disagree that a majority of Muslims are offended by visual depictions of Muhammad? Again, if you were a Christian and logged into Wikipedia for the first time to browse the Jesus article, and saw Piss Christ on the first page, almost certainly your first impression of the encyclopedia would be negative.

To point 2: No, people would not see the absence of such images at the top of Muhammad as political, since the aniconist tradition in relation to Muhammad is far stronger than the visual tradition. And the tradition of depictions of Muhammad as a whole is of far less importance than what Muhammad did, which constitutes the vast majority of the article. There is a short sub-topic later on in the article specifically about depictions of Muhammad, with a picture. If there is no historical reason why this topic has to bleed into more prominent areas of the article, plus it offends lots of people, then why do it? - Merzbow 01:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The images will not offend ALL Muslim readers and editors. There are Muslims who are not offended like that, e.g. moderate Muslims or those who are not that conservative. There is a whole spectrum of Muslims. And yes, these images are informative, like any other historical image. Is the Wikipedia logo informative? Its the same thing. --Matt57 06:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"I think it's a reasonable inference [that we are needlessly interfering with the dissemination of accurate and relevant information]."

In the absence of any evidence, this doesn't merit being called an "inference," but only a creative guess: Joe Muslim logs onto Wikipedia, sees a depiction of Muhammad and leaves, never to return, thus depriving him of the purported benefits of proceeding to Criticism of Islam, Depictions of Muhammad and other "controversial" articles.[5] (never mind that, by arranging facts into a zero-sum argument, Criticism only invites readers to pick a side).

Are there any known examples of would be readers or editors who left Wikipedia due to the psychic trauma supposedly inflicted by these images?

Even so, as Matt57 pointed out on Talk:Muhammad, those hypothetical readers/editors are probably not likely to contribute productively to our discussions here, or to appreciate the articles you’ve suggested we are lulling them into reading through this initial demonstation of deference on Muhammad.

"Do you disagree that a majority of Muslims are offended by visual depictions of Muhammad?"

Yes, I disagree. We know that images are prohibited under some modern interpretations of Sunni doctrine (some of which prohibit images of all humans), and that some Muslims have chosen to internalize this. We don’t know that a majority of Muslims are offended by these depictions. Religious doctrines are at best inherited from the consensus of prior generations, and don't claim to represent the popular will, while the self-appointment of religious conservatives as the spokesmen of their respective flocks does not indicate that their statements enjoy broad support.

For example, it is sometimes said that most Muslims are offended by the sight of unveiled women, but is this really the case? Informal observations show that this "offense" is often mixed with a good deal of fascination, if not dropped entirely in favor of downright appreciation. Is it really a mercy to spare "Muslims" as a bloc, as defined by their leaders, from these disgusting sights? Were we a porn site, I should say we were discriminating against Muslims by denying them equal access, not respecting them. Of course this is not a porn site, but the point stands: we do any given demographic no favors by deferring to their self-appointed censors, and that applies to text as well as images.

Some of this may also reflect the widespread misrepresentation of reactions to the Jyllands Posten Muhammad cartoon controversy; it was often unhelpfully said that “Islam prohibits depictions of Muhammad,” when this was hardly the point. [6][7][8]. One close Muslim friend expressed anger that this was recast as being about "blasphemy," which makes (in his telling) Muslims look like superstitious fools, rather than about prejudice and stereotypes, and their real-world effects. It may well be that most Muslims are neither as fundamentalist nor as mindlessly reflexive as you are assuming them to be.

What I see here is not the anger of all the world’s Muslims, but that of a handful of conservative editors plus a few sympathizers who have, in their sympathy, taken the formers' claims to represent the personal attitudes of over one billion people at face value: in the absence of very strong evidence to this effect, I do not.

Let us instead keep it grounded in the verifiable: this is a mediation between editors to Wikipedia, not a poll of global religious sentiments. Even were such a poll to show that a majority of a minority demographic opposes Wikipedia’s censorship policies, it would not follow that we should compromise them here, and we are far from establishing even that.Proabivouac 06:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Muslims on this site are a collection of liberals, moderates, and conservatives, but the fact that not a single one is on your side here (that I can tell), not merely a "handful of conservatives" as you claim, is strong evidence that offense will be taken by most Muslims over the placement of that picture.

But even if I hold you to your desire to not make this a poll of global religious sentiment but a discussion merely on the grounds of relevance, this picture still loses out. It seems clear that the aniconic tradition is far stronger than the visual tradition in Islamic art. Now, the article currently has two visual depictions and only one aniconic calligraphy image. This is giving undue weight to the visual tradition. So therefore the article will be improved by replacing one of the visuals with another calligraphic, correct? - Merzbow 07:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Per my reply to Grenavitar above,[9] calligraphic treament of Arabic words is neither a substitute for, not a natural competitor to, representational depictions. Where images are illustrating different events in Muhammad's life, it is especially silly to "replace" them with the mere word, "Muhammad." Even so, there is not one but at least three images of Arabic script renderings of the word "Muhammad", including the one in the Shahada on the flag of Saudi Arabia (if there is any image whose value we should question, it is this one) and the one hanging from the ceiling of the Hagia Sophia (what other reason would there be to include this image?) Whether the image of the sign above the revelations cave or of the Kufic-script Qur'an contain the word "Muhammad", I cannot say.Proabivouac 07:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So what do you propose as a compromise? I've put out several possibilities - stick to faceless depictions, move the picture elsewhere in the article, replace with an aniconic, etc. If you think there is no compromise to be met, then why post here in a mediation case? - Merzbow 08:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I proposed one above - to formally limit the number of personal representational depictions to half the number found on Jesus (or Buddhist art) - but received no feedback. Instead of holding out for a policy-based approach which might give one side or another everything it wants, it might benefit us to stop maneuvering - it is obvious that we are at deadlock - and start discussing ways to split the difference. But a single miniature faceless already censored depiction is unlikely to do it. On most biographical articles there is no religiously imposed limit on images of their subjects (typically without blanked faces). Any compromise worthy of the title must include at least some of these. To me, the current total of two - one with a blanked face - reflects ongoing censorship, and is utterly inadequate.Proabivouac 08:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not a 'compromise' to limit the article to half the number of visual depictions found in Jesus, because due to reasons of historical accuracy we SHOULD be giving much less weight to visual depictions of Muhammad in Muhammad than to visual depictions of Jesus in Jesus. The Islamic visual depiction tradition is far weaker than the Christian visual depiction tradition (isolated periods of Christian iconoclasm being the exceptions that prove the rule). The fact that there isn't a single mosque today that contains a visual image of Muhammad (that I know if) is an obvious indication of this. This being the historical starting point, without reference to any religous sensibilities, a compromise would mean going further than that. - Merzbow 23:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, I might agree that there should be somewhat fewer depictions of Muhammad than on Jesus, albeit for different reasons. Your argument includes the strange assumption that the failure to create a depiction somehow counts as a "negative depiction," such that, if there are proportionally two periods of aniconism to every one in which depictions are not prohibited, we are to then show only a third the number of depictions as we otherwise would, these aniconistic periods being "represented," as it were, by the images which do not appear.

If there were one thousand years in which no one cared enough about Alexander the Great (to pick a random example) to depict him, or even were his image expressly prohibited, we don’t then reduce our number of depictions to account for this era, or to reflect their indifference, in the service of "historical accuracy." Our goals would instead be met by stating in the article that there were periods in which this is the case.

The absurdities resulting from a broader application of such logic only remind us of the reason this mediation exists to begin with: we are not really trying to reflect historical periods of aniconism, which by nature cannot be visually reflected (even by empty space) but respect them as an ad-hoc stand-in for the aniconic religious convictions of some editors to the article.

It is indeed a novel end-run around WP:NOT to say, there is a historical tradition of censoring these images in Muslim countries, so that by censoring them today, we are somehow "giving information" about these periods as a component of our encyclopedic mission. Where there has been at times a regime of censorship, we are not obliged to reflect it, in any measure, by following it ourselves.

That something may not exist in mosques is irrelevant - you will also find many things which aren't likely heard in mosques, and this article is not Depiction of Muhammad in Mosques - in which, to my knowledge they were always prohibited (?), you'd have a good candidate for AfD. Applied to this article it is a non sequitur, except insofar as it is once again a stand-in for the religiously-based objections which lie at the core of this mediation.Proabivouac 09:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Applying the modern concept of "censorship" backwards in time here is not correct. I wholly doubt that Muslim artists in the year 900 or whatever were chomping at the bit to paint Muhammad's face if only those nasty mullahs would stop peeking through the door. Our job in this article is to accurately reflect a historical tradition and not pass judgment on it by over-representing elements of that tradition that we think would have been more prevalent without repression. (And to call it repression is also a historical misnomer, since there are substantial religious grounds in Islam to justify the reluctance to visually depict Muhammad; unless you believe that these artists were mostly closet rebels, they certainly were doing this of their own accord because of their beliefs). - Merzbow 18:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that has a lot to do with whether or not our biography of Muhammad should include a picture. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures are part of the article just as text is. They should not over or underrepresent any particular aspect of the subject Muhammad. - Merzbow 20:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone would dispute this principle. For example, were there three depictions of Isra and Mi'raj, this would grossly overrepresent the coverage of these events in text, and their importance to the biography.Proabivouac 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me address the statement that there are currently two images in question. There were three before Funnypop12 deleted them all, but only two were reverted. I reverted the third a few minutes ago, but Merzbow deleted it again. Can we agree to leave things as they were before Funnypop12 entered this latest edit war? Frotz661 08:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Judging from a random selection of article revisions over the past 6 months, far more often than not the article had 2, 1, or 0 images instead of 3 images. The status quote ante is at most 2 images, in my opinion. And there are a large number of established editors in the edit history removing one of more of these images, not just FunnyPop. - Merzbow 18:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Short absence

I will be taking a short Wikibreak and will not be monitoring this page during that time. Please continue to discuss WP:Profanity and image inclusion under the appropriate sections. I'd like to see some more compromise offers and responding to each others' concerns. See you when I get back. --Ars Scriptor 21:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You user page says that you are retired? Are you coming back or not? --- ALM 09:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I get the feeling this moderator is not coming back, we need another one as this topic needs moderation(in my firm opinion). HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I was told that this moderator left due to real-world threats.Proabivouac 08:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Declaration of intent by HighInBC

I have decided to not participate in this discussion until an active mediator can be found. This is not due to anything said or done by anyone else. Nor is it a retraction of any point I have made. I simply believe that further discussion without moderation will be unproductive. Please notify me when this discussion regains moderation. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have the same feeling about things here. --- ALM 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Nonprof. Frinkus 06:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message at RfM asking how we should proceed.Proabivouac 07:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've agreed to the case, but I'm a new mediator, so I might need to ask someone else to help too. I'll read through the non-archived parts, so I'll know what the case is about, as well as what the problems are. I'll come back on Monday, and will notify everyone (incase you haven't seen this post). | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)