Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 February 2012/Muhammad-images

Where is the dispute?
The dispute is happening on Talk:Muhammad/Images

Who is involved?

 * User:Eraserhead1
 * User:Johnbod
 * User:ASCIIn2Bme
 * User:FormerIP
 * User:Alanscottwalker
 * User:Jayen466
 * User:Elonka

What is the dispute?
The dispute overall is about which and how many depictions of Muhammad to include in the article.

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?
We have discussed the matter extensively at Talk:Muhammad/images and have taken the dispute to the Arbitration committee.

The RFC itself has been discussed here and here.

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute
As per remedy 1 of the arbitration committee decision we need to hold an RFC to gain a community consensus about which images to include in the article.

What can we do to help resolve this issue?
As per remedy 9 of the arbitration case we have been asked to take a step back from the dispute and therefore there is an unwillingness to draft the RFC ourselves - it seems sensible to get some help with the drafting.

Mediator notes

 * The archive can be found here.

I will refactor some of the discussion tomorrow, as it's getting pretty chaotic. I'll be thinking on this through the night. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's time to consider applying the discretionary sanctions within this mediation. The personal attacks, or the semblances thereof, as well as the revert wars on the RfC is making it difficult to mediate with effectiveness. I'll be getting another mediator on board, as well. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Mockup
OK, here is a mockup of content-related questions based on the above discussion. It is not meant to be comprehensive, just my pick of the suggestions that I think work as potentially decisive closed questions. Please don't enter responses to the questions, it is just a mockup, but please enter comments about the questions in the spaces provided. Please add further questions as you see fit. FormerIP (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't forget we also need people to [|"explain their decision clearly"] so we should include a comment on the questions about explainations. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he was putting to the side for the moment the intro. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm imagining that there will be an intro highlighting the ArbCom decision, the need for votes to be explained and the existence of discretionary sanctions, but I'm just concentrating here on the content questions. --FormerIP (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to see a full mockup, that includes intro, questions, and diffs to the sandbox versions. If it's lengthy, maybe put it all on a subpage? --Elonka 16:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the questions in light of some of the comments. --FormerIP (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

General comment
Just to stress that the five questions I have put forward are not intended to cover the content issues comprehensively, and editors are invited to add extra questions. --FormerIP (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Question 1
{{quotation| The following hatnote should be added to the article Muhammad:


 * This article includes depictions of the prophet Muhammad. If you would like to view the article without any images, click here for instructions.

Discussion
}}

Comments on question 1

 * This means all images, yes? Should be clarified. Otherwise ok. Johnbod (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is the only question we can ask as technically all we can do is hide all the images, however if we have the ability to hide only the depictions I think that would be more suitable in the long run and the RFC shouldn't prevent that change being made later. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. --FormerIP (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see this question as necessary. --Elonka 23:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would also like to call for an option to "click here to do so".  Why make them jump through techy hoop beyond their abilities?  The moment their computer knows their intention, their monitor should instantly change to reflect their preference.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, but I'm not sure it is something were are technically able to do. --FormerIP (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is feasible with literally the tiniest imaginable bit of dev help. it's just one line of code:  javascript:(function{var imgs=document.getElementsByTagName("img");for(var i=0;i<imgs.length;i++)imgs[i].style.visibility="hidden"}) --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that code that could simply be placed into the hatnote, or would it need a behind the scenes change? --FormerIP (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We can't just place it STRAIGHT into wikitext because of our existing security measures to prevent maliciousness. But I wouldn't call it 'behind the scenes' either, it's still a simple copy and paste job.  But there are just good reasons we don't want "just anyone" to be able to alter that part of our website. --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I feel like the phrase "depictions of the prophet Muhammad" is going to be unnecessarily contentious. Some people will object to the specificity-- a priori telling our readers which images are objectionable. Others are going to object to the term "prophet Muhammad" being used" instead of merely Muhammad. And of course, some will object we don't add PBUH. These seem like 'avoidable errors' in a quest for consensus, but I admit, I don't have a good alternative phrase in my mind. --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, they are only really avoidable if you can. But I'm all ears.
 * In terms of the javascript thingy, do you know what would the process be for being able to do it. Can it just be done? Would it need a village pump consensus? Or what? --FormerIP (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just my opinion, but I hope and expect that any consensus coming out of this RFC would be more than sufficient to get a desinger/developer to make this simple change. In the extreme, if given permission from the proper authorities, I could implement it myself (though  I'm not looking for that role-- the  real experts will do it better of course).   This issue important enough that I believe if we achieve a community consensus here, it will happen.  That's a big if. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So yes, this is pretty easy to implement.  I now have such a feature, and so can you! See it at User:HectorMoffet/OfferToHideImages.js (or try it out by adding  "importScript('User:HectorMoffet/OfferToHideImages.js');" to your User:USERNAME/common.js page.   It adds a "click to hide all images" message to the top of a page.  You can set it to do that for all pages, or just a few you list yourself.    It would likely need lots of polish, but yes, it's definitely technically feasible.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gone and created User:Eraserhead1/HideImages.js which shows a popup on page load (although you could easily use a button on the page like Hector's version) and which hides the first depiction (I've wrapped it in a div with a given class). This is pretty simple and to be honest its a better solution than the css - even if you have to add it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Updated my script to hide the first depictions completely without user interaction. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Would there be any possibility of getting working demos of these? FormerIP (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You can test it right now, FormerIP. Go to User:FormerIP/common.js and create a page with the contents "importScript('User:HectorMoffet/OfferToHideImages.js');", then save the page.   Go to Muhammad and you'll see it.   Let me know if there's trouble.
 * Obviously, it's only this much work because it's a demo-- if we got consensus to use this on the page, you wouldn't have to alter your own user files in weird ways. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Question 2
{{quotation| The infobox for the article Muhammad could feature: a depiction of Muhammad without a veil (for example only, a cropped version of ); a depiction of Muhammad wearing a veil (for example only, a cropped version of ); an image of Muhammad's name in Arabic (for example only, ); an image of a location associated with Muhammad (for example only, ); no image. Which would you prefer?

Discussion
}}

Comments on question 2
Suggest, something like this? "Longtime consensus has used an image of Muhammad's name in Arabic (for example only, ) in the infobox for the article Muhammad. It could also feature: a depiction of Muhammad without a veil (for example only, a cropped version of ); a depiction of Muhammad wearing a veil (for example only, a cropped version of ); another type of image, like his tomb; or no image. Which would you prefer?" Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can get into emphasising long-term consensus, because there has been a long standing dispute. The fact that images haven't quite been removed and replaced every three seconds, I think, speaks more about the patience of editors than the existence of a consensus. Besides, which, why does consensus apply particularly to this image and not to every image in the article (i.e. why are we not proposing that everything should stay exactly as it is)? --FormerIP (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe it's just me but ever since I got into this debate about the radical change proposal of November, I have wondered why editors seemed so quick to think that the editors who came before them, were either motivated by malice, or unthinking cretins. I mean, perhaps that kind of analysis would work on an article no one ever looked at before, but this is an article that a lot of people have worked on. And I don't see much, if any, evidence for casting aspersions on, or casting aside, the work of the prior editors.  I think of it as an extension of assuming good faith, and of our regular process of gradual improvement through incremental editing. That being said there are now probabely a few too many images, of any kind, in some places (although it is much better in the last week).  But, I am unaware of a longstanding dispute over the infobox image, at least not one that ever threatened general consensus on it, but I will take your word for it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"Which would you prefer to see in the infobox for the article Muhammad: A) a figurative depiction of Muhammad without a veil (for example only, a cropped version of ); B) a figurative depiction of Muhammad wearing a veil (for example only, a cropped version of ); C) an image of the name Muhammad in Arabic calligraphy (for example only, ); D) something else; E) no image?"
 * Would prefer copyedited to:
 * It's easier if the choices are labelled. Johnbod (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Although, perhaps reverse the choices and include "other, like his tomb" as second from last Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Version of that now done. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to this wording, as I don't think it gives enough context. --Elonka 23:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically agree with Elonka. This RFC needs to be an essay question, not just a short answer, and this question doesn't encourage editors to show their work (or even show that they have any reasoning beyond "this picture is prettier than that one").&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * An essay question? Will the closers not all then need to be high school teachers? --FormerIP (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All you have to do is add "and why" at the end to turn it into an essay question. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

On the content page, there is no point b). Why? --Rosenkohl (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Question 3
{{quotation| Putting the issue of the inofbox to one side, where in the article itself do you think the first use of a depiction of Muhammad should occur?

Discussion
}}

Comments on question 3

 * Thanks. This seems like a really odd editorial question to ask. I don't get counting words.  I might suggest if we went something like this way that it be phrased: "Assuming there is a relevant illustration that includes a figurative depiction of Muhammad, (see generally, Links to Commons categories) what is the first section of the article, where it should be placed, if at all?" Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think either wordcount or 1st section, 2nd section etc would work for this question, so OK. --FormerIP (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably less confusing to ask how many screens down should an image be placed. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that depend on the equipment? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but not anymore than the wordcount does. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes and the problem with both those is they're anti-editorial judgment, in that the emphasis for consideration should be placed on context. Do we want editors to place any image, at all, just because its after n word or n screen? I do see one potential for miscommunication here, you're not going to have more than one image in the lede area (or 1st screen?), and it's going to be (or not) in the infobox Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I sort of see where you are coming from Alan and I'd agree without hesitation were it not for the fact that the result of all this is supposed to be binding. We need to actively avoid coming up with a result that is subject to editorial judgement or dependent on context - the risk then is editors entering into a new dispute over the context. So, speaking only for myself, yes I do want a result that tells us precisely where the image should be placed, in terms of wordcount, screens or whatever it happens to be. --FormerIP (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see, that's why I think the 'by section' compromise you agreed with, above, is a good one. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, specify sections is best. Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update 1) Does it make sense to have a choice for the lead that is different from the infobox? 2) Can we refer to the sections by name? 3) How are we dealing with subsequent pictures (if any)? Also, A, B, C, D, as in Johns comment above? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess there's a potential for confusion given the tension between this and the infobox question. Maybe the first two options should be combined into "Within the lead or the first section of the body"(?).
 * My worry about referring to the sections by name would be that it leaves a loophole for the dispute to continue ("fair enough, the RfC said the image should be in section x, its just that I believe that section x should be in a completely different place - here are my policy-based reasons..."). Also, I'm not sure the structure of the article is particularly great, so a side-effect of the RfC shouldn't be to nail it down so that it can't be improved for three years.
 * I've put letters on the options. FormerIP (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, at least the structure of the article is a good editorial debate to have especially if you don't think it is good, (I think it's fine) in the meantime, the article will be illustrated, and the image part done. In your scenario the later debate then becomes, "we can't move the picture with the section because of the RfC"  which would be a sorry debate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying. But this is supposed to be a binding RfC "on where the images will be placed within the article". That's bound to restrict future editorial decisions about moving the images. If we design it so that it doesn't, then we have not done what has been asked, IMO.
 * Incidentally, note that stipulating the location in terms of screens or words would give greater flexibility in this regard. Provided there was good justification, it would allow images to be moved to a limited extent from one section to another without offending against the RfC decision. FormerIP (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I like this. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see this question as necessary. --Elonka 23:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So, just knowing the discussion, it's going to be a lot easier to reach consensus over what the "best" artistic depiction is: calligraphy or portrait.  Lots of people accept the status quo of "calligraphy as best".  But the functionally equivalent statement "No images of Muhammad in the lede" probably wouldn't work. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Upon reflection, I don't know that question is the best way to get at the basic of issue. The basic issue is: "What sort of image belongs in the lede/top/first screenful"? --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is the basic issue, because it is possible that we may decide to put no image in the first screen. --FormerIP (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Question 3b
{{quotation| Which class of image is best suited for the top of the article? (or the "first screen" of the article)

Discussion
}}

Comments on question 3b
Thanks for the suggestion but shouldn't this be 2b or 2 (alternate)? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It could be called 2b, 2 (alt), 3b ,or 3(alt), or even 4b?. Please put it in the final draft wherever it best belongs.
 * If we ALL know that "infobox = top of the page, forever", this is a indeed a reworded Q2.
 * But people may not know that "infobox = top". In the future, maybe infobox won't be at the top anymore. It's easy to understand the importance of "Top of the page".
 * The wording of "infobox-vs-lede-vs-body" is confusing. "Top vs Not-Top" is simple.   --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This question also clarifies "prominence" in just in terms of placement, rather than placement + number.  see below. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that if people don't know that infobox means top we should say that, however, it's most unlikely that infobox won't mean top in the next three years, since that's been how it's done and there's been no challenge to that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand where this question. But, per my comment above, it it not ignoring the fairly important issue of whether there will or won't be a depiction of M in the infobox. I don't think that's a question we can leave open. --FormerIP (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool and cool. :)  Infobox = Top means the question I added was redundant.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Question 4
{{quotation| Should the image referred to in question 3 show Muhammad veiled or unveiled?

Discussion
}}

Comments on question 4

 * A bit odd & too specific. Questions we might usefully ask include:
 * Should only figurative representations of Muhammad with a veiled face be used?
 * Should figurative representations of Muhammad with a veiled face be given preference over unveiled ones?

Johnbod (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My reason for including this question is that I think question 3 is of crucial importance (I think it's the real nub of the dispute, although others may express their disagreement if they wish), but resolving the question of where the first depiction should be without also resolving the question of what type it should be would likely lead to further wrangling.
 * Maybe you could propose your questions below? --FormerIP (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think the reword will help honestly. Veiled pictures are no better than unveiled if you look at all the single IPs taking offense (it says remove all pictures not just the full face ones.)  I tend to like slightly more open questions as it gives people more options to make good points. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine but I would prefer the intro clause, I suggested for question three "Assuming a relevant image exists" and then we don't have to repeat it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We know that relevant images do exist, though, don't we? Or am I misunderstanding the point? --FormerIP (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Again it's a context issue. Muhammad riding Buraq might be relevant somewhere just not everywhere. So, a veiled image (for example) would not be made clearly relevant, just because its veiled. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, and that's partly the reason why the question above repeatedly says "for example only". But we have to address the core of the dispute. My approach is to trust that once we've done that, we will be able to make appropriate image choices unencumbered by bickering. But if we were to instead to take the approach of swerving the core of the dispute and instead saying "we'll have such-and-such a type of image, but only under certain conditions", we will be going to all this trouble in order to kick-start a dispute about the conditions. --FormerIP (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What will you do with !votes that say "It depends on what's relevant"? Or even the even more ambiguous "neither, it depends on what's relevant"? (are they saying neither because they want no image, or are they saying, they can't say because it depends on what's relevant) Also, thanks again for taking the lead here, its can be hard.Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would be up to the closer(s) how they weigh those types of votes. I think it's hard to avoid the eventuality that some users will vote "none of the above", whatever question you are asking. --FormerIP (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a massive fan of this question. Fundamentally I think it constrains your illustration a lot (as you have to make a specific type of illustration appear first - even if that's annoying in terms of structure) but doesn't really gain anything useful. Arbcom seems to want us to make an editorial decision on this, and I think this hinders that.

John's questions seem much better. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Too specific a question, not necessary. --Elonka 23:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Question 5
{{quotation| As well as containing depictions of Muhammad, the article could contain images of the name "Muhammad" in Arabic calligraphy. Which do you think should be given greater prominence?

Discussion
}}

Comments on question 5
Fine. But this may benefit from some of the word-smithing Johnbod suggested for 4. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How about: "As well as containing figurative depictions of Muhammad, the article could contain images of the name Muhammad in Arabic calligraphy. Which do you think should be given greater prominence? " But is it either/or? "Prominence" by quantity or by placement?  At the moment the calligraphy (some small) & figurative images are about equal in numbers, but the calligraphy is more priominent for the first few screens. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I have made your suggested wording change.
 * I think prominence should be taken as involving both number and placement of images. I there's a clear view that we need to distinguish those two things, then I guess that would suggest having two separate questions, one which says "in terms of the number of images" and one which says "in terms of the placement of images within the article". --FormerIP (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've Boldly added a third option, rough balance. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Too specific a question, not necessary. --Elonka 23:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Showing up as the eternal good faith nit-picker, I'll say it's dangerous to draw a hard line between "depictions" and "calligraphy". Easier to say that they are ALL images, and calligraphy image has a good claim to be at the top. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

FormerIP makes a great point about positioning vs numbering. Very important to clarify "prominence"-- so a new question about "top placement" has been added. --HectorMoffet (talk)

Questions 6 and 7
I added them to the draft RfC, and was reverted. Could someone please explain why? --Elonka 23:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because no consensus for them had been established here.
 * Elonka, I don't consider the comments made in these edits to represent a good faith attempt to engage with the discussion, and I'm asking you to strike them. --FormerIP (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No. And please stop referring to my actions as "not in good faith" or "disruptive". It is not helpful to the discussion. Further, I'm not seeing any explanation as to why my proposed questions are a bad idea. --Elonka 16:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not create them as proposals here? --FormerIP (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Question 8
"How many figurative images of Muhammad would it be appropriate to use in the Muhammad article? "

The question is very poorly phrased, the article has calligraphic writing of the word Muhammad. This question makes no distinction between calligraphy and portraiture. Penyulap  ☏  16:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The RFC is now well underway, & the show has moved on from here, but "figurative" means images showing the human form. none of the historic figurative images are well described as "portraits", and this was not their function. Muhammad is shown as one figure of several in a narrative image showing an incident from his life. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comment, I guess somewhere between here and there the extra questions came along, your explanation would be lovely in the rfc itself, I know I appreciate it, however others will go without. That is my primary concern, because I do think people are unaware of the difference here. The language is very poor and ambiguous. Yes, you can tell me (actually I do personally know, but it is not clear) but other people will be unable to discern a difference here. Penyulap  ☏  17:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Question 9
Q: Should the number of images that people decide upon in the previous question be enforced, or should it be freely overridden by the normal consensus of editors during article development?

This also needs to be split into two questions, one for enforcement or not about calligraphy, and one for the images of the guy. I don't much care, but some editors may be quite upset over this unnecessary confusion. Penyulap  ☏  17:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Life Question
Proposal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments on Life Question

 * This seems like a reasonable question to me. Only comment I would make is that people might read it as an either/or question, whereas I'm assuming it is meant to be a yes/no question. FormerIP (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Better? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

INTRODUCTION
Here's a place to have a focused discussion on word smithing the intro. I have tried to combine major points from above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

DISCUSSION of this Intro:
Looks good to me personally. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this looks like what we want.--FormerIP (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but I think the manual of style [for images] should be (EDIT: explicitly and separately - I got confused) listed, and the policies and guidelines should be separated out. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope, I reflected what you're looking for in the revised version above.Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretty good intro, and I like that we're including a space for sandbox diffs. The diff to the "Ice Age Art" title is a bit confusing though, could we move that page to a different title? Also, could we add the years of Muhammad's life to that page? It would help give more context to the discussion. --Elonka 18:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that I've seen that the Ice Age page is quoting private correspondence, I am withdrawing my support. That entire page should probably be deleted. --Elonka 04:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's my understanding that that correspondance was for this debate. It would be obviously wrong to include it without asking permission, so it seems unlikely that permission wasn't given. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good Alan. I agree about the Ice Age Art thing. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, anyone please do that. It was only ever meant to be a temporary home. I'd make it a sub-page of Talk:Muhammad maybe. Johnbod (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We should also move all the "versions." I made another one here .  Also, I doubt we can present any versions with the copyvio infobox image, since doing so is itself copyvio and against policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked the discussion, and it's not a copyvio, it's just something that someone has accused of being a copyvio, without proof. --Elonka 18:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked at that discussion on Commons, just now, in which you have participated, although you don't really analyze the evidence. At any rate, it's still under a cloud.[]--Alanscottwalker(talk) 20:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)]
 * It's clearly a copyvio. It incorporates a copyrighted image from a stock image site, and there is no evidence of permission.  (It's the same as if someone had uploaded an image from istockphoto.)  In addition, the stock image site explicitly does not permit commercial reuse, even if you buy a license. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It has now been deleted from commons as copyvio (see link above), so we cannot use it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll go ahead and update my diff. --Elonka 16:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

ReDo
Elonka rewrote the intro this way, I slightly modified for word usage and format. Elonka, I would ask you to discuss these things here first, so everyone knows what is going on:

Discuss this intro:
More TL/DR but fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see that it makes much difference. I would go with whichever one has the lower wordcount. I do, though, think it is disruptive to be making changes to the RfC page without seeking consensus. --FormerIP (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been participating on this page from the beginning, though perhaps not as often as some others here. Please don't accuse me of being disruptive just because I'm making a change you disagree with. --Elonka 22:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we please not edit war at the RfC? Seeking consensus means that we all get a say in the wording, not that whoever gets there first plants a flag, declares "consensus" and then reverts any other changes. --Elonka 22:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Elonka, if you discuss the changes you want to make here to see if other editors agree with them, then there will be no need to revert you. I've asked Xavexgoem if he will mediate on this issue. --FormerIP (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm been discussing here from the beginning. And yes, I'd be happy to have a mediator here. To be clear though, I cannot participate in this discussion as often as some of the others here. But we should still be seeking consensus, not "majority wins", not "whoever posts more, wins", nor "whoever is quicker on the revert button, wins." Or in other words, please stop reverting. If you don't like wording, feel free to change it, try to come up with a compromise. Don't just delete things wholesale. -Elonka 22:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are understanding, Elonka. Everything that was placed on the RfC draft page was previously on this page for discussion for a number of days. If you weren't around to contribute to those discussions then that can't be helped. But it is not too late to add your comments now. I think it makes sense that RfC page should only be edited in line with consensus. --FormerIP (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding was that this "mockup" wording was your personal idea, and had neither less nor more weight than anyone else's ideas. I did suggest wording in my own section above, and am concerned that now when I am trying to include that wording, I'm being subjected to personal attacks and accusations of being disruptive?? Please forgive me if these Muhammad discussions are tl;dr to follow every detail. I just don't have time to follow things minute by minute, but I do expect that my suggestions will be given the same amount of weight as everyone else's. Please don't discard my ideas just because I'm not posting as often as everyone else. --Elonka 23:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I didn't wholesale anything. Wording was discussed for a longtime and a lot of people commented.  Including you.  We were'nt editing each others words though, that was never done. People discussed it first. So, its natural, that would seem disruptive.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 48 hours is not enough time to declare consensus and then label anyone who disagrees as disruptive. It's a perfectly valid system to create an RfC and then allow multiple editors to work on it to try and craft a consensus version. But when a couple editors create a page, and then start reverting and name-calling someone else who tries to change it, that's a problem. We're supposed to be working together here. --Elonka 23:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what your talking about declaring consensus, and obviously a lot of people have been working together just fine. So, no. we have not been changing each others words and its obviously not a good way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * From another point of view, here's what happened: FormerIP suggested mockup wording late last week. It was discussed primarily by two editors, FormerIP and Alanscottwalker, over the course of the weekend. Monday morning, FormerIP declares "consensus", creates the draft RfC, then Alanscottwalker and FormerIP work together on the wording, and revert anyone else's changes to it, claiming it's "against consensus" or "changing their words". Sorry, but that's just not going to work. Consensus means we all get a say, not just two editors who tend to be posting here more than anyone else. So please stop with the ownership of the page, and instead, let's all work together to find wording that we all can live with. --Elonka 17:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * From another point of view. Alanscottwalker didn't edit anything except formating issues.  Elonka puts in contentious and mendacious material, and starts a needless brouhaha. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Discuss the intro, not each other, please. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

How long? (its been suggested two weeks):

 * I don't think it has been fully decided whether we are going to have one RfC or two (I would prefer one), which might influence this. I wouldn't object to two weeks, but 30 days is standard for an RfC. I would expect that if we deviate from this we will get a distracting sub-discussion about it in the RfC. --FormerIP (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree on one. But how about an RfC, about the length of the RfC. :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is one RFC and we get it done by the 5th for posting that would be enough time to get the admins to determine stuff and then go ahead and render the final decision. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea. How long should we keep the first RfC open for? --FormerIP (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say 30 days, as that's standard. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats fine by me, the timeline is whatever people want to make it. Do we need to drop a note to ArbCom if it looks like it will go over their timeline? Tivanir2 (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say 2 RFCs (with the possibility of more, though no one wants that), & I agree there will be complaints if it last less than 30 days.Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the 30 days, where is that standard stated? I note over at AN that a busy RfC at Genesis Creation Narrative was closed in one week also that discussion suggests we should line up three admins before we start. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:RfC. It's not actually a requirement, but I think for some editors it is an expectation. In the recent WP:V RfC, there was a hoo-ha because it was initially closed earlier. --FormerIP (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No minimums, so I would ask, all, if there is any substantive response to the mediator's observations, here ? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would rather not line up the admins in advance - I don't think it buys you anything, but I don't care very much at all. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has asked the community to "hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad, and on where the images will be placed within the article." I don't see how you can decide in advance how long it will take for a definitive consensus to form. There is no point in wasting everybody's time with this if you're going to cut discussion off at an arbitrary point in time. Let it run until a clear definitive consensus has emerged - whether that takes two weeks or two months. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say a minimum of one month for the RfC, longer if there is still active discussion by multiple uninvolved parties. --Elonka 05:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Location (own page?)

 * Should be under RfC in the AN/I board correct? Tivanir2 (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say a Muhammad subpage, but under WP:RFC would be OK for me. I'm not sure where exactly is correct. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's own sub-page of talk at the article makes some sense. Is that proper? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They did something similar for the abortion debate on pro-life pro-choice so I figure it should be ok. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Requests for comment/Muhammad images. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice (where?)

 * At a minimum the muhammad talk page muhammad images. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The wider the merrier. --FormerIP (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed but I only know a couple of places to post it, so if anyone has any ideas on where to post it by all means. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Did Arbcom specifically ask for a wider audience? If so WP:CENT. Otherwise the Village pump and the various relevant wiki projects would be a good place to start.
 * Mentioning it in the article itself could also be worthwhile, but there is a risk of canvassing meaning we have to discount IP/new editors which means I'm not so sure about that. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In the article itself??? --FormerIP (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, with a banner - see Template:Movenotice, Template:Split etc. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think a watchlist notice, like the present one for the binding community discussion on the Abortion article names, would be appropriate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but maybe we could refine the process a little by not posting the notice until there is an actual RfC to comment on... --FormerIP (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The wider the merrier x2.  This is a 'foundational' issue for Wikimedia-- use almost every notification tool at hand-- anything short of spamming the email list, at least :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Draft RfC
Requests_for_comment/Muhammad_images.

I do think we need some more questions, though. For example, there is no question yet about how many depictions is appropriate. And I notice from the images talkpage that the American statue vs the Russian painting is still a live issue - maybe this could be a question too. --FormerIP (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I should probably add that what I had in mind is for questions to gain consensus here before being transferred to the draft, and that I think policy-related questions, if they belong at all, belong in a separate RfC. --FormerIP (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the best way to achieve consensus here, is to make tweaks to the wording until we're all happy with things. What I'm seeing now though is that when I'm making changes, they're just getting reverted. This is not going to be a good way to achieve consensus. --Elonka 22:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In case you have not noticed we have not been BRD'ing each others proposals. At any rate, after revert comes discuss in that scenario, anyway, and I did not wholesale revert anything. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As soon as it turned into an actual Wikipedia-space RfC page, it got out of the realm of a personal proposal, to "something we're all working on". So again, let's please not revert, let's try changing the wording to something we're all happy with. --Elonka 23:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not edited anyone's personal comments. I am, however, going to continue editing the RfC page. We all should. Not reverting, but in trying to change wording until we find something that we are all happy with. The RfC does not belong to any one editor. --Elonka 23:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Discuss your proposals here first just like everyone else above. We've all been working on this for weeks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that you and FormerIP are allowed to change the RfC page, but I am not, because if I do, I'm "changing someone's personal comments"? Sorry, that's not going to work. What we may wish to do though, is move the current RfC page into someone's userspace. That would make it more clear that this is one editor's (or one group of editors') personal project, and doesn't make it look like they're pushing through an official RfC without letting other editors weigh in. --Elonka 00:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on March 2, I've been wanting to see a full mockup of the page, not this piecemeal stuff. If you guys can keep up with an incredibly long and detailed discussion on every single sentence, with dozens of posts per day, good for you, but I, however, cannot. With the time that I have available, and the way my brain works, I like to see a draft page. Then we can all work on the draft to see if we can circle in on wording that we agree on. One person makes a change, then if someone else doesn't like it, they can change the wording to something that they like better. If they see something they don't really care about one way or the other, they can ignore it. Eventually we'll get to a stable page that way, and we'll have a working RfC that reflects our consensus, and that we can then present to the community. --Elonka 00:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever, your issue is about how you work, it needs to be discussed first. You're working with all of us. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * An "us and them" mentality is not helpful here. --Elonka 00:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Discuss below, not here. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Indirect portrayal, etc
"No images were attempted until centuries after his death, and those images were rare, and usually portrayed him indirectly, such as veiled, or as a flame, though a few images used an unveiled face. In modern Islam, Muhammad is usually represented only with calligraphic text" is clearly a point of contention. Is it the wording? Is it the notion? I ask all editors to please refrain from editing the RfC until this matter is resolved, aside from minor copyedits, lest it give the appearance of steamrolling. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does this come from? It is certainly contentious. If we want to make statements of this sort, we should use the Gruber-approved propositions here (see above). Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. It should be discussed first. As for the contention, it is unknown and probably untrue that no one did anything for centuries.  Absence of evidence.  It would be an extraordinary claim, to know what they did or didn't do in those times, and need extraordinary evidence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The earliest surviving images of Muhammad are from centuries after his death. If anyone can provide anything earlier, I'd very much like to see proof. In any case, something of this nature should be stated as part of the RfC, because it's directly relevant. There are no contemporary images of Muhammad to be used in an article infobox. There's nothing even close. This needs to be made clear as part of the RfC. If someone wants to word the statement differently though, that's fine. --Elonka 00:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The factoral layout that Johnbod made is in the introduction; the dispute is and has been if and how it's relevant to illustrating a wikipedia article; so, I don't think we will get an agreement on that, if we had than we probably would not be here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The statements inserted by Elonka are not correct. We can't possibly know when the first images of Mohammed were attempted. Regardless, all questions should be neutrally worded and should not begin with a preamble pushing one side of the argument or the other. Users will have the opportunity to do that when they vote, if we ever reach that stage. --FormerIP (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "There are no pictures of him from his lifetime, and the first surviving depiction of him is from the 13th century. Historically, he has been depicted as a flame, with a veiled face, without a veiled face, and most commonly as calligraphy." Is this correct background? Xavexgoem (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The calligraphy part is disputed as to whether that is a depiction of him or his name. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Least commonly as calligraphy, assuming that the idea of representing someone as calligraphy makes sense in the first place. But, may I repeat, none of the questions should begin with a preamble pushing one side of the argument or the other. There are probably no people born in the Arab world in the 7th century of whom we have a surviving contemporary portrait. It's irrelevant. --FormerIP (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm asking whether it is a statement of fact, semantics aside. Is there a better wording than "depiction"? Xavexgoem (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have seen no evidence of Mohammad ever being depicted as calligraphy. In modern religious contexts, he is simply not depicted at all. There are a small number of historic artworks (and quite a large number of modern Internet avatars and so on) that consist of Mohammed's name, but these cannot be called depictions, not is there any better word I can think of which might be used to artificially blur the distinction between "depiction" and "name".
 * None of the questions should begin with a preamble pushing one side of the argument or the other. --FormerIP (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Images relating to Muhammad have included, depictions of him as a flame, or a man (veiled or unveiled), his name in Arabic calligraphy, and pictures of various places in Arabia and the mideast, and of the Islamic world." Would be factual. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Would this be construed as pushing a particular side? Xavexgoem (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think some version of what Alan proposes may be suitable for the introductory section, but not as an elbow-nudge within any particular question. My concern, though, would be about being clear that the various options are not simply interchangable.
 * What if we said something like:
 * For most Muslims today, depictions of Muhammad are taboo to a greater or lesser degree. However, there are many depictions of him in historical Islamic art. Some traditions have seen no problem with such depictions, whereas others have tended to show him with his face veiled. Less frequently, he has been shown with his face obscured by a flame (akin to the use of a halo in Western Christian art). Some sources, both religious and secular, use calligraphic images, images of locations related to Islam (for example, mosques), or scenes of the natural world as an alternative to images showing Muhammad himself. --FormerIP (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We already have a set of 16 propositions which have had discussion and amendment, from people on both sides of the argument & which (see the talk page) Jayen then sent to Prof. Christiane Gruber, the leading scholar on the subject, who approved them. If we are going to make a background statement, which I think we should, we should just use these, which is what they were written for. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not get into the "taboo" wording. How about: "The earliest available images were created centuries after his death, usually portraying him indirectly, such as veiled, or as a flame, or as a member of a group of figures, where it is not entirely clear which one was Muhammad. Some images used an unveiled face. In modern Islam, though Muhammad's name is routinely portrayed via calligraphy, depictions of him are usually quite uncommon. Reliable sources, when discussing Muhammad and his biography, tend to avoid using figurative images, usually instead using images of calligraphy, or other abstract elements of Islamic art or architecture". --Elonka 16:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The following things are factually wrong: "usually portraying him indirectly"; "as a member of a group of figures, where it is not entirely clear which one was Muhammad" (at least, I haven't seen any examples of this - not entirely clear to who?); "In modern Islam...Muhammad's name is routinely portrayed via calligraphy"; "Reliable sources, when discussing Muhammad and his biography, tend to avoid...". --FormerIP (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they are not factually wrong, and if you were more of a scholar of Islamic art, you wouldn't be making an accusation like that. Just because you haven't personally seen such an example, doesn't mean it's false, but I'm not inclined to have to personally educate you on the scholarship here. But ultimately, instead of just shooting down wording, how about suggesting something different? --Elonka 17:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I already did! --FormerIP (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and then I suggested something different after that. I'm trying to find a working compromise here. So now, you should look at my wording, and then see if you can come up with different wording based on that, which you would like better. Honestly, this would be much much easier (and faster) if we were to just work directly on the draft page. --Elonka 17:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are unwilling to discuss sources, as you suggest above, it will damage communication. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We are back to this again? Should we bring back the argument that calligraphy isn't a representation of a person as well?(no I don't advocate this I am using it as an example) I thought the purpose of this RfC was for the community to say which pictures we should use since it has already been settled that figurative images can be included if there is a reason to. Shouldn't we be focusing on getting the best questions together instead of trying to slant this one way or the other? Tivanir2 (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections to my proposed wording, I'll go ahead and implement it. Or if anyone else would like to suggest different wording, please do so. --Elonka 04:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd rather the parties come to some agreement, first. Any edit pertaining to this subject is likely to cause too much frustration. I'm thinking on this. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) I would certainly object to that wording, on a whole number of fronts. Most flagrantly "... or as a member of a group of figures, where it is not entirely clear which one was Muhammad" applies to only a very small number of images. It is true, and significant, that there are normally other figures, except in Mi'raj images, but it is normally easy to see which is Muhammad. I also object to the RS argument - I thought we had seen the last of this? Johnbod (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, would you care to suggest alternate wording? --Elonka 04:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As above, most of the issues are covered in the 16 propositions, which have already had a fair amount of work done on them. They could be in a show/hide box, or given in full. Johnbod (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a link is enough but I am not opposed to your idea as long as we keep it as something editors may wish to consider. The discussion/drafting of them of them should also be open for view by all (as it is now). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Just the facts
A short while ago, User:Jayen466 contacted Christiane Gruber to ask for guidance on some questions that were in dispute between editors. You can find the full text of what Jayen posted here, but I've selected two quotes below which I think are pertinent to current discussions. Maybe these could be added to John's "Ice Age Art" page (?). In any case, I think they are worth reading. --FormerIP (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "A few weeks ago," would be clearer but yah. They are mentioned on the talk page to Johnbod's IAA, which everyone should have readAlanscottwalker (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We should not be using a speculative email with a junior instructor to source anything on Wikipedia. And does she know that we are quoting her private correspondence in a public venue? Unless we have her written permission, we shouldn't be linking to this in any kind of public venue. --Elonka 04:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone contemplated or suggested citing them in any article. Since you know the source of them appearing on that page and in the Arbitration case pages, you may wish to consult Jayen.  He is very interested, in my understanding, of protecting privacy related to living persons.  He may view more dimly your casual dismissal of a noted expert, whom he kindly consulted for these purposes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Alanscottwalker, these constant assumptions of bad faith on your part are getting tiresome, and are seriously blocking the collaborative process. If you cannot work in good faith with other editors, perhaps it is time for you to be removed from this discussion. --Elonka 16:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's your yelling that is tiring I am sorry you took offense at my comment, but I am at a loss to understand why, as I didn't assume anything. I directed you to someone who might help you and I analyzed part of your comment as casual dismissal (Johnbod, on the other hand, analyzes it as wild POV and unhelpful, below). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) I don't see any bad faith here, but Elonka's description of Gruber, who has a long list of publications with on just this subject in leading journals etc, as a "junior instructor" is wildly POV and unhelpful. If we were quoting her emails in the RFC page we should check with her first of course. Actually the Indiana link above is her old job; this is her on academia.edu and this is her faculty page at U Michigan, where she is now. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * She's an assistant professor, that's a junior instructor in the hierarchy, the lowest rank of professor, from assistant to associate to full. But regardless her title, that's irrelevant, because we shouldn't be quoting private emails as part of an RfC. So now, can we please get back on track? Instead of this constant parade of attacks and accusations of bad faith, can we please get back to discussing the actual wording of the RfC? There seems to be more energy being put into attacking other editors here, than actually trying to find compromise wording. It is still my opinion that we should all work together to craft the wording on the draft RfC page. If someone adds something that others disagree with, then by all means, change the wording to something that you like better, and then by back and forth changes, we should be able to circle in on consensus that way. --Elonka 17:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, her title is irrelevant (ie., unhelpful). Generally, though, everything on Wikipedia is under free license. (Just today, J. Wales posted a third party e-mail on another article talk page.) But that is not a matter, in a particular instance, to be determined here.  I take exception, to the characterization of this page, I don't think independent analysis could conclude so.  Also, the mediator has requested, above that we discuss first.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) No, she's an associate professor, see the link. Considerable work has already been done by several people on both sides (and all were invited) on crafting what we already have, but you seem determined to ignore all that and put up your own versions, so we have to start all over again. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Anytime you want to get back to actually discussing the RfC instead of taking potshots at me, let me know. --Elonka 19:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Elonka, as far as I can see, the ball is in your court. Apart from the mediator, three editors have commented on your wording change. All three have given specific objections to it and proposed compromise alternatives. Evidence has also been adduced in support of the objections made. I don't see what more you want. I think there are a number of things you could do to move things forward. You could:
 * indicate that you agree with one of the compromise proposals made by other editors, or that you will accept it for further discussion;
 * invite discussion about certain objections that have been raised but which you think should be reconsidered;
 * make a new proposal which attempts to take into account the objections raised (although I would distinguish this from a new proposal which is similar to the old one and just ignores the objections - that wouldn't really be useful);
 * take some time out from this particular issue and maybe we can come back to it later.
 * --FormerIP (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made a proposed draft at User:Elonka/Work. Please feel free to edit it. --Elonka 17:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made a proposal down below that hopefully puts a stop to the reverts, so BRDing the old draft shouldn't be a problem. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll happily delete my work page if it means we can get back to editing the draft RfC? --Elonka 17:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, yeah. Should've said that earlier. The only difference is that information about such-and-such is presented as an argument, per the proposal below. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Second draft
In an attempt to move forward, I have created another draft RfC in my userspace, here: User:Elonka/Work. Anyone who wishes to edit it may do so, with the exception that I ask that no one revert. Instead, please try changing text to something that you like better. Thanks, --Elonka 19:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and blanked my work page, since work resumed on the main RfC page. --Elonka 21:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Time to reassess
Things have quickly turned chaotic, to the point where the entire RfC has been forked. I need to remind everyone that the point of this mediation is not to create a consensus about the dispute. It is only to draft an RfC. It is the job of the RfC to create consensus, or at any rate help it along. My goal has only been to keep editors discussing that RfC civilly and with some structure. This has worked up to a point, and I haven't needed to participate much. Now I need to, and it's time to reassess:


 * 1) RfCs are generally used to find consensus where discussion has failed. There would be no need for an RfC were all the editors in agreement.
 * 2) The debate that led everyone to ArbCom is not just what and where the images should be placed, but also the rationale behind the images and their placement. Indeed, this was the gist behind the "background of dispute" proposal drafted by ArbCom before it was pointed out that it should not be in the business of appearing to make content judgments.
 * 3) The rationale behind the placement of images is as important as the placement of the images themselves, and one issue would not exist without the other.
 * 4) This mediation is not an attempt to resolve differences between the rationales.
 * 5) Not acknowledging a particular rationale can be seen as tantamount to "pushing" the debate to the side that vouches against its use. So is including a rationale without including the other.
 * 6) The merit of a rationale does not need to be an explicit question in the RfC, insofar as that rationale is being used for the placement of images anyway. We can hit two birds with one stone.
 * 7) The non-RS rationales are valid and well-thought out.
 * 8) The RS rationale is valid and well thought-out.
 * 9) The RfC must include these rationales equally, and any other rationales that can't be synthesized into one. To not include any rationale is to take one as given (this is the appearance, at any rate.)
 * 10) I'm too OCD to stop at #9.

The issue of the hatnote is luckily spared from this conflict, but the issues of (a) What should be placed in the infobox? (b) What should be the proportion of depictions and calligraphy? and (c) Where should depictions be placed? clearly need some policy-backed arguments. This is typical of an RfC, and gives participants some ground to work with. In particular, it allows closing admins to do more than count !votes, which is exactly what they shouldn't do, particularly in a debate where the !votes aren't likely to fall so neatly. They can now weigh the !votes against the rationales.

I realize nobody likes this, and I've glossed over some things. That's partly the point. But we can hit two birds with one stone. The !vote areas can remain largely as-is (veiled, unveiled, calligraphy, etc), but the questions themselves will need a bullet-point summary of the arguments. To not do so makes it appear either as though we're sussing out the particulars of one argument when at least one other is outstanding. The RfC can be clear as day, and yet nothing will be solved and the debate will continue. Finally, this will put an end to the reverts on the draft, since everyone has a chance to edit in their own "section".

If there is significant disagreement with this proposal, I will happily go to ArbCom and request an amendment that the RfC is as much about rationale as just proportion and placement. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really see that it is the job of the Rfc to summarize all the dozens of lines of argument that this issue has thrown up over the years. There really are a lot. That would be an unrealistically enormous task, and would produce an enormous introduction or whatever we call it.  I do agree that some introduction to the issues, and also to the historical background, needs to be given, rather than just plunging into questions, and having editors new to the question start from scratch.  Perhaps a quick summary of the main lines of argument, as short propositions, with slightly longer summaries of reasons for them and reasons against. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is more what I had in mind. Only sufficient summaries, nothing hugely nuanced (which will likely be in the !votes). Xavexgoem (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry what are we suppose to be doing? Perhaps you can give us section headers where we are suppose to be doing whatever it is?  Or something? And could you point to somewhere, where this is done (hopefully in a similar case)  I looked at that abortion thing the other day and the wall of text made me dizzy and I can't believe their going to ask people to read it.Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Santorum RFC is one example. As for where to put it, I imagine question #2 for now, since that's what the current debate is. It does not need to be comprehensive, just a summary of the argument for why it should be, for example, a depiction and not calligraphy. BRD should be fine for this. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Xavex, I'm still not sure what you are asking. You say above: "everyone has a chance to edit in their own section". Does this mean I will have to write my own personal set of sections giving my opinion about every option in the RfC?
 * My main concern in all this is that we don't include made up "facts" in the RfC. How do I prevent that from happening if it's done in someone else's section. Or am I expected to waste words rebutting it in mine? --FormerIP (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he means unsigned statements for each position that others can agree with. But I would appreciate a structure? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No. The summaries should not be attributed to editors. I should've said that each rationale gets its own "section" – not editors – and really it only needs to be a paragraph long.
 * I'm thinking something along these lines:


 * Since every "side" has taken some issue with what the other side argues, it's probably best to avoid addressing other arguments until after all arguments have been made. Possibly one paragraph for rationale and one paragraph for rebuttal, but we'll see. It is not necessary to add arguments that nobody here agrees with, so there's no need to resurrect stale arguments (in case anyone was wondering). It's probably best to merge rationales if they're similar in everything but particulars, like where one editor says "veiled images" and another "unveiled images", but the rationale behind both are the same. Does this make sense? Xavexgoem (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not happy with that. I don't mind editors being able to present their arguments, but I don't feel I can accept a process which allows editors to make stuff up. --FormerIP (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No. You only need to point that out in a rebuttal. To totally disregard one rationale, to not even open it up for consideration, is not going to work. It is not your prerogative to decide what can be presented in talk or project space and therefore what the community is allowed to consider. It precludes half the purpose of an RfC. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I think it is, well, not so much my prerogative, but the duty of the RfC not to state things as facts that are not true.
 * It is my prerogative, though, to end the meditation if I am not happy with the way it is progressing. Which is not a threat, but a request to consider how my concern might be accommodated.
 * People will not read everything and they will certainly not trawl through links. It's not acceptable to allow them to be misled.
 * It's nothing to do with disallowing any particular rationale. Statements such as "most depictions of Muhammad show him veiled" or "other sources tend not to show images of him" are not rationales. --FormerIP (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you're saying. Maybe just prefacing them by saying "it is the opinion of some editors that..."? At any rate to point out that they're contentious interpretations. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Some are more than that! Gruber has explained that the research has never been done to show whether "most depictions of Muhammad show him veiled" is true or not, and no specialist references to back up, or disprove, the assertion have ever been produced. It might be true, it might not - nobody knows. We shouldn't be countenancing saying that, but should stick to the careful and limited propositions Gruber approved. Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Gotta hand it to y'all, this is one of the gordianist of knots :-)
 * Hmm... I'll need to think on this one. I am against presenting editor research as facts, just to be clear. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How about a process where the rationales are drawn up, then there's a process of putting to proof. If any factual statement in a rationale is challenged, it should be either substantiated or removed. I'm not talking about opinions, so an editor's reasonable interpretation of policy, their view about the usefulness of a particular image or whatever it happens to be would not be open to challenge.
 * I don't think "it is the opinion of some editors that..." is enough, at least in cases where the opinion is one as to a question of fact that editors are not really entitled to hold.
 * By the way, I would suggest that there is not a tidy split between editors into two distinct camps on these issues. So I don't think it will necessarily be the case that we will not see disagreements emerging within the rationale sections. There may be no way around that if it happens, and maybe it won't. I just thought I'd say it. Apologies in advance if I end up be part of that. --FormerIP (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's probably inevitable (disagreements, I mean). I realize there are more than 2 camps, but I wanted to address what seems like the largest divide.
 * And I agree that that's a good process. There will have to be some give and take when drafting the rationale. I do think it's slightly absurd to have draft rationales for our draft RfC, though. If someone BRD's their rationale on the RfC, that's fine so long as they agree to discuss it if it becomes an issue. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: What are we hoping to form consensus on-- image use in one specific article, or the more general principles?
 * Agreeing on the "What" will be far easier than agreeing on the "Why".  But an agreement on the "Why" would be far more important.    I'm up for either, I just don't know which way we're headed. --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The !votes are on the Whats (veiled, calligraphy, etc), so that's where the consensus will form. I really wish to avoid an RfC purely on the merit of the arguments (the Whys), but they're so essential to the dispute that I figure we can kill two birds with one stone by including them in the RfC as rationales. Basically, if there's a consensus that we use calligraphy in the infobox, for example, then would the argument for/against its inclusion really matter anymore? The Why lives and dies by What's sword, if that makes sense. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, that was pretty much what I thought the strategy was too. Not to divert people into theoretical discussions, but to use this as a first step towards understanding which "Whys" have support and don't.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the What > Why, it might be best to combine all Whys under their respective What. In that case, the questions would look more like


 * Or something similar. Does anyone object to this? Xavexgoem (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This framework looks far less likely to unnecessarily explode in our face than something like "Do we agree on WP:POLA?" --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I think my concerns may have been met. Apologies if I was prematurely over-assertive just now.
 * A couple more things:
 * (1) I think we do not have a full set of questions yet. There are questions, for example, about numbers of images, use of images from outside the Muslim world and possibly a few other things which seem to be still in dispute.
 * (2) For the sake of openness, I have just sent an email to an editor involved in this dispute who has been quiet here recently. This is not an editor who shares my views about the article, so I don't think it should be considered improper, but I thought it was right to declare it. --FormerIP (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * X: I don't get that approach, as the argument for different images in different locations in the article is different and not based only on some (cosmetically relevant) thing as veiled or unveiled. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wrote the blahblahblah question as if it were for the infobox. Are there options in the RfC that have not been presented? Xavexgoem (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Examples
Ok, here are some crude examples, not very thought out:
 * WP:NOTCENSORED
 * For: A key WP policy, that is clear and applies here
 * Against: May be modified by WMF statement


 * Principle of least astonishment: has been argued both ways
 * For the images: Readers expect to see the best available representations of the subject of a biography
 * Against the images: Readers know Islam discourages images for Muhammad and won't expect to see them here.


 * Reliable sources
 * For: other encyclopedias tend not to use images of Muhammad
 * Against: They don't subscribe to our policies, and are under pressure since Salman Rushdie etc.

And so on - there are maybe 10-15 such points that should be covered. Maybe links to be added to these to longer statements, whether new or sections on the Muhammad page or arbcom case. I see these as different from the historical/factual background. Whether they are linked to/placed at specific questions is an issue; I tend to feel they should not be. Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 10 to 15? I hope not but what would they be?  Perhaps if we stared out in paragraph form, (for each individual question as the mediator proposed) we could then split it up (or bullet point) especially where there are disagreements on one "side."  I agree that we should not let editors overstate or falsely state claims, as many have stated above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm pretty much lost at this point. What are we supposed to do? Again, I strongly recommend that we just directly edit a draft RfC. I think we're very very close to consensus, and rather than getting into endless discussions here at the mediation page, can we please just work on the RfC itself? If we can't reach agreement on the wording of a particular question, we could try what the mediator says, with like alternate views or rebuttals, but I'm honestly not sure such would even be needed. Why not just try to collaboratively edit the RfC, like maybe at my draft page at User:Elonka/Work, and see where it takes us? --Elonka 17:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This was an attempt to compromise after the reverts on question 2. I still recommend BRD on the regular draft page in project space. It's possible this only need apply to question 2, which would be great. The presentation of that question is given above, in the parent section. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we have a "regular draft page"? I've forgotten - where is it? Johnbod (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes: Requests for comment/Muhammad images Johnbod (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really. We seem to have a drafting process that's proceeding without any discussion, and that page is just like five people's turds all mixed together. FormerIP (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * FormerIP, please don't use that kind of language, it's not helpful to this discussion. --Elonka 07:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a thought...A counter-argument to the WP:NOTCENSORED argument could be WP:GRATUITOUS which states that, "Wikipedia is not censored, but Wikipedia also does not seek to needlessly offend its readers." In my opinion, if a less-offensive alternative exists that doesn't detract from the article quality, there's good reason to use it instead. Also, I'm not really involved in this discussion, and just stumbled upon it today and thought I'd insert my two cents. Cheers, ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, and your participation is welcome. A counter, counter argument is what is covered there is not when the image is not offensive, on it's face, but only when you say it's of ______ and religious scruple requires that such images should not exist, at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The question of depictions of Muhammad was raised in WP:NO as well. One of the core issues in that debate became "What standard should Wikipedia follow with regards to what is offensive?". The matter of depicting Muhammad is a cultural/religious matter, and as such is offensive to one group of people, and not offensive to another. If Wikipedia regulates whether to show images based on a cultural or religious norm here, will it not have to do so for other subject matters as well? In my opinion, giving consideration to whether to use images or not, whether to hide or obfuscate them, or otherwise give them special, non-standardized placement in an effort to not offend sets a precedent that can lead to many other articles needing to change to not offend one particular belief or cultural norm. Do we want to open that particular can of worms? - Kenneaal (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Arguments for image types
Crude examples, but this is how a "by image class" argument might go:


 * Figurative vs Non-figurative
 * Figurative images:
 * NPOV/NOTCENSORED -- reader objections do not affect article content.
 * ENCYCLOPEDIA -- figurative art is educational about Muhammad himself
 * Non-figurative / Location:
 * NPOV + something -- Non-figurative art is most common.
 * ENCYCLOPEDIA -- non-figurative is educational about Muhammad's teachings
 * Reader feedback -- Readers have requested a way to avoid unintentionally seeing figurative images on this page.

Figurative Art: Veil/Flames vs Unveiled/NoFlames
 * Veil/Flames
 * Educational about historic art and Muhammad's religious role.
 * Considered somewhat less upsetting to surprised viewers.
 * Unveiled/NoFlames
 * Educational about historic dress
 * Considered somewhat more upsetting to surprised viewers.

Paragraph Form
Another approach related to specific questions in paragraph form.

An infobox is always at the right hand top of an article and in this article contains the first image (if any) any reader will see.


 * No Image in the infobox:


 * Calligraphy of Muhammad's name in the infobox:


 * Muhammad related location in the Infobox:


 * "Veiled" image of Muhammad in infobox:


 * "Unveiled" image of Muhammad in infobox:
 * It's my view that prose is going to be easier to digest. A huge, bulleted list of policies has been reasonably seen as tl;dr and WP:OMGWTFBBQ. But whatever works. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Openness and transparency of community mediation and case background
A user has deleted reference to this mediation in the background section of the RfC, twice. The most recent time citing the mediation policy. The mediation policy, however, does not prohibit reference to the mediation as background for construction of a content RfC. Background for construction of a content RfC is an open process (witness the ongoing construction Abortion RfC) The mediation policy only prohibits use of evidence in conduct proceedings. To read it any other way, is contrary to to Wikipedia's tradition of openness and transparency. The link should be returned to the background of this content RfC, so the community may be fully informed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to leave a note. That mediation policy is a procedural policy for the mediation committee (MedCom). It doesn't apply to MedCab. That policy prevents formal mediation being used as evidence for community ban discussions (etc) or ArbCom, so parties can speak their mind without fear of reprisal. I don't think anything here would be used as evidence in the first place. But at any rate: only MedCom, not MedCab. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. BTW, I think we're getting close on the wording at the RfC. There may one or two points to still get ironed out, but the wording seems to be approaching consensus. --Elonka 04:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's excellent news! Xavexgoem (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There does appear to be a sticking point regarding the phrasing of one of the bullet points. I have tried multiple compromise wordings, (example) but keep getting reverted back to the phrasing of "5 Islamic art, and 1 Western art". I feel rather strongly about this though, as the text that is being reverted to is not correct. In actuality, three of the images in the Muhammad article are from the Mongol Ilkhanate, and it is not correct to just lump them all together and say they are "Islamic art". Those three images are from a work of Mongol history, not an Islamic text. Further, the images in that text drew heavily from Christian iconography, like the artists for the Jami would routinely take a setting of a Christian event (such as the birth of Jesus), and then just swap things around a bit to make a "birth of Muhammad" equivalent. We don't need to go into this kind of elaborate detail, but for the RfC, the more accurate phrasing would be to just list where the 5 images are from. 1 is from Kashmir, India. 1 is Ottoman. 3 are from the Mongol Ilkhanate. 1 is a Western painting. Xavexgoem, perhaps you could advise on a way through this? --Elonka 20:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They are Islamic art by any definition of Islamic art. They were created by Muslims under a Muslim power, and in a Muslim land.  Moreover, this was vetted with recognized expert, Gruber.  The argument that at some point, in the past, Mongols were not Muslim is beside the point, or worse, discriminatory and irrelevant and thus wrong on many levels. For example it points to an image we don't use and then makes overbroad generalizations. Both Johnbod and I have therefore taken issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) I also feel strongly about this! It is wholly POV to suddenly switch from culture/religion to ethnicity, or between geography and dynasties, as she proposes. The Mongol Ilkhanate had ruled Persia for over 50 years when these images were created. The images draw influences from Chinese and Eastern Christian sources, but so what? All Islamic art does the same. Images are Islamic if they are made in an Islamic culture, by artists who as far as we know are Islamic, and are treated that way by all RS. The standard works on Islamic art cover the Jami manuscripts extensively. To object to the images being called "Islamic" goes against all RS & is pure OR. What does an "Islamic text" mean? None of the images are from Qu'rans or theological works; they and other Islamic images are from biographies (so just like our article), histories and books of poetry. Elonka keeps saying there are three Ilkhanid images, & I keep pointing out that there are only two, and also 2 not 1 Ottoman ones, which frankly I'm getting tired of doing. I'd also point out that, in an Islamic context, saying "Kashmir, India" is controversial and distracting in ways we don't need at all. Elonka keeps urging everyone to compromise, but this appears to just mean doing things her way. The "background" propositions, including this one, were discussed and refined by several editors and then approved by an outside expert and we should stick to that text unless there is a good reason to change it. Johnbod (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because a book is written by a Muslim, does not make it Islamic. --Elonka 23:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It does make it part of Islamic literature, & the same goes for art. Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Does this matter to Wikipedians participating in the RfC? Xavexgoem (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would certainly rather cut the phrase altogether than have one of Elonka's versions, but we are then dodging an obvious and significant point people will wonder at (how many Islamic images vs Western ones). Alansw has already supported my view here, & the text was approved by several other editors at my sandbox, & I think it's time to ask if anyone else supports Elonka. Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I support the RS that say this is Islamic art, that also makes me question the response that a book written by a Muslim is not Islamic, as non-responsive. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

We're really splitting hairs, here. If you want my advice, just stick with "Islamic" and move on. And please stop commenting on each other. I wouldn't want to see an hour later that I'm being called unresponsive or that I'm pushing a POV and pretending to call it consensus making. Neither would you. So stop. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC) BTW, I fully understand the point Elonka is trying to make. If there is significant concern, then point out in the RfC that you can't come to an agreement on the wording.
 * Including both descriptors sounds reasonable. I have modified the RfC accordingly, to indicate there is disagreement. --Elonka 02:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet again repeated the plainly wrong numbers of 1 Ottoman and 3 Ilhanid, not two of each. Really, it is hard not to interpret this other than as a deliberate attempt to annoy! I have removed the whole end of the statement, & it should stay out until we get agreement here. I'll start a new section. Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, these constant attacks and assumptions of bad faith are not helpful, so please, stop. In actuality, the confusion is probably coming from this image, File:Maome.jpg, which could probably be referred to as either Ottoman or Ilkhanid. It's an Ottoman copy of an Ilkhanid image, so why don't we just say that? --Elonka 05:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's just what we do in the caption, which is the place for such details. Obviously copies are normally related to their actual time and place of production, not that of the original work copied - think of Replicas of Michelangelo's David etc. In any case it is not originally from the Jami as you have claimed. You should also note that the manuscript it is copied from, The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries, contains 5 images of Muhammad, which have a very specific and complex Shia programme, analysed by Hillenbrand (Robert Hillenbrand. 'Images of Muhammad in al-Biruni's Chronology of Ancient Nations.' In Persian Painting from the Mongols to the Qajars: Studies in Honour of Basil W. Robinson, ed. Hillenbrand, 129–46, Pembroke Persian Papers, 3. London and New York: I. B. Tauris in association with the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies, University of Cambridge, 2000.) To object to calling this "Islamic" is a non-starter. It is a pity we never got round to swopping something for a Mi'raj image of the Safavid period, which I think there was wide support for. Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How about, "... 5 Islamic art, and 1 Western art (if relevant, editors may wish to discuss the purposes, nature, and history of these works)" ? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest "...5 from Islamic cultures and 1 Western image". Still keeping the later "Islamic"s rather than "non-Western".  If we want to encourage discussion of the "purposes, nature, and history of these works", which I'm not sure we do, should we not add that as a question, or at least mention it in one of the existing questions, rather than here? Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I think that such a discussion would be mostly about things very remote from these images and how the pedia uses them, which would shed more heat than light, anyway. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My thought too. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Finalizing Requests for comment/Muhammad images
All interested should be aware of the draft, at the above location, and participate as you see fit in its drafting. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has been quite intensively refined over the last week by 4 editors (Asw, Elonka, myself & moffet) & I think it's now time for others to take a look. I too think we are very nearly there, & if others have comments or suggestions now is the time. Equally if people are happy with it, then please let us know here. I have just circularized everyone who has edited the page except the four mentioned above and Xav., saying: "I think the Rfc is nearly finalized, but only a few editors have commented recently, not including you. Could you take a look & let us know what you think at [link to this section].  Thanks." Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A couple of comments, firstly a minor issue, I'd strike the comment about news articles namely "The issue has in the past been subject to news articles about off-wiki pressure. (e.g., here and here).", there hasn't been any evidence of this occurring during the time I've been involved and I think it may bias people's responses. Four years is a long time and I don't think we should mention it.
 * Secondly and more seriously I'm not a big fan of question 7. I'm not entirely convinced that its a good question to ask, but I need to think more about that.
 * I do think the options given need some more work. Zero, one or two, three to five, six or seven, and no artificial quota seem like better options. If you think we should include more than six or seven then unless your rationale is "we need to include as many depictions as possible to offend the muslims" which is completely unacceptable I don't really see how its any different from the "no artificial quota" position but with the view that that means we should include more than six or seven depictions. With zero, well we've given it as an option further up, so I think it should be included here too.
 * Overall I think its looking pretty good. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * On the whole I thin this is very good, on first reading I have a few comments though:
 * I agree with Eraserhead about the news articles. It has not been a relevant issue during the past however many months this most recent debate has been going on, and I don't see a need to cloud the issue.
 * As a very minor issue I think it would be worth adding "AD" (or "CE" as that's what the Islamic calendar article uses) to the years given for Muhammad's life, just to make it absolutely clear what era is being talked about.
 * Question 5 is probably necessary, but at the moment it's quite a wall of text and risks provoking a tldr reaction and thus perhaps less reliable answers.
 * Question 7 might be better asked as something like "Should there be a quota of figurative images of Muhammed in the Muhammad article? If so, what number should this quota be and why?", i.e. more open than at present. Alternatively it should be stated that these figures are a maximum and not a target; WP:POPUPS reports there are 22 images currently in the article, not all of which would be suitable for a figurative representation under any circumstances (e.g. the maps, the example of calligraphy, the illustration of the PBUH unicode character) so finding space for exactly 10 figurative representations might be difficult - at a quick glance through I think about 14 of the images could possibly be figurative, although for many of them a figurative image would not be the most appropriate use and would probably cause the article as a whole to be disproportionately illustrated with images (of any sort) of Muhammed rather than other relevant images. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if the figures are stated a maximum, it is likely that they will be treated as a target, e.g. with speed limits which are explicitly a maximum. People who drive at even 25 in a 30 zone annoy me. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Thryduulf. The problem with the five options presentation is, how will you interpret the data if it comes out, say, 10-10-10-10-20?  Two thirds of editors wanted a specific quota?  No quota is more popular?  If you decide that means to have a quota, is that quota somewhere between category 3 and 4 (assuming no quota = infinite) or between 2 and 3 (no quota = indefinite)?  Nay, you need two separate questions: a) is setting a fixed number of images helpful? b) if so how many? Wnt (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good point. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I took a shot at what I had in mind.  I'm not planning to spend a lot of time on this issue, so if this gets reverted, please see what you can do with the idea. Wnt (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points above. I added, "The issue has in the past been subject to news articles about off-wiki pressure. (e.g.,here andhere)."  This was when the prior sentence was more shaded to suggest that the images talk page was required for these new IPs always object and that is somehow significant.   However, the petition is still "live" collecting signatures and is high up in Google searches on wikipedia and these images, so it's not surprising that new users come to that page, which if I recall correctly was created in response to that petition. I admit, I was unaware of the history of all that, until the past "threats" were mentioned in the opening statements of the arbitration (now on the opening statements talk page). But I have no strong objection to it being removed, perhaps the whole prior sentence should be dropped or rephrased, too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What search term did you use? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think, "Wikipedia Muhammad Images" Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah OK, I searched for just Muhammad and Muhammad Images. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit concerned that Q8: "Should the number of images that people decide upon in the previous question be enforced, or should it be freely overridden by the normal consensus of editors during article development?", while I'm sure we would all normally say the latter, is not reflecting what Arbcom wanted, which I think was indeed an "artificial quota" to be fixed in this RFC, just to settle the matter for a long period. I'm easy about mentioning the news stories, petition etc.  On the ranges given for images, we should remember that we currently have 6, and should not point people to a particular number or direction by limiting or biasing the ranges offered - 6 should be roughly at the mid-point. I suspect "no quota" and "zero" may be the most popular choices anyway, so though interpretation of the results could be difficult, I suspect it won't be in practice. Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think they were specific enough in their wording that we have to have a quota. However, they did stipulate that the outcome should be binding, so if we have a quota as the outcome, it has to be a binding quota. --FormerIP (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the better way, if it really comes to that after reviewing the RfC comments would be binding mediation. But let's hope it does not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But ArbCom didn't ask us to come up with a non-binding RfC and then think about what steps would be needed after that. They asked us to come up with a binding RfC. --FormerIP (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I don't see RfC mentioned in the Final Decision.  They asked for a Binding Discussion, whatever that means.  If an RfC results in no consensus, as they sometimes do, than it results in no consensus and there is nothing anyone can do about that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I've removed reference to deciding Q7 by selecting the median answer, because: 1) it's up to the closers how they think the votes should be weighed; 2) the idea that selecting a median prevents skewing the result by voting at the extremes is false - either way, if you want to maximize your impact, you can do that by voting high or low - in fact, depending on how the votes are distributed, a median may be more "skewable"; 3) since we only have four (fairly wide-ranging) options, selecting a median answer is not a good way at arriving at a reliable or fair result - it could easily give a result representing the least popular answer, or which could have been significantly different but for a single vote. --FormerIP (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I don't like the idea of leaving it up to the closers, because it is a systemic weakness of Wikipedia polls that people start to feel like those who count the results are the ones deciding the poll. Better to specify the mechanism in advance and have no confusion.  What method would you prefer?  An average, where one person could vote 100,000?  A mode, where the original choice of how big each range is decides which will get the most votes?  No, has to be a median, and we should say that. Wnt (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that someone could vote 100,000, or a minus number, or even an imaginary number, is precisely why we should not stipulate a rigid method for calculating a result. That, plus ArbCom asked for a discussion in which editors were asked to "explain their decisions clearly" (i.e. not just a numbers game).
 * FWIW, though, taking a median is a less preferable option here compared to taking a mean. A median recognises no weighting in editors' votes. So, you could get a situation where almost half of editors vote for 1 or 2 images, but the median is more than 10. Those votes are treated in exactly the same way as if they'd voted 6 to 10. Or vice versa. In fact, the only cases where you would get a clearly fair result are the ones where the median happens to approximate to the mean.FormerIP (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with FormerIP here; I'd rather not specify in advance how the matter will be decided. Partly because I expect a fairly easy to interpret result, polarizing around the extremes. I've put a sub-header below this for the calligraphy issue. Johnbod (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Calligraphy issue (sub-head inserted late)
I've also removed the following statement: "Calligraphic renderings of the name of Muhammad are more common than depictions, and are more widespread geographically". This seems unlikely to me, although, as you can imagine, I have not done a thorough count. I ask for clear evidence that this is the case. --FormerIP (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless you're referring exclusively to the geographical spread, I have a very hard time believing that this is not true. I've reinstated that point. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean by "I have a very hard time believing that this is not true". What are you going off? Examples seem fairly hard to come by, in comparison to depictions or Hilye, and all examples I have seen are modern. --FormerIP (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Depictions of Muhammad are generally verboten, and yet there may be more or equal depictions of him than there are calligraphic renderings? No. This is not true. There are entire mosques decorated with his name. Islamic calligraphy, as you know, is extremely important in Islam. It is downright weird to think that there are more depictions than calligraphy.
 * Do I have sources for this? No. It's common sense. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like editor research to me. There are not entire mosques decorated with his name. That's just false. Typically, mosques do not contain any such thing. There are certainly some examples that come from mosques, but I couldn't give you an exact number. Compared to the number of mosques there are in the world, it is small.
 * Mosques do frequently display quotations from the Quran, but that is not the same thing.
 * Caligraphy is indeed a significant part of Islamic culture but, until the modern (most specifically, the internet) age, this has tended to consist of passages from scripture and not, except in rare cases, the name "Muhammad". This is quite possibly because of traditional Muslim views on idolatry.
 * I'd be happy to be proved wrong, though. --FormerIP (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So the suggestion is that there is a likely a somewhat-equal proportion of depictions and calligraphy throughout Islamic art? Xavexgoem (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No. My suggestion is that there is no strong tradition of the name "Muhammad" in calligraphy as a type of Islamic art, although there are isolated examples. If we were to take the last ten years, then there is an explosion of such images as internet avatars and so on. But (a) those are not really useable on WP; (b) if we were to give special weight to the last ten years, we would end up with a still from South Park in the infobox. --FormerIP (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But is there evidence for the major use of calligraphy before the last 10 years? Xavexgoem (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm saying not to a significant extent - with the caveat that there is a relevant distinction here between "calligraphy" (certainly that in itself is common) and "calligraphic renderings of the name Muhammad". But I don't have a doctorate in this, so it is possible I have not read widely enough. Which is why I am asking if there is evidence to the contrary. --FormerIP (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * FormerIP, is there some other wording that you would find acceptable, rather than deleting the bullet point entirely? --Elonka 02:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any. It's not that I think the statement is slightly off, I think it is plain false. I am open to suggestions, or to being shown to be wrong, though. --FormerIP (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, does it have to be an online source? For example, try "Islamic calligraphy" by Annemarie Schimmel, page 1: "For among all arts calligraphy can be considered the typical expression of the Islamic spirit.". Or there's this about art in the Philippines. "Islamic art is characterized by designs of flowers, plant forms and geometric designs." I could probably also find various sources showing that mosques are adorned with calligraphic forms of Muhammad's name.  Or how about here, in (no slight intended) "Islam for Dummies": "In calligraphy, elaborate designs are made using Muhammad's name". Will that work? --Elonka 03:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What would work would be something supporting the statement "Calligraphic renderings of the name of Muhammad are more common than depictions, and are more widespread geographically". Alternatively, I have looked quite hard for this type of images both on and offline. I have been able to find a small number of images of mosque decorations, but none in manuscripts. Demonstrating that these do exist, in spite of the fact I can't find any, would be useful. FormerIP (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll just say Gruber was happy with the statement. Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While I'm not certain, what the calligraphy could be used for other than showing his name in calligraphy (so, there is little or no reason to use it over and over again), I find the proposition in the RfC, irrelevant but OK. Perhaps you can change the wording? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are a few links, with dates: 15th century, ?, ?,, 17th century, 18th century, 1733, and so on. The name is very often combined with those of Ali, the 4 Rightly-Guided, the 12 Shia imans etc. Interestingly this sample has more Shia objects than Sunni. Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * John, I was really looking for antique examples which use Muhammad's name in its own right as an artistic subject. The current text suggests that these are more common than depictions of Muhammad. But why is it so easy to find examples of the latter and so difficult to find examples of the former? For info, I've been able to find only 2 plus one which looks quite old but doesn't have a date. They are all in Turkey, and don't seem  which doesn't speak very well either to "most common" or "widest geographical spread". --FormerIP (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The content issue I have is: We are giving high prominence to images which are user-created at the expense of better images. We seem to be doing this because they are standing in for images that are overwhelmingly common and by far the most representative. It's just that, for some unknown reason, we can't find any proper examples, which is why the user images are necessary. FormerIP (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @Former IP I think the comment about calligraphy is obvious and necessary. We don't need to state that the sky is blue and find sources about it.
 * With regards to your point Alan, about calligraphy being less interesting, well if you feel that is the case bring it up in the RFC, I'm sure John will be making that point. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think your blue sky analogy works at all, EH. But if you think this is something so obvious that we don't even need to say it, perhaps just not saying it would be a good solution. FormerIP (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You misapprehend my point. It is true, that the calligraphy proposed so far probably are less interesting than images with more varied elements. They also have diminishing educational value, when repeated over and over again. I have said the question is OK.  It's not great because, as with many questions, the details of why we use them, and the context for them, risk being lost. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This sentence will trivially apply for about every person, at least for those whose physiognomy is not generally known. When a picture of a person is published, usually the name will be added in the caption, and additionally there will be other publications printed with the name but without a picture. Even pictures of Jesus will either show his name, or a cross by which the viewers can recgonize him. But there are plenty of publications which include a cross symbol derived from the cross standing for Jesus in Christianity, e.g. the red cross symbol. So e.g. even "Calligraphic renderings of the name of Jesus are more common than depictions, and are more widespread geographically" will hold true too, --Rosenkohl (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"..., calligraphic renderings are also the only type of representation of Muhammad to appear in mosques, and in editions of the Quran" ist wrong too, since editions of the Quran with pictures of Muhammad do exist, e.g. in Spanish from 1932 and 1979, see http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/book_illos/. At least the 1979 edition is still offered by second hand sellers, --Rosenkohl (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Rosenkohl. I think you're juggling after the circus has moved on. The place for these comments now is the RfC. Cheers. FormerIP (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Missing questions

 * 1) Most if not all anthropomorphic images in the current article depict episodes in Muhammad's life. A question should be asked whether such depictions are desirable and appropriate according to Wikipedia policies.
 * 2) The most academically cited biographies of Muhammad date back to the 1960s. A question should be asked whether picture density in the Wikipedia article should reflect the print medium, which is what most RSs for this article are.
 * 3) If deciding images is to be based on a source survey, a question should be asked on the total number of images of any kind to be put in the article.
 * 4) If deciding images is to be based on a source survey, a question should be asked on the types of images of each rough kind to be put in the article, not just for the the hot-potato, figurative ones. For example: how many and which maps, how many and which calligraphy images, how many and which architecture images, how many and which geography images etc.

Particularly, the last two questions seem to me to be closer in spirit to what ArbCom asked than what's found in the current draft. Otherwise we're applying a special flavor of WP:WEIGHT to just one type of images and not all of them as ArbCom asked. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree on your first point and I have added a question, let me know what you think. For the rest, there is no RS for such a source survey, no such academic study or survey has been produced and reached supportable conclusions, and all the terms for such a survey, including "type," are undefined by RS; all of which means it's synthesis. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that a [secondary] source image survey would have to be conducted by Wikipedia editors. But this is what ArbCom requested basically. It would probably not be good enough to be published or used a basis for editorial decision elsewhere, but Wikipedia is not a reliable source anyway. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, The survey is not in the final decision and not in any of the proposed remedies, they did not adopt. Since, it goes against a fundamental pillar, it would seem, they would have discussed it, if it was meant. In the meantime, please edit, as necessary, my new question on Narrative Images at the RfC draft. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: "it goes against a fundamental pillar". Which one might that be? And pray tell how is WP:WEIGHT supposed to be determined otherwise? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Synthesis. Weight is determined by summarizing in writing, written reliable sources, and citing written reliable sources directly for the propositions asserted, according to our verifiability principals.  But, there is no such thing as summarizing a picture, it either is or isn't (at least in common sense, in less than 1000 words, and even then not very effectively), and no reliable source has tried, so Wikipedia cannot. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * One insight you share that might be particularly valuable-- Asking "Precisely how many images" is somewhat different than asking about "picture density".  For an article of arbitrary length that can expand and contract over time, it might be easier to agree on a density than a number.  Rough percentages or descriptive phrases ("all, most, some, a few, none") might work better in that question. (or might not, either fine by me)HectorMoffet (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

How to describe the images
The background section, as discussed at [my sandbox], contained the proposition:


 * Muhammad currently has 6 figurative depictions of Muhammad, 5 Islamic and 1 Western.

- a permalink has now been added at the end. Elonka is not happy with this, and is insisting on something like:


 * As of March 2012, prior to this RfC, the Muhammad article has 6 figurative depictions of Muhammad.(permalink). There is dispute as to how to refer to these depictions. One set of editors refer to the images as "5 Islamic and 1 Western". Another way to describe them is "1 from Kashmir, 1 is Ottoman, and 3 are from the Mongol Ilkhanate.", [but these numbers are plainly wrong]

-or:
 * As of March 2012, prior to this RfC, the Muhammad article has 6 figurative depictions of Muhammad: 2 from Indian or Ottoman cultures, 3 from the Mongol Ilkhanate, and 1 is a Western image (permalink). [count still wrong]

-or


 * As of March 2012, prior to this RfC, the Muhammad article has 6 figurative depictions of Muhammad: 1 Ottoman, 1 Indian, 3 from the 14th century Mongol history text Jami' al-tawarikh, and 1 Western(permalink). [count wrong]

- She has also changed later references in the section to "Islamic images" to "non-Western images". In fact only the first two depictions in the article are Ilkhanid, and there are 2 Ottoman ones, as the captions clearly say, and has been pointed out many times. Johnbod (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Support the original "Islamic" version

 * Johnbod (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This is needlessly divisive. Can you please wait for Elonka's response above? Xavexgoem (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Response to what? I have made no new arguments. She has come up with this OR distinction, and reverted several times to keep it in. It's time to find out if there is any other support for this. Johnbod (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's pretty clear that the consensus is against those versions. And I'm willing to bet anyone would respond to the "deliberate attempt to annoy" bit. Hopefully we can keep it on the level and find some semblance of a compromise. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * These constant attacks are getting old. I feel like I'm trying to participate in good faith, and am suggesting compromise after compromise, and just keep getting reverted. I'm wondering if it's time to go back to ArbCom and ask for more topic bans? --Elonka 05:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you guys please find a way to incorporate Elonka's ideas here please? One of the ottoman works is a copy of a Mongol piece. So surely we can say that its Ottoman/Mongol or Ottoman copy of a Mongol work or whatever. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We just need to say it is Islamic, but Elonka objects to Ilkhanid images being so described. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am open to a compromise. Why not just put the images in a list? "There are 6 figurative images in the current version of the Muhammad article: Ottoman (date); Ilkhanid (date); Russian (date), etc.", and leave it at that? --Elonka 21:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no need for such detail, which will puzzle the reader, other than to get round the objections you have to "Islamic". I have suggested this compromise above, which you have ignored: "...5 from Islamic cultures and 1 Western image".  If that does not satisfy you, I think you need to start producing references to justify your position. We have accomodated large numbers of your changes. Johnbod (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

John we're asking 8 questions and have a ton of background, in the scale of things this does no harm. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think John's argument here is that Elonka implicitly brands some Islamic cultures less Islamic than others by her opposition to a simple label. The actual concern should be however that only a part of the Islamic culture has produced figurative-art images, while another has avoided or opposed them. That can be said in the background section without trying to label the former as "unislamic" by implication. (And I should note that an editor who has advanced that kind of tendentious arguments for a while, is now indef blocked.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The limited geographical range is already covered in that section. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (2xec)That the Islamic images are Islamic is a pretty key point, on which (surely?) everyone except Elonka is agreed, not to mention Gruber and all RS. One has to draw the line somewhere. And btw, this objection was never I think mentioned in the Arbcom case. Does she still object to describing Persia in 1310 as an "Islamic culture"? Let's hear. If not, let's just remove all attempt to characterise the images in this way. Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope then that my compromise wording is satisfactory. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not - better say nothing than this clearly POV stuff, mixing geography and dynasties. Let's start hearing: What is wrong with "Islamic cultures?"Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * John what's your problem here? It seems like a perfectly sensible compromise in the spirit of exactly what you've just said. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it is just another permutation of Elonka's versions, bending over backwards to avoid describing the Jami images as Islamic, which they plainly are. I can only suggest you re-read my previous comments and suggestions, which in order of preference are: "Islamic", "Islamic cultures", nothing at all. How is this "in the spirit" of these? Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I explicitly describe all five non-Western depictions as Islamic, if you don't think "... and the other five are of Islamic origin. Of the Islamic images..." is clear enough what do you want to see?
 * If its a minor wording change to that go ahead if its more than that I really think you are being unreasonable here, and I would say the same to Elonka if she wouldn't accept something similar. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Of the Islamic images two are from the Mongol Ilkhanate, one is from Kashmir, one is Ottoman and one is an Ottoman copy of an image from the Mongol Ilkhanate." Can you please move on? Xavexgoem (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And we're not saying just from "Persia" or Iran because?? There is an agenda here. You may not see it but I can. If you really feel the need to break them down, "two are from Persia, one is from Kashmir, one is Turkish and one is an Turkish copy of an image from Persia."  Be consistent. Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Tell me the agenda, please. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The agenda, which we have seen in the Images/talk page over the years from Sunni partisans, is to say the Ilkhanid images are not properly Islamic because they were produced under a dynasty of non-Persian origin, and then, from editors like the now-banned User:Wiqi55, to dismiss the entire Persian miniature tradition as un-Islamic because: i) they're Persian, ii) they're Shia (from 1501, but that gets forgotten). Wiqi55 brought in that the commissioner of the Jami' al-tawarikh, the grand vizier Rashid-al-Din Hamadani was of Jewish origin, though, as Bernard Lewis says, he shows "ample evidence of an authentic commitment to the Islamic faith". top p. 101. I could go on. If we must give details of the origin of the images, an idea Elonka only introduced to avoid the "I" word, we should be consistent. Rashid-al-Din was certainly not a Mongol.  Johnbod (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And this extends to the wording of an RfC, even though its use one way or another isn't going to have an impact on anything? And Elonka is bearing this torch, for the sake of Sunni partisans? Certainly that's too absurd to consider. If it is not, then we need to go back to ArbCom, and you will need to tell them that Elonka is introducing text for Sunni partisans for no apparent reason other than that their agenda goes so far as to take issue with the minutia of an RfC, even when that particular minutia will have no bearing on the article.
 * Look, folks. We're not debating ideology, here. Lives do not hang in the balance. We're drafting an RfC. This does not matter. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you asked. I don't mind if we don't break them down at all, or if we break them down by country/region. But I object to a contrived break-down by a mixture of ruling dynasty and country, and I understand why it is wanted. Johnbod (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My worry is that if this is the belief about another editor, how can you possibly work with that editor? Xavexgoem (talk) 05:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That is done by reasoned discussion about reliable sources, through question and argument, and then consensus. On, the other hand, we do need to find some conclusion, here.  So, how do we do that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

By being prepared to compromise, and not worry excessively about arbitrary agendas that I severely doubt anyone here actually believes in.

The other option is that we get arbitration enforcement involved here. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What would the arbitration case be? At any rate, since the latest version by me does not mix disparate things, perhaps that is enough.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't have another case, its just enforcement of the existing case. We've all been warned, and at this point John isn't being reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, now, reread his last response. He has discussed his objections, fully, (perhaps too fully for some, although, surely, that should not be held against him) and marked ways forward. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Jeez, I go offline for a couple days, and come back to find out that I'm being accused of re-defining Islam, and/or promoting a Sunni agenda? (sigh) In a word: No.  Or for a more expanded reply: No, that's absurd. --Elonka 04:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Green light
Johnbod pinged me on my talk page, and I had a look over the draft RfC. See User_talk:Johnbod. In short: green light from me, and well done.  J N  466  18:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And me, I think we've talked this thing out now, or need to focus clearly on remaining points at issue. That's to this diff, last edited by Jayen, btw. Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One thing I am pretty sure is true is the RfC is not going to be very effective, unless we start it, at some point ;>.Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The RFC does look good and ready to go at this point. Unfortunately I think I have to oppose bringing up the RFC until the beginning of April on a technicality.
 * I think clashing with the Abortion RFC, which is due to enter the decision phase at the end of the week, would be a mistake. We want people to comment on both of them, and not feel like they have too much to comment on at once - additionally I think the abortion guys have set themselves a very tight schedule, and their request is unfortunately probably more interesting to the community at large.
 * If we can get this one rolling within the next 24 hours we can probably go now, but any longer and I think we have to wait :(. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Vote on bringing the RfC online
It looks like everyone agrees the RfC is basically finished. I'd like to open it up by the 26th at the latest. One major-ish issue remaining is whether we get a triumvirate now, or wait until the RfC is over. A couple process notes:
 * I'll be putting up a watchlist notice. Aside from this being an ArbCom semi-mandated RfC, it may have policy ramifications.
 * There will be a notice at Talk:Muhammad, and Talk:Muhammad/images. I am unsure of putting a note on Muhammad, so I'm adding that as a question.

Save for oppose votes on the first question, reasoning does not need to be provided. This is just a simple vote.

--Xavexgoem (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If opposing, please briefly state why
 * Vote to open the RfC
 * Per comment in above section. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, don't we mean "open" above? I'm ready. Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are unresolved issues raised in the discussions above. Of particular importance, IMO, is the issue around Q9, which will probably (I expect the result to be that there should be no fixed quota) create a situation where, following the end of the RfC, it will still be perfectly acceptable to add and remove images. FormerIP (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Open. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The compromise about the description of the existing images is fine. I did make one change in the POLA section, because it was incorrectly saying that POLA had been rejected as policy, but (a) It was never suggested as policy; and (b) That proposed guideline wasn't properly written, which was the main reason it was rejected. Provided that my change is acceptable, I'd say the RfC is ready to go, but if I get reverted, then I withdraw my support, and we go back to the drawing table. I'm not particularly happy with the wording about image use in reliable sources, and would probably edit that if we go back to revising the RfC, but as it is, I am willing to accept it, if it helps things move forward. --Elonka 04:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, let's get it over with. Tarc (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Triumvirate, now or later?
 * Don't care. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not too bothered - but only do now if can be arranged quickly. Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards later. If closers are appointed now, they will probably get petitioned throughout the RfC. FormerIP (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good argument. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Now.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If we have agreed-upon wording, I see no reason to wait. --Elonka 04:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Notice on Muhammad article?
 * Pluses and minuses of both. I would be in favour, but it has significant disadvantages if inappropriate canvassing/sockpuppetry takes place as its hard to know whether new users have been inappropriately canvassed or not and they won't know our policies. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this on the talk page, or the main article? Not sure if the latter. Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Has this ever been done before? If not, I have not seen anyone put forward a good rationale for it. FormerIP (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not typical. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is often done for move and split requests - see Template:Movenotice, Template:Split, and for deletion discussions its standard practice - see Template:Afd. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this isn't a move or split request. FormerIP (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How many other discussions are had which have a significant impact to a specific article and which aren't move, split or deletion discussions? Is there another precedent? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there is. The thing about moves, splits, and deletions is that they severely impact the article, either by removing a significant portion of material or deleting it altogether. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So, if there isn't a precedent, and no-one has come up with a good reason to do it (only reasons not to), why would we do it? FormerIP (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was brought up earlier. Figured I'd ask. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There should definitely be a notice on the article talkpage, but not on the article itself, unless we can figure out a way to do it which only allows comments from established editors (maybe with ArbCom-style requirements, like a minimum of 150 edits or something). Otherwise we're going to get a ton of SPAs and anons who are not familiar with Wikipedia policies, and I don't think that would be particularly helpful. --Elonka 04:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Anons should be banned from the RfC entirely, and IMO single-purpose-accounnts as well. More on that below. Tarc (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Result
The RfC will open tomorrow, 20 March at 00:00 UTC, and will close 19 April at 23:59. A note will be placed: I'm inclined to agree with FormerIP re: the triumvirate (as well, it might skew !votes to "predict" a certain result with a certain admin, something I think we all want to avoid). I am not absolutely positive that I could recruit one quickly, either, and I do want to get this started before the abortion RfC. In the meantime, you're all free to make changes to the RfC, but please keep them minor!
 * At the top of every editor's watchlist.
 * At WP:CENT
 * At Talk:Muhammad
 * At Talk:Muhammad/images

See you tomorrow! Xavexgoem (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggestion. Per the 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content, which stated "...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.", I suggest that the RfC be semi-protected.  Anon IPs have no seat at this table, and neither should SPAs though what to do about the latter who have technically crossed the confirmed account threshold may get thorny. Tarc (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Um, you're about to go live and there's still an "alt question 9" on the list. I haven't followed this argument but aren't you supposed to have only one at this stage?  I think the normal non-alt question 9 looks better to me. Wnt (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I think we could have both, but when did we lose the "quota" ranges? Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, haha. I have a new script for history, and I think I undid everything when I meant to undo just one edit. Should be back to Q10, now. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It's online. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Who is requesting a comment?
The project page says: "An editor has requested comment from other editors for this discussion." Also it cites an Arbitration commitee with: "... The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case."

So to me it is not clear who is issuing a request for comment, an unkown single editor, the arbitration commitee oder an unkown editor on behalf of the arbitration commitee, --Rosenkohl (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, it's the only way to get RfcBot to list the dispute (with template:Rfc). I guess it's not really necessary, since it's known pretty much everywhere. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

No real discussion
The Rfc suffers from being subdivided into a plenty of subsections, where "support"- against- "oppose" votings take place, mixed with many other subsections with spontaneous discussions on single details. This is a secure way that any stupid or clever argument posted by a user will only be read and understood by few other users. Additionally, the project talk is closed too, and you are redirected to this page, but here as far as I can see only the Rfc is planned along the lines of the Arbitration Commitee.

Thus there is no central place, where the content, usefullness and uselessness of the Rfc itself can be discussed. In my impression, such a discussion is not wanted anyway, since the Arbitration Committe probably believes that there have been many long, overextended an uncivil discussions on the topic over years.

--Rosenkohl (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with the first part. The triumvirate will have a lot on its plate.
 * The second part, though. There's a general discussion section, some additional discussion sections, and the talk page is not a redirect. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)