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

Mediator notes
I think I'll take this on. Looking over some things first. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the above list of involved editors more-or-less representative of all sides of the dispute? Xavexgoem (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It is representative, IMO, but there are a number of active parties to arbitration who are not listed (eg User:Hans Adler, User:Tarc, User:Anthonyhcole, User:Kww, User:Resolute). It might be better to include, or at least notify, these from the outset, or they may have a legitimate complaint of having been excluded. --FormerIP (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, User:Elonka, User:Mathsci, User:Thryduulf and User:Tivanir2, the last repeatedly asked for an image by image review. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There are also several long-standing editors who gave up on the page when it got incredibly busy late last year. I would check the contributors to the images talk page. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly have to wonder why I wasn't included in the mediation, and suspect that Tarc and Anthony would have the same question. Hans has pretty much withdrawn from Wikipedia as a result of the case.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Consider yourself invited! I haven't started yet; still working on the process. Xavexgoem (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have more time than anticipated right at the moment so if people aren't opposed I could help out if able. If you don't get a response in a reasonable amount of time just figure I abstain from whatever is currently being discussed or changed.  The big thing for myself is I do not want to hold up proceedings since my time is variable per day. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess my invitation got lost in the mail somewhere, but I have been reading along pretty much since it was filed, no worries. I would note that the "What is the dispute?" section currently says "The dispute overall is about which and how many depictions of Muhammad to include in the article" . While that is the crux of the matter, this mediation was filed only to craft an RfC, not to directly solve the image issue? Tarc (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that that is what I'm mediating. Tomorrow I'll start with the formalities, but right now I desperately need to sleep! Xavexgoem (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tarc and others, I only specifically invited people who had already participated in the RFC discussions on John's talk page and the Muhammad images page, just to keep the numbers fairly small. I didn't want to exclude anyone, but I also wanted to let people withdraw if they wanted :). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sort of keeping an eye on this, but I'm going to be very busy with university work until the end of April so I don't expect to be able to offer much time to this (or anything else on Wikipedia). Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if there is something you think I should particularly see/comment on. Thryduulf (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am no longer involved in any community processes. Hans Adler 17:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
I think mediation is a good idea. And I thank anyone who volunteers. Would you mind stating why you think you would be a good mediator for this dispute, experience etc? We are probably looking at construction of successful RfC's? Or alternatives? Also, I think there are some gaming concerns with any RfC, just so you know. Also, there maybe substantial off-wiki interest (although I hope not),given the history of the dispute in the past. Finally, there is a requested/required time limit by the Arbcom. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been mediating on and off for about 4 years on Wikipedia. I coordinated the cabal for about 2 years, and was chair of the Mediation Committee (though that was mostly an interim position).
 * RfC is the best venue for wide community input, if that's what you need. It's not an optimal process: Many of the responses will be frustrating, and some editors may become party to the larger dispute. You have been warned! It will be good to be specific about what is wanted from the community. I'm not sure what the parties to this dispute want from an RfC, other than that it's suggested by arbitration.
 * With that said, I think a good start is to ask everyone what they hope to achieve through an RfC, and what pitfalls they hope to avoid. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the primary interest is as stable an article as possible that is based on reasoned discussion, in compliance with policy. I don't know if there is an alternative since prior discussion has not finished the talk page dispute, although the article is relatively stable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is important to distinguish the overall objective from the objective of this mediation, which is to come up with an RfC. This should be worded in such a way that it stands a good chance of providing definitive (ArbCom intends the result to be binding) information regarding the community view on images in the article. It should therefore be broad, so as to cover the relevant aspects of the dispute, but should consist of clear, closed questions.


 * More than one RfC may be necessary, but the idea was recently proposed of an RfC comprising multiple sections, with editors asked to comment under each. I think this may work.


 * The role of the mediator should be to discourage us from going round in circles, keep us focussed on the task and, perhaps, to make judgement calls about the wording of the RfC and ensure that it is balanced so as not to lead respondents in any particular direction. --FormerIP (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. I guess the key part of the Arbcom decision is "establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad."  The remedy involving a three admin close did not quite pass but is that something we can request/require? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, yes. In the two recent cases I am aware of (China and "verifiability not truth") three admins was used without it being directed by ArbCom or anyone else. --FormerIP (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the perfect mediator, in addition to the perseverance, skill, creativity, level headedness and desire and ability to communicate clearly, fully and effectively, that is required of any mediator. In this case, it would be helpful, if you have some broad interest/experience with history, religion, culture, art, biogarphy (although no bias) and such sources; and although you need broad experience in wiki conflict, virtually no past history with this particular conflict. Also, some useful experience illustrating wiki articles and with designing successful RfCs. (a seemingly tall order, altogether). Also, does the cabal ever use a set or team of mediators where they may compliment each others strengths? Can you reply to these thoughts Xavexgoem? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not the tallest order I've heard. One dispute, one of the editors demanded that I know Akkadian!
 * I'm in the process of getting other mediators on this case. It'd be great if Seddon were around: he solved the new anti-semitism mediation, which was another image dispute. Unfortunately, he hasn't been active for a while. Vassyana was an excellent mediator in religious disputes. He's not around either. My own experience has largely been nationalist disputes. The truth is that there are not many mediators, but I can think of a few.
 * I need to be clear about what you can expect from mediation: I will not be dictating the terms of the conversation, only keeping it on track. I'll ask clarifying questions, provide suggestions, and put my foot down from time to time.
 * Finally, drafting RfCs is not difficult. It (or they) needs to provide a succinct summary of the dispute, and offer suggestions for the community to consider. My job as mediator is to have everyone agree on what those should be. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I take your point about RfCs, but although they are hopefully not difficult to draft reading consensus from them has sometimes been a serious problem, due to the way they are drafted and processed (notice issues, time, etc) (and we would like to avoid that). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course. For now, let's focus on the draft. I'll be moving some content from this page over to the /images talk so we can start focusing on that. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A couple of comments that should hopefully have already been covered and/or not be controversial, otherwise it all seems fine to me.


 * Firstly I think when the RFC is closed I think we should get a triumvirate to close it rather than a single admin, that has worked well with controversial topics (e.g. China) in the past.
 * Secondly, I think am largely speaking to the converted, but I think a large RFC has the advantage that it is much harder to game, and also more difficult to challenge as a greater number of people will have made their opinions known.
 * As long as its well structured, and the admins closing it realise that by definition the arguments are unlikely to be quite as clear cut as they would with a smaller RFC then we should be able to reach a good - and stable - consensus. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think an RFC on some of the ground rules may actually be required. One of the key divides on this topic is one that will have a profound influence on the result: does NPOV in any way require that our selection of images reflect the image selection in sources? Some editors in this dispute (Jayen466 and Elonka, for example) firmly believe that it does, and that to have our image choice vary significantly from sources creates a bias. Others (myself and Tarc included) believe that it does not: our editorial policy related to images is derived from being an uncensored secular encyclopedia based on free content, and the image choices of sources that are either not secular, not uncensored, not an encyclopedia, or not based on free content may be interesting and informative, but not binding.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My personal thoughts would be that such comments should be allowed, but that you guys are allowed to say you disagree that its appropriate if you wish and leave it to the closing admin as to whether its a valid argument - and if so to what degree its a valid argument. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to do it serially: get consensus on what criteria to apply, and then work on the image selection based on those criteria. One of the things that has made this thing get so drawn out is that we don't even agree on what the appropriate decision making process is.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a real issue, the closing admins will decide whether the argument is appropriate - that's how these things always go. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the kind of foundation issue that can cause an RFC to turn into an unclosable mess, though. I'm in favor of avoiding that: the last thing we need is a big, binding, community-wide RFC that ends in "no consensus".&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't think this is plausible, even if we agreed here it would create a lot of drama in the RFC if you started telling people they couldn't say stuff.
 * We are also certainly going to strongly discourage arguing that all the depictions should be removed, but I think that is as far as is reasonable to go.
 * Ultimately if the large scale RFC closes as no consensus because the community at large can't agree between the positions that's life. We can try splitting down the middle between the two positions to see if we can get agreement, or something else. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Foundation issues
This has been an informative thread. As I read it, one of the foundation issues is: Should sources determine image selection in cases where a selection may imply bias? Is this correct? Is this a good question for an RfC? Should the question be in one RfC, and the discussion on the proportion and placement of images in another? I think they should be combined, if only because the latter issue needs to be resolved. I think it would allow one area for policy discussion and another for something more tangible, giving both a bit more breathing room. A consensus on the main question may preclude some of the options for image placement, but it may provide some theoretical ground for people participating in the RfC. I'd like others' input. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether/how different questions should be combined, but I'd like us to at least have a roadmap before we get into the idea of preliminary RfCs. Any given RfC will take at lease 30 days, so we could be here forever.--FormerIP (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd prefer a set of foundational RFCs running in parallel, and then an RFC on the primary issue, with it clear going in that only arguments based on the foundation RFCs would be considered by the closers of the final RFC. Topics of the foundation RFCs would include the relevance of source image policy on our image policy; the impact of WP:NOT on image selection for religious topics; how an identified religious affiliation of a source affects the way we treat that source on religous topics; the relevance of WP:POLA to anything at all; and the interaction between WP:ATTACK and WP:NOT. Get those issues settled, and the final RFC will be something you can feasibly close. Leave them open, and the RFC will become just another intractable dispute.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Kww,what you're talking about is a whole set of RfCs to redraw or not redraw policy prior to deciding. I think we should draw a very deep breath before going there.
 * To be clear, what we can't have, IMO, is a set of RfCs designed to pre-detrmine how editors are allowed to vote in a further RfC. In principle, you can't temporarily suspend policy in order to decide a particular case. I think it would just turn into a dysfunctional mess anyway, with editors arguing about process.
 * On the other hand, what would be wrong with asking editors to consider what they make of the various policy arguments that have been put forward and vote accordingly? --FormerIP (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would hope that redrawing could be avoided, and it would only be a matter of gaining consensus on interpretations. The problem I'm attempting to avoid is the one we've had so far, where the arguments come from such completely different interpretations of policy that no consensus can ever be achieved, and every answer presupposes four or five policy interpretations that aren't implicitly obvious.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm saying we can't do. The way to clarify policy is to do it at the root. I'm not ruling that out, but I think it is not something we should try to do lightly. We could decide, for example, that it is absolutely necessary to bottom out POLA first (note that there has recently been one attempt to do this, which failed to get anything changed in policy). But I think we ought only to go down this road if we see no alternative.
 * But you can't have a consensus to ban a workable interpretation of policy on a one-off basis. It's just not sensible. If the community has any sense it will just rebel against the attempt.
 * I suppose you could have an RfC to determine whether a particular interpretation is complete nonsense. But, surely, it would be quicker to go straight to the content RfC on the assumption that the community will not, in any case, apply an interpretation of policy which is complete nonsense. --FormerIP (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously I can't insist on this approach. I'm willing to bet money that any single RFC on this topic will wind up at a no-consensus result, though.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say that either you use the existing policies or you use WP:IAR if that truly is needed. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know. One potential problem with your formulation is "where a selection may imply bias" can be interpreted as bias in the sources or bias in Wikipedia.  Wikipedia's "bias" in presentation is its content policies.  For some prior discussion/background, see ; ; Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Usually in other disputes (e.g. the China move request, and abortion move request) we have largely assumed that the sources are neutral, unless there is a compelling case that in a specific instance they are not - on the view that overall they will be neutral as required by WP:NPOV.
 * There is however a legitimate question about how closely we must follow our sources with regards to our image choice, but I think to the extent we are taking them into account looking at sources selectively in significant detail will lead to more problems. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "where the use of those images may imply bias"? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which sources do you guys think are using images in a way that may imply bias? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This issue that came up was whether how a work about Muhammad that was written or published by Muslims could be used to evaluate whether academic sources did or did not use facial depictions of Muhammad. I argued that we should discount such sources, Elonka and Jayen466 were adamant that we should not.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So if instead of depictions of Muhammad we were talking about the appropriate name for the country commonly known as Ireland would you consider it appropriate to exclude sources, even if they were academic, written by Irish people?
 * What about if we had a dispute about the civil rights movement, would you consider it appropriate to exclude sources, even if they were academic, written by black people?
 * Or on religious grounds, lets say we were having a dispute about Israel-Palestine, would you consider it appropriate to exclude sources, even if they were academic, written by Jews? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This line of questioning is not productive. It's sufficient to point out the disagreement. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, so for your benefit, Xavex (please anyone else feel free to point out if you think I am misrepresenting anything). There has been a dispute about the degree to which sources can resolve a dispute about image placement.

One faction holds that, where there is a dispute such as this one, sources become our best guide. We should make a survey of reliable sources, noting how many images of what types each one contains in what sort of position, then carry out an arithmetical calculation which will tell us how to illustrate our article. Any other approach would breach NPOV, because it would substitute the opinions of editors for the opinions of sources, which are implicit in the image choices they have made.

The other faction holds that, whilst the ways in which sources use images is a relevant consideration, it is not the only one. Few or no sources are easily comparable to Wikipedia. Also, we cannot simply give equal weight to all sources. There would need to be a careful consideration of the merits of each. This would be complex and highly subjective, and it would probably break down because the conclusions of each editor are likely to reflect the prejudices with which they enter into the exercise. Furthermore, the arithmetic approach makes a mockery of NOTCENSORED. It would mean that, in cases where it is known that some sources practice censorship, Wikipedia would be obliged to censor in the same overall proportion.

The question of whether (for example) a Muslim who writes a book about Mohammed and chooses to omit pictures of Mohammed should be considered biased or not is one aspect of this debate. It is quite an important aspect because, if the arithmetical approach were followed, the question of whether Muslim sources get equal weight to other sources would be likely to make a very big difference to the numbers at the end of the calculation. --FormerIP (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is funny that picture ratios have only ever been considered in this article which makes it a sort of special case. No other article to my knowledge uses the formula that the article should reflect what is in sources so my question is: will this have additional purveiw to outside articles?  If so is this the proper venue to discuss these necessary changes or would that be at a different area?  I can think of multiple articles off the top of my head that don't necessarily follow what the sources do and will this set precedence for those to be changed as well? Tivanir2 (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm supposing that if we need to decide this (I'm unconvinced that we do), it would be in a preliminary RfC. --FormerIP (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It really depends what you mean by "the merits of each source" - if you mean that we should take academic sources more seriously than world class newspapers and world class newspapers more seriously than local ones I completely agree. If you mean we can ignore some local Wahhabi newspaper then that's probably sensible. If you also mean that we shouldn't completely ignore any bias of our sources I agree too, we don't assume Indian sources are completely neutral when writing about Pakistan for example.
 * If you mean that we should ignore academic sources just because they are written by muslims, well I think that is as unacceptable as suggesting that Jews can't be considered when talking about Israel (although as with the wahhabi's it would probably be reasonable to exclude a local Haredi Jewish newspaper).
 * As long as we handle sources similarly to how we would handle them in any other dispute on the project I think at this point I'm now in the second camp - we are far more likely to be able to solve this editorially than we are by just directly source counting - as the matter is too fluffy to do that with. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, as Tivanir points out, in any other discussion we would not be proposing to do it by calculus.
 * I probably haven't explained what I think camp two holds. It just rejects the idea that we can do this sort of thing by abstract maths. Considering sources is one thing we should do, but it may not even be the most important part. We also have to consider WP policies and guidelines (e.g. WP:PERTINENCE, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:IUP, WP:IMAGE and so on) and employ commonsense about what users will expect to see on the page (perhaps ironically, per POLA), because what images are used in a newspaper, a research paper or a prayerbook tell us little about what should be used in an online encyclopaedia. Crucially, the end result may well be at variance with the sources.
 * As long as you imagine the issue can be sorted purely by using a spreadsheet, that puts you in camp 1, EH. --FormerIP (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think doing it by calculus probably isn't a good idea, I've changed my mind I think. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you've overstated a bit. "End all and be all" is probably an exaggeration, and something like "best guidance" would be more accurate.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. --FormerIP (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Elonka's suggestion
Here's my suggestion for possible RfC wording:

''Editors at the Muhammad article seeking community input on which images of Muhammad to use in the article. Specific points:
 * ''Should image use in the Wikipedia article, attempt to reflect prevalent usage in reliable sources about the topic?
 * ''With the understanding that Wikipedia is not censored, how much sensitivity should be shown to the WMF-recommended "Principle of Least Astonishment" in terms of image use?
 * ''Any other comments that other members of the community may wish to offer on the situation.

That would be fairly open-ended, then we could gather the first wave of opinions, discuss them, and then maybe come up with 2 or 3 possible different ways of presenting the article based on those opinions, and present those diffs in the RfC to see if there was a consensus for one version over another? --Elonka 03:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Might want to include "to what extent" somewhere in the first question so that it sounds like less of a binary choice. --Cyber cobra (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There has to be a question about how to deal with religious bias in the sources. Even if I agreed with you that we should model ourselves after sources, I would always reduce the weighting of sources that appeared to be from Islamic authors or universities.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As indicated above, I'm opposed to any preliminary RfC which attempts to create or interpret policy over one article. Any question needs to be phrased as a general question about WP content, not about the specific article. Also, the question should have a good chance of delivering a decisive answer, not just some more opinions to throw into the pot. That's what an RfC is for, after all. If we just want views, we can post at the village pump. --FormerIP (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If we were to go this way (and I don't know we should) the RfC should also ask for referenced discussion to, and link to, content policy and MOS:image guidelines. Cobra's suggestion is well taken. I'm not sure what Kww is asking, perhaps: ...to what extent do commercial, religious, or other biases of sources enter into our presentation decisions? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All forms of bias should enter into our presentation decisions. We routinely discount sources that are commercially or politically involved: that's the basis of WP:V's insistence on third-party, independent sources. During previous discussions, many editors have been extremely reluctant to view a religious involvement with the topic as being a source of bias. To my mind, believing someone to be a prophet creates a bias that is comparable to the nationalistic and commercial biases that we routinely deal with.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we are trying to state positions on issues here. How would you frame an RfC around that, whatever it is?Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was looking for suggestions above, and it's why I would break into about five preliminary RFCs before the main one. If it had to be factored into Elonka's suggestion, it would read something along the lines of "Many Islamic sects discourage depictions of Muhammad. If a source is biased by such a belief, how should we take that into account when evaluating its use of imagery towards the purpose of evaluating our own use of imagery?" A bit wordy, but that's why I would like suggestions.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure its a good idea to single out that particular potential bias. Other biases have also been discussed in the real world, and in prior discussions including format, purposes, commercial considerations, and fear of violence. See eg. []  Also compare this non-commercial presentation [], with this commercial one []. (the last when I clicked on it included a condom commercial, and women saying "I love sex", I am sure these change so clik now)Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Think those things are regionalised, Alan. I got an ad for online gambling with Gala bingo. I'd say it couldn't have been less appropriate, but maybe it could. --FormerIP (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, as long as it says nothing about my particular interests. It's gone now, rotated with other sundry ventures.Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The only reason I single it out is the refusal to recognize it as even being a source of bias. That leads to people laying out an argument that sounds superficially appealing, but falls apart under examination, and, when effort is made to examine it, wild emotional arguments about bigotry get hauled out by bystanders. That's the kind of thing that makes an RFC go into a death spiral, and that's why I want to figure out a way to avoid it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think it would be less emotional if we listed it as one of others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is one of the many reasons we should not be contemplating an RfC to determine policy in relation to a single article. The question needs to be about the selection of images for articles, not for any particular article. --FormerIP (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe the question laid out in RFC should be "Should article image selection be decided based upon what is in reliable sources or should image selection be left to editor discretion and in cases of dispute rely upon consensus if disputed?" This is more or less the essence of this entire discussion that we should be following what WP:RS come up with and not editorial judgement. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Think that's the right direction, but it seems like there are two prongs editors want to investigate, which suggests a multiple choice question.
 * Should article image selection be decided: (a) based on what images are used in reliable sources; (b) based on what images are used in reliable sources, but also taking into account the various biases that sources may have; (c) based on various factors including what images are used in reliable sources (taking into account the biases they may have), what WP policies and guidelines say and what the likely expectations of readers will be.--FormerIP (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Much better wording. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Incisive point, T. Perhaps add "and restrictions" after biases in part b. There has been substantial discussion that other formats contain historical custom (eg. the marked non-use of images, about anything, in many scholarly writings), financial, or format restrictions, that the Wiki does not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

@FormerIP, lets say a consensus was reached for option a), is it actually possible for us to actually do that? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, it's not realistic to actually carry out either (a) or (b). The main problems are: how many sources do you need to survey; how do you deal with the fact that the majority of sources will have only one or no images?; since you're dealing with a large number of sources, how do you determine the reliability of each - what does reliability even mean if we are talking about images?; how do you attach numbers to weightings - we all know that the Daily Mail is generally a poorer source than Scientific American, but, precisely, is it 4.8 times poorer or 6.4 times poorer?.
 * In short, I think both these options are just a recipe for more arguing. --FormerIP (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's pretty persuasive, even my - much simpler - analysis in the arbitration case didn't go down too well. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This may or may not be on point, but I also see serious OR and Synthesis problems, especially around the issue of a User generated Survey, and in a very specific way creating, borrowing, or deploying "types" of images decision making. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Our mandate here is very specific. Not to come up with some wiki-wide policy on images, but to focus specifically on the Muhammad article. ArbCom said, "The community is asked 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. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.". So let's please keep discussions focused just on the minimal RfC needed. --Elonka 03:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If we wanted to take a minimalist approach, that would just mean we don't ask any policy questions, because that's not something ArbCom have asked for. I don't think we are obliged to take such an approach but, as for an RfC to create a new interpretation of policy for one article, no chance. --FormerIP (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, that [Elonka] sounds like what you are saying is that Former IP's proposal should be tweaked to say "in this case." I don't see a problem with that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I like Cybercobra's tweak. "prevalent usage in reliable sources" might be impossible to determine, but I venture a guess that Islamic sources about Muhammad far outnumber any other. (Although the anthropomorphic images are the elephant in the room, ArbCom mandated that all images appearing in the article be selected through the same process.) NPOV does not require that only the majority view be presented in an article. And what is "reliable" in the context of an article that mixes history with religion is not terribly clear either. Does someone care to propose, broadly, which sources are going to be deemed reliable for this determination and why they are deemed reliable for this purpose? Or if that's too much to decide in this preliminary phase, at least we should ask the relevant question(s) about source selection in the RfC itself, as some (e.g. FormerIP) have proposed above. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Since we're talking about images, I think any source that passes basic RS requirements (not self-published, under editorial control) and contains images would be reliable. Depending on how the RfC turned out, some might be rejected as biased, but that's a different matter from their reliability. --FormerIP (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Elonka's Suggestion #2
Per some of the above comments, here's another draft: Per request from ArbCom at the Muhammad images case, community input must be sought to "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. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly.on which images of Muhammad to use in the article.''" ''Specific points which would be helpful to cover are as follows, though editors who comment do not necessarily have to express an opinion on all of these: Elonka 17:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ''Which images should be included in the Muhammad article, rather than the Depictions of Muhammad article?
 * ''Where should those images be placed (how prominent should they be, or should they be placed lower in the article)?
 * ''To what extent should image use in the Wikipedia article, attempt to reflect prevalent usage in reliable sources about the topic?
 * ''Should the personal faith of any of the authors of the reliable sources, be taken into account when determining how much weight to give those sources?
 * ''With the understanding that Wikipedia is not censored, how much sensitivity should be shown to the Wikimedia Foundation-recommended Principle of Least Astonishment in terms of image use?
 * ''Any other comments that other members of the community may wish to offer on the situation.
 * I think the first question we could drop the comparison to depictions since it doesn't really matter what is on the other article IMO, but I could be wrong. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the first question. Closer comparisons would be Muhammad in Islam or Criticism of Muhammad. But what probably makes sense is comparing to treatment of all historical biographies, broadly construed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also something that I think might need to be added


 * ''To what extent should the images in the article Muhammad reflect how other sources (i.e. encyclopedias) present them?
 * Tivanir2 (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't that already there in bullet point #3? --Elonka 19:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a problem here with open questions. It's a problem because open questions are highly likely to give rise to "no consensus" closes. We need closed questions to which the range of possible answers are strictly limited. We should be trying to elicit responses such as "I agree", "I prefer option C", "This is an image I like" and so on.

It's also no good asking content questions and policy questions intended to underpin content considerations in the same RfC. What happens if you get contradictory results? --FormerIP (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Eventually we'll need closed questions, but we should start off with open questions to ensure that we're asking about the correct options in the closed ones. Or if we want to go the closed route, then let's each come up with a version of the article that we like, and then we'll present the diffs of each version in the RfC, and see which the community prefer? --Elonka 20:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Starting with open questions seems like a good idea for the first phase. Closed questions might be a useful second step. As Elonka says, we could generate, say, 3 versions of the article, each with its own advert pointing out its perceived strengths, and put these up for a vote. -- J N  466  14:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick headcount
Of the editors who have most strongly supported in previous discussions the "just copy the sources" approach to images, Ludwigs2 has been banned, Hans Adler has semi-retired, Jayen and Anthony seem to have stopped participating in the discussion and Eraserhead has indicated that he may be changing his mind.

Are there actually any editors left who support the idea of going purely by the sources? Might it be possible just to reach a consensus that we won't be doing that, rather than going to the trouble of RfCing the question? --FormerIP (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like too see an answer to my question above this section, but probably. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm persuaded. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am strongly persuaded by reliable sources. Note I am not saying all sources, but if a source meets our WP:RS standard, then it's worth observing how it treats the topic. --Elonka 03:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting question. "Are there any editors left who support the idea of going purely by the sources?" I thought we were in Wikipedia, an encyclopedia whose content is (supposed to be) a neutral reflection of viewpoints in reliable sources. Of course you can't work out the number and placement of the images mathematically (who ever suggested that?), but there should be no question that we are attempting to follow fundamental policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV (which also happen to be explicitly mentioned in the arbitration committee's statement). -- J N  466  14:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How would you propose doing it, if not mathematically? --FormerIP (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A disclaimer
Just to get a quick feeling, would a disclaimer be a sensible possibility to get around WP:POLA? You can't really be astonished by something if you've been explicitly warned about its existence to start with, so I think it completely satisfies all concerns around WP:POLA - it also should make solving the rest of the dispute much simpler, as we all agree we shouldn't include blatantly offensive imagery (e.g. the Muhammad in hell depiction) and means that everything else can be solved generally editorially. I find it difficult to think of how WP:POLA can otherwise be satisfied without reducing the depictions to the absolute bear minimum which a lot of people here don't appear to want to do.

The only prices of doing this are not having an infobox depiction, and I'm the only person who wanted one before (and I think you'd need an RFC about just that to add one - it definitely isn't worth the effort), and that we'd have to do it under WP:IAR. Yes using WP:IAR is generally bad, and should be avoided, but WP:NODISCLAIMER is only a guideline, and this dispute has been rumbling on and off forever. I think a disclaimer should largely solve the dispute and you should find that less muslims get upset by the depictions and complain about them aimlessly on the talk page. Given most of them don't make any further comments, its pretty clear its likely to be "heat of the moment" anger rather than something they actually care about passionately - something a disclaimer should solve.

There is still the issue of image balance, but that can be solved in multiple ways, and I think an image survey would still be useful, but this seems like a worthwhile step. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable (to me at least) though I would also provide a link to the self censor option as well. It won't eliminate the "remove the blasphemous pictures now" but it wouldn't necessarily hurt anything either. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also I still advocate a picture by picture review there are more than a few pictures on the article that could be removed without a problem IMO. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have an issue with a disclaimer but someone once mentioned an obscure guideline on such. On a related point I think there is general agreement in accord with policy not to be censored or gratuitously offensive. The line drawing has proven difficult but maybe there is also something there to build around. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I really doubt that you're going to be able to get a disclaimer waiver just for this article to fly with the community at large. There was quite a sea change on that sort of thing a few years ago that also swept the spoiler tags out of articles on novels and films. Tarc (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with that, but that doesn't mean it can't be asked in an RfC.
 * Someone suggested in on the mediation request page that we could have a "stacked" RfC made up of different sections asking a different question about the use of images in the article. I am increasingly thinking that this is the right way to go. It would mean that we can ask as many questions as we think is appropriate without having to hold a marathon of end-to-end RfCs. It would also mean that we can ask about a disclaimer even if we think it is unlikely to gain consensus and we can ask about the infobox, even though it may be something that only one editor feels strongly about (even though, it has to be said, there is a tension between those two things). --FormerIP (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is how I always figured the RfC would be. It also clues-in editors that this is something that has been well thought-out. But I also think it's important that we focus primarily on the images before we worry about other matters. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, image selection basically is the result of other matters. I don't see how to do it first.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that it may be possible that other things need to be discussed first....but what? --FormerIP (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not construct it as a multipart series, and then we can decide whether to break it up? At least we will have it all to look at and discuss. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the header here is unfortunate. The proposed line is half a disclaimer and half a pointer to instructions. We do have pointers to instructions in a number of articles, e.g. in those containing Chinese characters etc. Furthermore the "no disclaimers in articles" guideline is a guideline. I can see local editorial judgement possibly overruling it in borderline cases like this. (It's also possible to retain mostly the 2nd sentence, which is just a pointer, e.g. "If you don't wish to see some images in this article see the FAQ.") For this reason, I think a proposal like Eraserhead1's should be included in the RfC, even if ArbCom did not suggest it. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I should add however that this line will likely not assuage certain fundamentalists. According to some views, Islam is to be communally enforced, , , , so some will still insist on removing images for the "benefit" of others who might "tempted" by the images in some way. So if you think the proposed line will reduce the number of requests on the talk page, my guess is that it won't make much difference. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From what you are saying, it sounds like the disclaimer issue could or could not be included in the RfC. If we come up with wording we all agreed on it seems like we could implement it as a normal edit and see if it flies, and if there is a dispute we could, fold it into RfC.  Perhaps, Tarc, could respond to that method of dealing with it?  Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that an RfC has been directed by ArbCom, I don't think we should be talking about making layout changes to the page that we don't include in the RfC. --FormerIP (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong preference one way or the other on how its discussed but all the Arbcom decision asked of the community is find a consensus on images (and sub nom placement). There are several ways the community finds consensus (usually through editing). Besides, I don't read layout there, if a disclaimer is layout, whatever it is its not an image. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But this is not a community discussion, it's a mediation amongst disputants. I think it would fly in the face of the ArbCom judgement to make any changes to layout (the disclaimer is a layout decision, because it necessitates no Mohammed images in the first screen) without taking those changes to the community. --FormerIP (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The first image would obvuiosuly be something that would be in the RfC, still a disclaimer is not an image (and can exist with or without it) but for whatever reason you object, so fine. And this is a community discussion but again you object, so fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is possible he missed the reference that we should hold a wider RFC per the ArbCom folks. Hell I missed it and had to do a search for it because I was going to make a comment about why RFC when we seem to be getting some ok consensus now.  For reference it was remedy 1.2 I believe (it was one of the 1.2s) that passed that tells us we should RFC so that we have a larger sampling than simply the involved editors.  Also oddly enough it is going to be binding for 3 years so we will see how it goes. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also I think this is probably a good idea anyways it gives us time to craft a simple non weighted RFC for the topic so we can present something that is coherent up front. Heck I remember multiple times people were trying to make statements to be taken as true that would have severly skewed the results based on wording.  Should we start a section for the bottom of the page for RFC drafts? Tivanir2 (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well if it is brought up in RFC it would also give the community the chance for input before implementing. If the general decision is we shouldn't have one we don't need to throw it in.  If the larger group decides it is not necessarily a bad thing to have then it can be included with minimal problems. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The disclaimer is indeed a logical consequence of the "principle of least astonishment" - good point! Of course, what this really means is that this "principle" is wrong, not that the disclaimer is a good idea.  Still, if we were to start chucking out core principles like an people in an overloaded gondola over a rolling ocean, the disclaimer one might well be the first to go. Wnt (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note the anti-disclaimer rule's resoning is weak in the not-censored department. More speech (a disclaimer, unless in certain specific cases, forced) is not censorship. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Religion and Sex
Did I get your attention? There is discussion above about how broad or narrow RfC(s) should be. A possible concern regarding that is that we don't want to involve a lot of extraneous issues concerning sex and violence. That seems even more of a drama fest, and it would easily be anti-intellectual to treat all these disparate areas the same. Unfortunately, the broad WMF resolution ties these issues together. It would also be potentially bad process to try to create policy for them all at one time. I'm not sure there is a way to be both broad and narrow but we should think about it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC Draft
Please list questions you would like to see in an RfC. Wording does not need to be perfect at this stage. --FormerIP (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this be easier if someone drafted a set we could refer to, or if ones added below were given numbers so others could sign up to them? Just a thought. I've been away with (unexpectedly) no web access, so I'm not really caught up here. Johnbod (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Like so? --FormerIP (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker
1. Transferring my comment from the image talk page: In this article, "[s]hould all images be retained [link to images]; Should this image be removed [link to image]; Should this image be removed [link to image];  Should this image be retained but moved [link to image]  etc."

2. From the above discussion, something like the Former IP proposal with respect to images in this article.

3. Also, in what ways should WP:en, with respect to images in this article and image guidelines and content policy, consider potential biases in or restrictions on sources (religious, commercial, fear of violence, format, and purpose, etc.).

4. With respect to images in this article, what is the proper balance with respect to Offensive material and our images policies.

5. And, with respect to images in this article, in what ways should we treat it differently or the same as other historical biography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Pursuant to Elonka's request, here's my first one that I think educates and propels the narrative through images and captions. I will probably propose some variations on the theme, its kind of meditative. Try it, yourself.

ASCIIn2Bme
Placeholder. I'll try to land some concrete proposals here before the weekend is over. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Elonka
One possible way to proceed, is that we each create a version of the Muhammad article that we think would be acceptable, and then we present those diffs to the community and see if there's a consensus to support one version over another. Here is my version of the article. It removes a few of the images which I feel are unnecessary, and swaps one image down in the "Western views" section, from the painting to the Supreme Court frieze. I have no strong preference on which image to use in the Depiction section, so left the current one about Muhammad's entry into Mecca, but could just as easily use a different one, such as the famous Isra and Mi'raj image. I would be very curious to see such sample diffs from other editors here as well. To make one: --Elonka 15:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit the Muhammad article any way you like
 * Save it
 * Use the "Permanent link" option in the lefthand toolbox to get a URL for demonstration purposes
 * Revert the article to what it was before your edit

Eraserhead1

 * Should we, or should we not include a disclaimer?
 * Not a question in itself, but I think we should do an image review.

FormerIP
I'd like to see a question about where in the article the first depiction of M should appear. Options such as: "Within the first 500 words" (approx the lead), "between 500 and 1000 words", "between 1000 and 1500 words", "between 1500 and 2000 words", "significantly lower down", "there should be no such image". Perhaps there would need to be a supplementary question about whether this image should be veiled or unveiled.

I also support the idea of an image review, as suggested by others. But I don't think this could be bundled in with the RfC because it would make things too complicated. If there is consensus to do it, we should put the RfC on hold and hope that ArbCom will be happy with us doing that. (ETA: Actually, come to think of it, I don't see why a review couldn't run concurrently.)

Johnbod
I don't think I'm going to do a diff, as I'm essentially happy with the present version, or a number of variations. I think there is wide agreement we should have a Miraj image, perhaps replacing the Farewell Sermon one. I don't like the current homemade infobox image, though I realize the computer generated "illumination" surround matches modern popular Islamic taste. Alanscottwalker's version is much more visually appealing, but the templates don't really fall under the scope of this RFC, & I suspect it would be something of a struggle to keep them out. I don't personally mind his infobox image of the mosque, but I think one with the calligraphy of the name is easier to justify in terms of least astonishment etc. The stuff in the actual image is I think all 20th century, which is a pity. It also pretty much duplicates an image of the same building lower down - if we go with the infobox then something else should go there I think. But I could go with that.

For now, I'll say that Thryduulf's questions below are the most specific and comprehensive. Do we need to open up wider issues? I'm not sure. I'll add here the "propositions" drafted & polished a bit by some of you at User:Johnbod/Ice Age art and its talk page. These have kindly been given approving comments by Prof. Christiane Gruber (see talk) & could be put as a single "question" ("Do you agree with these points") or worked in some other way. Theye are:


 * 1) No images of Muhammad are known to exist from his lifetime or shortly after it.
 * 2) The earliest images that do exist of Muhammad do not show very consistent or distinct features.
 * 3) Islamic images showing Muhammad first survive from the mid-13th century.
 * 4) Islamic images of Muhammad are limited in their geographical origin, coming from Persia, Central Asia and areas inhabited by Turks; they are much less common in Arabic-speaking areas.
 * 5) Calligraphic renderings of the name of Muhammad are more common and more widespread geographically
 * 6) Medieval Islamic images of Muhammad are narrative images, usually showing a number of figures, that depict specific incidents in his life, often to illustrate biographical accounts of his life.
 * 7) In the 15th century, Islamic artists began to show Muhammad with a blank or "veiled" face, as an artistic convention to avoid representing his features.  From the start of the 16th century, this became for a time the most common representation in Persia, and common in Ottoman Turkey.
 * 8) Contemporary Islamic images of Muhammad include both "veiled" and unveiled types.
 * 9) Sometimes Muhammad is shown entirely as a flame, extending a convention of showing him with a flaming halo.
 * 10) When printing became common in Islamic countries, images of Muhammad began to be printed.
 * 11) Although in modern times images of Muhammad are mostly found in Shia contexts, this was not always the case.
 * 12) Muhammad currently has 6 figurative depictions of Muhammad, 5 Islamic and 1 Western.
 * 13) All the Islamic ones show specific incidents and are placed in the article to be near the relevant incident in the text.
 * 14) The dates of the Islamic images range from c. 1307 to 1808, the Western image is mid-19th century.
 * 15) Of the Islamic images, three show his face, one is "veiled", and one uses the flame convention.
 * 16) The images are placed starting several screens into the article; the infobox uses a calligraphic treatment of his name.

Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

JN466
While this is not our main objective here, one thing I like very much about Alanscottwalker's version is the removal of the Quran and Islam templates. It gives the article so much more room to breathe, and let's face it, the three templates are designed in completely different styles and simply don't go together. I would propose that whatever we offer in the RfC, we should do away with these two templates. -- J N  466  05:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree with that. I wouldn't mind if there were collapsed version templates but as it is they eat up a lot of space on the article itself and make it akward to move things around or add new pictures to relevant sections. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree, obviously. Although, they are attractive and well thought out, besides the layout issues, they are somewhat tangential and duplicative of each other and the article.  Note for T, apparently collapse does not work on some browsers and systems.  I also moved the Muhammad template box down, as its main purpose seems to be to take readers deeper, and logically belongs then toward the bottom. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If there's consensus to remove the templates, let's just pull them from the article now, there's no need to submit them to an RfC? --Elonka 16:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed them, and I have also tried to incorporate some of the other aesthetic improvements in Alan's version (without removing or adding any image, however). -- J  N  466  16:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the change in templates. Vertical side-bar templates are useful as a page filler when few topical images exist. Which isn't the case here, so horizontal templates at the bottom of the article should be preferred. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Great. Another difference in Alanscottwalker's version is that Alan removed the map of the Aksumite empire. I agree with that removal. It's a very simple map, and its relevance is very tangential here. What Alan's version demonstrates quite beautifully is that sometimes, less is more. :) I'll remove the map, but if anyone is attached to it, please revert. -- J N  466  17:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How bold! Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Kww
I'll build mine using Elonka's as a model.


 * Which images should be included in the Muhammad article?
 * Where should those images be placed (how prominent should they be, or should they be placed lower in the article)?
 * To what extent should image use in the Wikipedia article, attempt to reflect prevalent usage in reliable sources about the topic?
 * Should the religious affiliation of the publishers, authors, or sponsors of a reliable source be treated as a possible source of bias?
 * If you believe the Principle of Least Astonishment applies to this question, do you believe that it would favor inclusion of depictions (i.e. "Wikipedia readers would be astonished to see Muhammad treated differently from similar historical figures") or exclusion (i.e "Wikipedia readers would be astonished to see depictions of Muhammad due to Islamic sensitivities over the matter''").
 * Any other comments that other members of the community may wish to offer on the situation.

Tarc

 * Does an article on a religious figure have to conform to that religion's belief system; specifically, can an exception be made to WP:NOTCENSORED so that Islam's views on depictions of Muhammad dictate how depictions are used in the English Wikipedia's article on Muhammad?

Thryduulf

 * Should the article include a disclaimer regarding the use of images in the article? Yes/No
 * Should the article include a header linking to instructions for how not to see images? Yes/No
 * Should the article contain narrative figurative depictions of Muhammad? Yes/No
 * Should the article contain non-narrative figurative depictions of Muhammad? Yes/No
 * Should the article contain calligraphic images? Yes/No
 * Is it acceptable for the lead image to be a narrative figurative depiction of Muhammed? Yes/No
 * Is it acceptable for the lead image to be a non-narrative figurative depiction of Muhammad? Yes/No
 * Is it acceptable for the lead image to be a calligraphic image? Yes/No
 * Which type would be your preference for the lead image? narrative/non-narrative/calligraphic/other
 * Is it acceptable for the infobox image to be a narrative figurative depiction of Muhammed? Yes/No
 * Is it acceptable for the infobox image to be a non-narrative figurative depiction of Muhammad? Yes/No
 * Is it acceptable for the infobox image to be a calligraphic image? Yes/No
 * Which type would be your preference for the infobox image? narrative/non-narrative/calligraphic/other

There should also be a question about whether it is acceptable for the lead image and the infobox image to be of the same type, but I can't think of a suitably concise way to phrase it that would capture the range of possible opinions (e.g. my opinion is that they shouldn't both be calligraphic, but any other combination is OK). I'm not wedded to the exact phrasings above, but they represent the sort of thing I think we should be asking and the sort of way we should be asking it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Tivanir2
1. Should the images in the article Muhammad include: A. Caligraphy B. Figurative C. Mixture of both.

2. Should the lead image be of calligraphy (most common representation) or figurative (less common, but image based.)

3. Pictures on the article Muhammad can be considered offensive by a portion of the readers on wikipedia. Should these pictures receive special considerations and an exception from WP:NOTCENSORED or should they be considered to follow the same guidelines as other articles dealing with offensive materials?

4. Do any pictures fail the WP:Offensive material test in the article? What reasons would you give that the image identified fails the gratuitous offense requirement?

My suggested version minus collapsing the Islam and Quran boxes a bit (sorry in a hurry a bit might work on it later.) [|Here]. Made a few layout changes to make it far less cluttered and look better [|Here].

Space for responses
Elonka's suggestion with all the changing and saving sounds disruptive of the Project to me? Can we do that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If it were multiple changes and self-reverts by the same user per day, yes, it might be disruptive. But one change and immediate self-revert for the purpose of mediation or discussion has always been fine. --Elonka 17:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a rough time limit for responses. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I still think saving in a sandbox in your user space would be better. We aren't having to deal with fair-use images that would cause problems.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Elonka and Tivanir's edits were absolutely fine. I've never seen it before, but it's actually really clever. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we need to move forward on the RfC, since ArbCom put a time limit on it. Shall we put together the suggested diffs, along with the questions? --Elonka 19:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If by suggested diffs you mean the three examples above. I don't think that's the way to go, because users would have there own ideas, and there are many different ways the article can be presented within policy not 1, 2, 3 or 4.  As the almost adopted Arbcom finding said, there are multiple ways. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. I have difficulty seeing how it could work. We would have to offer a fairly wide range of alternatives, but that would be likely to mean no consensus or, worse, effectively leaving the closer a free choice. --FormerIP (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: I think the basic form of what you have proposed is good, but surely we can't have questions phrased "is it acceptable..."? What happens if the community decides that all the proposals are acceptable? --FormerIP (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There are also too many questions really, we shouldn't be overburdening the community, I think we should be asking at most half a dozen questions. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should ask more than is necessary, but maybe we should see how it goes. --FormerIP (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I see a lot of the questions seem to be the equivelent of multiple option questions just broken down to individual questions. I don't think it will be overly problematic to have as many as Thyrd for this. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What does Former IP suggest instead of "is it acceptable"? I think I understand what is meant here by "narrative", after being involved since last November (will others? or is there a simple way to put everyone on the same page about that?). I am not sure what is meant by "non-narrative" there? Are there such images? Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we need to phrase the questions so that a differentiation between options is forced. So, for example, you could have "which do you think is preferable?". But I would expect the community to give most options I can think of a pass if given the low bar of "is this acceptable?". All we would learn is that most of the options we propose are acceptable. In terms of how the article should be laid out, this wouldn't give us useful information, IMO. --FormerIP (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick question for everyone. How do people feel we need to present the offense portion of the RfC? We have several wordings above each radically different and either read as pro or against (admittedly even my own and I tried to write it as neutral as I could and it still looks like it is written to achieve a specific end.) I think we will need to look at that one carefully prior to final submission. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggested: "With respect to images in this article, what is the proper balance with respect to Offensive material and our images policies?" Seems to focus editors with respect to already adopted policy/guidline but does not suggest and answer.  I am also assuming a general introduction that helps editors focus with a linked list of all the obvious relevant policies and MOS guidlines, and Arbcom Decision, we suggest they review and discuss in thier rationales. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is probably closer to what we need for the question. Unfortunately it is vague but I can't find a way to write it better for a neutral statement without having it advocate one side or the other. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Another idea - Image proposal/consensus section of the RfC
In addition to policy/MOS guideline sections of the RfC, have editors discuss consensus pictures for each section of the article: Infobox, Name, etc. Have a time period of seven days where any editor, may discuss the policy questions and in a 2d separate section below may propose an image with a caption, for each section and subsection of the article, then close the image proposal phase and open the image consensus phase, where consensus is determined for one of the image proposals, for each (sub)section, including a proposal choice for each (sub)section of: "No image." I would propose then leaving both the Policy/Mos section and the image consensus section open for another 7 to 14 days.: Thoughts? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would see this as an alternative way of doing an image review. In the more obvious way of doing it, there is bound to be discussion of images in the context of the article. So it's as broad as it is long, AFAICT. But we should be wary of arriving at a conclusion which ties images to sections in such a way that editors become unable, for three years, to move, remove or merge sections of the article. --FormerIP (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm having trouble seeing, "the more obvious way of doing it." Would you elaborate? Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By "the more obvious way", I mean presenting images and asking "is this one any good and where can we use it?" You're approaching the same question in a different direction, I think. Asking "do we have images that are any good to be used in this location?". I think either discussion would be worth having and I would support it whichever way. --FormerIP (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I think my proposal would include the ones used and proposed so far. So, the corpus of images going in is I expect limited to those but is that the total limit, we ask the community about?  Perhaps, yes, since we have all focused on this intently, and consider ourselves well versed in the matter.  But then will there be many editors who !vote: "you guys gave us no choice but to oppose everything because you gave us no choice?" Also, I very much would prefer that the decisions are made the way I do it (of course), which is basically: "is this the "right" image for this part of the article?"  I think good editorial judgement is better focused that way. So, I would like for editors to consider them carefully, in context.  Am I getting too far ahead? Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal from Anthonyhcole
Sorry this is so late. I had no idea this discussion was happening (I don't have John's talk page on my watchlist).

The core of this dispute is (1) the belief of some editors that, because images of Muhammad are offensive to many of our readers, we should take particular care with choice and placement of such images, and (2) the belief of some editors that we should be guided in our choice and placement of images by the treatment of images in reliable sources.

Until now, the discussion on this page has been largely dominated by editors who do not share either of the above views so I would appreciate it if the following proposal were carefully considered by the participants, otherwise there is a distinct possibility this discussion will produce an RfC that does not resolve the underlying causes of the dispute.

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you've done a good job of drafting this, Anthony, and I'm not opposed in principle to the approach. But I think there is a bit of an issue about how long all this is going to take. What I would like to note is that this formulation will not give us a "definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad, and on where the images will be placed within the article" or any clear idea about when that might arrive.
 * If we feel that we've got forever, then fine. But ArbCom seemed to suggest that we had about 8 weeks, of which three have already expired (maybe this could be clarified or extended, true).
 * You're right that the issue of following reliable sources has been a significant aspect of the dispute, I don't think it represents the beef (i.e. it is what editors have ended up arguing over for various unimportant reasons, rather than what really matters).
 * Personally, I don't see any reason not to cut to the chase, rather than planning for a slow, probably quite depressing journey from battleground to battleground before finally arriving at the exact same chase we would arrive at if we did it now. --FormerIP (talk) 03:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. You're probably right that the concern for offending our readers is the core, core issue here, and the "follow the sources" formula is more of a solution to the perceived excessive or gratuitous use of images, rather than a core point of contention. But the latter did occupy a considerable portion of the preceding debate.


 * I think that if we can put these two to rest initially, it will drain a lot of the emotion out of the ensuing discussion. Agreeing on what influence, if any, those considerations should have will simplify the main discussion, and, conversely, trying to discuss content while concurrently arguing these principles would, in my opinion, be a bun-fight. (I suspect the consensus will be fairly solidly against both, and will emerge fairly early. That is, I suspect this is the faster way forward.)


 * As for the deadline, I doubt anyone will object to us running over ArbCom's nominated timescale, provided we're making clear headway toward resolution. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I still think the first question reads poorly and geared towards one side of the debate, and it makes no mention of any of the policies we would be ignoring or exempting this article from in the version presented. A more accurate question would be


 * "The images on the article Muhammad are considered offensive to certain groups of people on wikipedia. Does the community think it is better to follow policy as written in WP:NOTCENSORED WP:Offensive material or should it take into account the offense these groups feel and remove images that could cause offense." Tivanir2 (talk) 12:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As a side note even I am not happy about my rewording of the question since I can't find a way to keep it from being slanted either pro or con for this problem. The simple fact is people find it offensive and others say policies trump offense so we need a way that reads neutral on both sections.  Trying to just present one side of the problem is the equivelent of "aren't they being so unreasonable because you don't know the whole story." Tivanir2 (talk) 12:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with T. I also think this sections formulation is needlessly, if unintentionally, inflammatory. If editors or users wish to discuss and explain their own offense, they may do so but they should also be guided to address such a thing's relevance in Policy.  No one else should try to interject or argue another's offense or a another group's offense, especially since we know that imprecision in this regard is disruptive, is cause for needless dispute about who and how they're exactly offended, is cause for personalization of the dispute, and leads to disputes about the legitimacy and authority of one attempting to speak for a group.  On the other hand, if a third party reliable source discusses offense, such may or may not be relevant, it is also less inflammatory where the discussion is about the contentions and weight of that source's discussions of offense, and not about other people.  In short, this issue should not be framed as Wikimedia vs. X person, or Wikimedia vs. X group, which the above proposal appears to do, even unintentionally. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For the RfC, I think less is more in terms of how we formulate it. Let's stick to what ArbCom said rather than trying to put a spin one way or the other. But even so, I'm very concerned that if we make the RfC too open-ended, we're going to end up with a lot of opinions with unhelpful comments like "WP:NOTCENSORED", which won't give any particular guidance on how to resolve the dispute. In addition to the text part of the RfC, let's also offer some specific suggestions of how the article could be presented (with the diffs or sandbox technique), then let members of the community weigh-in on which versions they support, with 1st choice, 2nd choice, etc. I think that will do a much better job of helping us to arrive at a clear and unambiguous consensus. --Elonka 16:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure that this frames the debate accurately. The "reliable sources" argument failed to make much headway in the Rfc, I think largely because it was realized that RS, especially commercial ones, do not subscribe to our 5 pillars etc, especially in the area of illustrations, which they tend to treat rather as an trivial afterthought, and are very sensitive to complaints and political/public pressures, ever since the Salman Rushdie affair. I have private knowledge of how this can sway even the most respected publishers of general material. When the policy in this area is being set by the legal department, why should it concern us? Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is also misleading. Unless a third party reliable source produces a persuasive study on how best to illustrate a Wikipedia article, we cannot make such a study up. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Based upon what I am seeing would the question be more along the lines of.
 * Editors at the article Muhammad have been instructed by ArbCom to hold a comprehensive RfC to determine the image usage on the article. Please keep all discussion civil and on topic as anyone who disrupts the proceedings may be subject to administrator actions based upon the ArbCom ruling [|here]
 * For the article Muhammad what do you believe would be the best way to represent the article: figurative, calligraphy or both? What reasons would you give and if relevant what polices did you base your comments on? Tivanir2 (talk) 17:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. In conjunction with other questions, as we also need to reach consensus on placement, and as I have said we should list policy and MOS guidelines links for easy reference in the intro.  Minor edits: replace "represent" with "illustrate" and add "/guidelines" after policies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Note on copyvio
In case anyone is unaware, the infobox image present when this mediation started has been removed from use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well time for RFC
If possible we need to at least start the RfC by the 3rd I would say so we can give time for people to participate. Shall we start finalizing everything below? Tivanir2 (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a little optimistic, but let's start moving now. Looking at all the above, & what arbcom seem to expect, it seems to fall naturally into two broad phases, which maybe should be done one after the other: A) general issues & principles - what sort of images and where, and roughly how many, and B) within a framework agreed at A, choice of specific images. One further thought - is it worth, before we begin the Rfc, substituting a Mi'raj image for one of the other ones, say the farewell sermon? There seems to be lots of support for this & few objections, other than those objecting generally. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You've linked to the wrong thing :), but I don't think there is opposition, at least here, to including that image. But I don't get it's relevance to that section of the article, perhaps you can elaborate? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Link fixed, thanks. The argument was that the Mi'raj appears to be both the most common scene illustrated in Islamic miniatures, and the one that has many of the most artistically attractive depictions. I was thinking that to avoid extensive discussion, & given where we are now, we should not increase the overall number of images, so it should replace one. I mentioned the Farewell sermon as one of the weaker ones maybe; ideally the placing could be reshuffled to bring the image closer to the section dealing with the Mi'raj (I can see ways to do this), though I'm never too fussed about having images exactly at the point where the text covers the same thing. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I am a little more fussy, so could not support it in that section. As I recall the prior proposal was in the depictions section. Perhaps it could be done with a split-yoke to, or replacing the current image, used there?  Perhaps a tad of boldness by you is appropriate there; it would get it in the mix. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the discussion is getting to the point where you could be running in circles or bike shedding. I propose that drafts be submitted now, and put on hold all other discussion. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC) In case anyone is wondering: this "mediation" has been essentially self-running, so I haven't felt the need to participate. If it's been bothering anyone, let me know.
 * X - Can you suggest from reading the above and your own experience which approach(es) make(s) sense, For example as you may see, I prefer a slightly tandem approach.  So dry issues of policy are focused in the "real world" of illustrating this article with "these" images. I also think running it about two weeks altogether is fine, is there an issue with that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Johnbod has the right idea. Whether the RfC should be split up or not... I'm not sure, but I'm sort of going for the two RfC approach. Horse, then cart. With the policy out of the way, it'll be much easier to draft the second RfC since we'll have a solid foundation to work with.
 * I agree on 2 weeks. Intuitively, it feels right. Either it becomes stale and everyone is left hanging, or it is filled with so much activity that everything erupts into chaos. Both options are possible with this case, and letting it go on for a month is, imho, potentially dangerous. I also think a triumvirate close is an excellent idea, especially for a case fresh out of ArbCom that has attracted attention from all quarters. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. For the record, since it's not decided yet, pure policy debates, here, often seem pinheaded, imo. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:5 ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Especially the last one.

Three Admin close (is there anything we need to do to line this up?) / Arabic

 * You can ask on AN when you're ready to close the RfC. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If others disagree it is not a big deal, but I don't think the closers all have to be admins. Experienced editors in good standing would do. --FormerIP (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Also when we talk about this we should show that it is a requirement not an option. One of the other articles asked for a 3 person panel and someone closed it on their own, which could cause problems since it is a requirement for these proceedings. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It may instill more confidence in participants, and reduce potential chaos at the end, if it's known from the outset who the closers will be, as in the current Requests for comment/Abortion article titles. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I independently came to the conclusion that we need to pre-assign closing admins-- because admins here might have to be able to read lots of comments both in En and in Arabic.  We know from experience this is RFC is likely to generate comments in that language--  our EN user community includes a lot of people who prefer writing in Ar.
 * We should anticipate the possibility of a large number of Ar comments in advance and do our best to make sure their words are at least read and understood before closing. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice any comment in Arabic in the RFC. Really, this is the English WP & all discussion should be in English, as usual. Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In the ideal, English is preferable. This is EN WP after all.   But go look at the talk/images and you get the distinct impression there's a language barrier (on top of all the other issues at play here).    Just sayin-- if we get an earful of arabic, let's be sure to listen, not just ignore it. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that people writing in Arabic should be listened to here. This is the English language wikipedia and we need to make decisions based on our policies and guidelines and make sure we aren't making them based on Arabic wikipedia's guidelines.
 * I don't think it would be appropriate to link it, but there is a currently open move request where this exact issue has come up after canvassing on another language wiki where a bunch of people come in with a view that seems to follow the policy on their language wiki much more closely than it follows ours.
 * To be able to understand our polices and the subtlety of this issue (otherwise it wouldn't be controversial) you need a pretty good standard of English - if you can't use English to write your comments you aren't going to be able to do that. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Workflow
I think that for this mediation to arrive at a successful conclusion, we need an agreed workflow.

I propose that we use this page to discuss and agree contents for the RfC. Once they are agreed, we transfer them to the RfC page. They are not then set in stone, but the contents can be further amended if there is consensus here to do so, or if the changes are minor to the extent that to ask for consensus would be churlish.

Alternatively, we could use the normal BRD process on the RfC page. But I feel that this would add nothing useful except a source of antagonism. If a change doesn't have consensus, then I think it is obvious that it will need one and so it should not be made until it has one.

In any event, I do not think that editors who have not attempted to discuss the changes they wish to make to the RfC are entitled to grumble about being reverted. --FormerIP (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In the event of BRD, the problem is editors who then do not attempt to discuss after being reverted :-). That is not the issue, here, thankfully.
 * BRD is meant to break people out of a discussion-discussion-discussion loop, which can be equally antagonistic (and is more likely to stall, to boot). I'm broadly against eliminating BRD as an option. The RfC was created rather boldly, after all, and that was the first major sign of progress.
 * It should be noted that until the RfC is live, it's always going to be on the wrong version. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not so much about the wrong version, but about the crap generated (as demonstrated above ) and the pointlessness of continually typing "please discuss this on the mediation page first" into an edit summary. Clearly, that's going to apply to all significant changes, so why not cut out the middle man? --FormerIP (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To cut out the middle-person, the best technique that I have seen is to work directly on the draft page. Not by endlessly reverting each other, but by trying to change text, building on each other's work, until we find wording that we're all happy with. This will also be a much more efficient method of dealing with things, rather than the suggest/discuss model. If we get to a point where a sentence is being endlessly changed and we just can't seem to find compromise wording, then sure, let's bring it back to discussion. In the meantime, I highly recommend collaborative editing. --Elonka 16:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)