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

Arbitrators active on this case
Active:
 * AGK
 * 1) Casliber
 * 2) Courcelles
 * 3) David Fuchs
 * 4) Jclemens
 * 5) John Vandenberg
 * 6) Kirill Lokshin
 * 7) Newyorkbrad
 * 8) PhilKnight
 * 9) Risker
 * 10) Roger Davies

Inactive:
 * 1) Cool Hand Luke
 * 2) Hersfold
 * 3) Mailer diablo
 * 4) SilkTork
 * 5) SirFozzie
 * 6) Xeno

Recused:
 * 1) Coren
 * 2) Elen of the Roads

Query
Though I am not a party to this specific dispute, I know a fair bit about this topic. I see on the Workshop page a "Questions to the parties" section. Are non-parties allowed to comment? Or is this section strictly for those involved in the dispute? --Elonka 22:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The questions so far have been about the policy issues relating to the dispute, so the input of non-parties would also be welcome. Please feel free to respond, although it would be useful if any non-parties who respond make it clear in their comments that they are not a listed party to the dispute. Regards, AGK   [• ]  22:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible compromise for the article
This is a possible content compromise, but will probably need some arbitration involvement so I'm posting it here.


 * Replace the lead piece of calligraphy with a veiled or flame depiction (I would lean towards the former, but I don't care too much).
 * Remove all but three further images (for a total of four) in the rest of the article, so in total there will be one of each out of veiled, unveiled and flame as well as a Western (unveiled) depiction.
 * Make sure that all of the unveiled depictions are at least 2/3 of the way down the article as they were when the article reached GA status.
 * Replace the other two depictions with at least one piece of calligraphy.

Things I'd like from Arbcom for this.
 * Image lockdown for three years to prevent further discussion.
 * Discretionary sanctions against anyone who attempts to move or discuss the images further.

Things I'd like to do further on this.
 * Expand the list of historical biographies to, if possible, all the featured historical biographies of people who died in or before 1840 (when negatives were invented).
 * Discuss which exact images we want to include.

The rationale: -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As per the second table in my evidence all the featured article historical biographies found have a lead depiction - I'd be quite surprised if there are any which don't.
 * Both sides have to give a bit of ground, the people who want less depictions lose not having a lead depiction, the people who want the status quo/more images lose two depictions in the article overall.
 * I think this should be relatively easy to defend, all the featured historical biographies found so far contain a lead depiction, and reducing the number of images to four makes the percentage of depictions lower than all the other featured historical biographies found so far (19% if we say there are 21 images, and 16% if we say there are 25) - I'd be quite surprised if overall it wasn't one of the lowest as Garrow's percentage is pretty low.
 * The lead image shouldn't be unveiled as per WP:ASTONISH but having some sort of depiction in the lead should make it clear to readers that we are using depictions in the article.
 * Having an image of each type should satisfy at a basic level the educational value of showing that Muhammad was depicted.
 * This should satisfy the WP:NPOV concerns raised.
 * This follows the manual of style with regards to images.
 * Oh and Merry Christmas guys :). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am also prepared to formally retract my evidence against anyone who is prepared to sign up to and support this compromise. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy Christmas! I would need more time to review your proposal, but on the specific sub-issue of evidence retraction, although I imagine the committee would take into account a proposed compromise and an associated request to discount your evidence, we would not allow the "retraction" of a submission we think contains salient evidence. We resolve disputes; we aren't a court of law which emphasises fair process - although fairness is of course very, very important :). Thank you for your suggestion, although I suspect that we could not allow this dispute to pass through our doors with the only resolution being a non-binding solution, so we would need to look very closely at an enforcement provision for such a solution - which is difficult, because we also avoid ruling on content... Regards, AGK   [• ]  13:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think everyone taking a few days to think about this on all sides is probably wise. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added another point to the rationale about the manual of style. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I strongly protest every aspect of this, from the proposal itself to the venue in which this is being posted in. When I read things like "both sides have to give a bit of ground", I am reminded of the criticism of NBA referees who, when they have to break up a scuffle, many times just T up one player from each side and call it settled.  That's not settling a matter, that's just making it look like it was settled.  If Wikipedia editors are  going to sit down and decide how many images should be in the Muhammad article and what there placement is (and I will note, as others have noted, that the article as it sits right at this moment is a product of such a compromise), then we will sit down and discuss it in the simple terms of "how do we improve the article?", not with some Sword of Damocles-ish "the end result must be a reduction in images so that some editors are mollified" hanging over the proceedings.  I think some people need to start preparing themselves for the reality that their preference for the article may not come to pass. Tarc (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Tarc, I'm still wading through the large amounts of discussion here, and had a question for you: Have you ever proposed a compromise on this issue? Could you point me at a couple diffs? Thanks, --Elonka 01:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You completely missed the point of what I just said. Tarc (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Tarc, what do you propose instead?
 * With regards to posting it here AGK didn't have an issue with that, and while he is new at Arbcom he has been (and still is?) the head of the mediation committee. I don't see why you're complaining about it being posted here. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh. There is no "instead".  As has been pointed out to you, many times, the article as it exists now is a product of a productive compromise.  Demanding that we enter into a new discussion regarding images while declaring that the end result must be a reduction of some images is not a proposal made in good faith. Tarc (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "the article as it exists now is a product of a productive compromise" - evidence please. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, you know quite well where that evidence lies, as you argued about it there. That you disagree with the evidence does not negate its existence. Tarc (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Where's the evidence that backs up the claims made there? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ...In the link I just gave you? Over time, images have been discussed, removed, and relocated. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Have some diffs which show that? Table 1 of my evidence doesn't really show that occurring in any significant amount - beyond the removal of the hell image added by a now banned user. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything you need to know is contained in the link I just gave you above. 4 editors, including myself, refuted your statistical analysis.  I have nothing more to add to this particular tangent. Tarc (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The only reason you aren't replying to this tangent is that you haven't got any evidence to present.
 * Some people might like not to believe standard statistics, but that's their problem. Arguing with maths is generally a pretty futile exercise. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In spite of the negative attitude (I am not saying whether this is a bad or a good thing) in which it is couched, I'd say "sit down and discuss it in the simple terms of how do we improve the article?" is the only realistic offer of compromise it is possible for anyone on either side to make. --FormerIP (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. Only being prepared to discuss it without giving any ground is just filibustering.
 * And we have already just talked about the topic a lot - that's why we're here. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think it is realistic to expect editors to discuss it and at the same time give an advance promise that they will give ground. You're right, some of these topics have been discussed before and those discussions have not given you everything you might have wanted. It may be that this is just hard cheese. However, it might also be that you could get more with a fresh approach. In any event, I agree with Tarc's sentiment that it is only worth working on the basis of improving the article, which is why I think the approach you have sometimes taken ("Give me a compromise because I deserve one") is unrealistic.--FormerIP (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I absolutely think its reasonable to expect people to agree to give ground in advance. That's how you solve problems in the real world.
 * If you look at any real world problem that has been solved, such as the world trade deals, or Northern Ireland or the EU crisis, or the climate change conferences you'll find that in reality everyone does actually give ground to make it happen. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thinking on this some, I don't like the reduction to four. For one, we do have an issue where there are both Islamic (restricted) and Western (unrestricted) views on the article subject.  There, really, is no reason to confine our use of Western images if we do not have to.  That is, in fact, why my original proposal sought to use two Western images - the section was large enough, and another such depiction is most appropriate.  From an Islamic perspective, I would certainly like to see the major historical types shown - unaltered, defaced, as a flame.  My original proposal sought to put the unaltered and defaced examples side by side in the Islamic depictions section, with a caption that seeks to educate the reader on when such images were more popular. (and that is one aspect most people overlook - we can use the images and their captions to educate the reader on their rarity, even if that seems counterintuitive).  So that leaves the infobox and biography sections.   Suppose we leave the infobox as calligraphy, but use two images in the main body - the Black Stone (if my memory serves that discussion on the /Images page held it had value given subsequent prose additions) and another (I suggest the flame image of Muhhamad destroying the idols, again using the caption to note the time when such images were popular.)  It would leave is with the same total of six images and move four of them to near the end of the article, but leave two higher up. Thoughts? Resolute 21:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In the event that this proposal is acceptable to the deletionists, I will rethink my comments above (if I am not too busy eating my hat).--FormerIP (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you've got to do more than just move the images around as that doesn't affect the WP:NPOV concerns, it doesn't meet the WP:MOS and its not any easier to defend than the current position. You're also leaving an unveiled image (Black Stone) high up, so I'm not sure this is as good as the GA version in any way.
 * If you want to reduce the number of images to five and not have the lead image that could be acceptable to me, but I don't think that is as good as my suggestion. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, is there any evidence at all that unveiled images are less likely to cause offence than unveiled ones? I've never seen any. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Its circumstantial and not a source, but vs  seems reasonable. I'll try and find something better. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have had a reasonable look and can't see anything, so I think I was wrong. Fair point John. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want my personal view on this, I'd probably go for 3 images, as that's likely to be significantly lower than the mean as well as meeting the rationale above, and I don't think the value offered by the Western image adds much, and I would lose the lead depiction I'm suggesting here. I believe Jayen466 thinks similarly, and Ludwigs wants 2/3 images and I presume Anthonyhcole thinks similarly. The proposal to start with is a significant compromise from that position. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. My preferred position would be to use far more depictions than currently exists on the article, so sticking with a number around six is likewise a significant compromise. Resolute 00:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And how would you justify that position given the facts? Additionally how do you justify it given your earlier compromise which is very similar to my compromise here? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The facts are, well-developed biographical articles typically use a significantly higher ratio of depictions to overall images than this one does. My preference is to treat this article as a historical biography, not a religious piece.  However, because people like you have invested so much time into arguing this, I am aware that you will not put the stick down until you have a carrot thrown your way.  That was the intention of my original compromise proposal.  Overall, the ratio of images was not intended to change (which is vastly different than your proposal).  However, my proposal intended to remove images that other discussions subsequently decided were useful, as well as suggested an overall placement that was not acceptable to many users.  Consequently, it needs rework.  I am more than happy to try and work with you, and others, at finding an acceptable resolution. But don't fool yourself.  This was never a debate where the minimum number of depictions was zero, the maximum the existing six and a compromise falling in between. The maximum has always been as many as can reasonably fit in the article.  The article is already compromised.  If you want more, you will have to convince people of the necessity of that. Resolute 17:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest we agree to disagree, and allow the arbitration committee to remove the editors who have had conduct issues from the discussion, whoever they may be. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The one thing I'm unquestionably in favour of is to use the two mi'raj images side by side in the Depictions section. The captions make a real educational point, explaining the change from the 16th century onward, and mi-raj images represent a popular motif, both in terms of their prevalence in extant images, and in terms of their use in publications today. What's totally undue is having three unveiled Islamic images vs. just one veiled and one flame – unveiled images are the rarer type historically, according to multiple sources, and are more rarely used in RS today. I see this overrepresentation of unveiled images as the one thing that most lays us open to the charge of gratuitous offence. -- J N  466  00:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that was one of the things I didn't like about Resolute's proposal, as it used up two of the strict "image ration" on two similar versions of the same thing, and reduced the individual sizes of two complex images below what is useful as a small thumbnail. The combined image might be useful at Depictions of Muhammad but the veiling point is not hard to grasp, and can be illustrated adequately using different scenes. I certainly agree we should have a Mi'raj though. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are unquestionably in favour of using those two images in that section, then why not propose their addition? You'll certainly get no argument from me. --FormerIP (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because to enact some semblance of balance something else has to go. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

How about the following as a compromise?

First, we omit any depiction of Mohammed from the infobox, even though there are such depictions we could use. It should be noted that this is a fairly enormous concession in itself, since it requires the article to be treated in a way that is unique for Wikipedia.

Second, we should ensure that the first depiction of Mohammed in the article has at least 14,000 characters above it. We could place it, let's say towards the end of the section "Childhood and early life". We could also ensure that this image lacks realism and depicts Mohammed prior to his prophecy, so as to reduce the potential that people out there might have cause to be offended.

Third, we can impose a requirement, even though it would be very odd for a biographical article, that no images of the subject can be included unless they depict something (other than the subject of the article) that is directly described by text in close proximity.

Fourth, let's have proportionately far fewer images of the subject of the article than is the case for any comparable article where depictions of the subject are available. Six out of 23 seems about right to me.

Fifth, let's make the most prominent thing other than text in the article a clipartish photo of the Quran.

In the spirit of compromise, please consider this simple five-point plan. --FormerIP (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are saying we should use "far fewer" images than other similar articles then you'll be happy to accept the percentage being 2 standard deviations (so a confidence interval of 95%) below the mean for historical biographies? That is the standard confidence interval used in statistics.
 * We can go for a confidence interval of 90% instead if you want.
 * A confidence interval of 90% means that 95% of historical biographies will have a percentage of images that is higher than this article.
 * We could remove any articles found from the list with no depictions as clearly that means no depictions are available, and that will significantly skew the mean. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear the reason I am obsessed with the statistical approach is that it seems to me the only way we can get a neutral view on what "far fewer" actually means. Just saying "6 is not far fewer", "6 is far fewer" over and over seems utterly counter-productive. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Obsessed" is a good word, yes. I see little value in applying statistics to the question of images in a biography, its like the part in Dead Poets Society where the kids are using a graph to measure the value of a poem.  And while I admire the spirit of FormerIP's proposal, I'm concerned at just how workable/feasible it would be to maintain that in the long run.  I feel uneasy about special rules being made for a single article. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you both need to check your sarcasm detectors. They don't seem to be registering properly.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A deserved self-, then. Fuck me, I need to stop logging in here before I finish the morning's cup of coffee.  Well played, Mauer. Tarc (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish you'd stayed quiet for a bit longer, Kww. I was hoping I'd be able to just sit back while it got pitted against the status quo in a binding RfC. --FormerIP (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How else other than statistics should we work out what "significantly lower" or "far lower" means when compared to other articles?
 * If you don't like comparisons to other articles, well lets just look at this one. In which case there has been no compromise since the start of the dispute. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how statistics can help us define the terms "far" and "significantly", EH. One of the reasons I went for six is that it is a number that it inarguably lower than the number of depictions of the subject in comparable articles. I guess not many articles are genuinely "comparable" to this one, but Jesus has 36 images of Jesus and Gautama Buddha has 14 images of Buddha. It can't be argued that 6 isn't lower than that. Whether you think it is far lower, significantly lower or just lower is up to you. --FormerIP (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Significantly lower has a statistical meaning. And there is a lot of natural variance between our biographies about how many depictions they contain (beyond the ones that don't contain any) so unless it is significantly lower, or there is a talk page discussion which can be pointed at which resulted in a compromise (or an article change which isn't obvious) there is no good reason to think this article contains a compromise on depiction numbers (beyond taking a WP:VOTE on whether you feel the number is low).
 * With the religious figures unfortunately neither of those are either at good or featured article status, so their usage of images may not fully follow our standards. I wish they were better quality so we could just compare, but its not ideal to do so, so comparing to other historic figures seems more reasonable.
 * With Jesus there are a lot of galleries of depictions which aren't necessarily useful. With Buddha their large number of depictions seem to be showing how different countries within Buddhism represent the Buddha, but if we were to replicate that we'd be adding a lot of calligraphy as a large number of Muslims only use that to show Muhammad. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And the rest of the world would like to mention that it reads this article too. You cannot dictate how this article is to be illustrated based on Islamic viewpoints alone.  Resolute 18:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, which other religious figures do this beyond a single image? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Does the Foundation resolution's advice on curation of controversial content apply to sacred images?
Because Harris & Harris in their report suggested a regime around management of “controversial” sacred images different than that for other kinds of controversial images, and made no recommendations regarding curation of controversial sacred images, ASCIIn2Bme has said on three occasions on the workshop page that the Foundation resolution does not apply to sacred images.

A subgroup of the board, the Controversial Content Working Group, was commissioned by the board to study Harris & Harris and make recommendations to the board. Its report said, inter alia,

That is, where Harris & Harris excluded sacred controversial images from its recommendations regarding curation (4, 5, & 6), the working group explicitly included all kinds of controversial content.

The very first paragraph of the Foundation resolution says

That is, the Foundation expressly, unequivocally includes religious content when it discusses controversial content. I believe it would be appropriate for ASCIIn2Bme to strike his mistaken assertions, as they are sowing confusion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "ASCIIn2Bme has said on three occasions on the workshop page that the Foundation resolution does not apply to sacred images." Please provide diffs where I said that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * AGK, the Harris & Harris report recommended the personal image filter is the only realistic solution for dealing with offense caused by "sacred" stuff like the images of Muhammad. The report did not recommend any editorial changes in that respect. The WMF board then made a broad and vague statement about "particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content" that turned into mana for the tendentious editors in the religious imagery area. It would be helpful if ArbCom were more discerning in their reading the Harris & Harris report than the WMF board was.
 * the Harris & Harris report did not recommend any editorial changes in how we treat images like depictions of Muhammad, but explicitly said the personal image filter is only realistic tool to avoid offense in this case. The WMF board then made a vague and broad statement about "all kinds of potentially controversial content", and of course some editors jumped on the bandwagon an interpreted it as applying to whatever images they want to remove, including those of Muhammad. I'm editing on a small device and can't be bothered looking for the third instance.
 * You are grossly misrepresenting the board's intentions and competency, and misrepresenting the very clear meaning of the resolution. You accuse the board of misreading and poorly replicating the Harris' recommendations when, clearly, the board resolution precisely reflects the working group's considered and deliberate recommendation; you describe the board's language as vague, allowing tendentious editors to exploit the vagueness, when it could not have been more explicit—they expressly include religious material when discussing controversial images, and their advice regarding controversial images relates to "all kinds"—and you tell ArbCom to read the Harris' report with more discernment than the board displayed, implying the Harris' report is the key to what the resolution really means.


 * Perhaps you're right. Perhaps you haven't said "the Foundation resolution does not apply to sacred images." So I'm sorry for misquoting you, but I was trying to boil your efforts down to a few words. Now, do you still believe that editors who apply the resolution to sacred images are tendentious bandwagon-jumpers exploiting the resolution's vague language? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm right. My only possible misdeed is that I wasn't aware of the working group's report when I wrote those statements you cite above. So, I engaged in a bit of speculation there as to how the WMF reached the more general (and vague in my opinion) wording. Now that I've seen the WG report (the missing link bewteen the Harrises report and the actual board resolution), and which by the way, I've included in my /Evidence, it's clear it was an intentional generalization. I also saw that Jimbo has decided to lay the law of the WMF resolution into Wikipedia policy. That too I said on the Workshop page. So, I'm not at all trying to mislead people with errors of omission, as you appear to suggest. I do disagree with the WMF that images of poo are to be put in the same generic bucket of controversy as Persian miniatures. I agree with the  Harrises on the necessity of that distinction. If ArbCom or Jimbo want to ban me because I hold this opinion, they know my number. They've lost me as a money donor already. A very best New Year to you. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool. And to you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC) I never thought you were trying to mislead; I assumed you hadn't read the working group report - which is why I was pointing it out. You were, however, inadvertently misleading. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just looked at the above. A casual reader may misinterpret it's meaning. ASCIIn2Bme was repeatedly claiming that, due to its "vague" language, the Foundation resolution's guidance on controversial image curation is open to misinterpretation, and readers should be guided by the Harris report, which expressly excluded sacred imagery from its curation advice. He didn't actually say, "the Foundation resolution does not apply to sacred images" but he said as much, in many more words. I apologised for paraphrasing his words. That's all. He has admitted he was dressing incorrect speculation as fact, but has, so far, not struck the false statements from the workshop. Would you please do so, ASCIIn2Bme, to avoid misleading readers and/or wasting their time? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Although "vague" is a matter of opinion, and [again, in my opinion] if it were more clearly written you would not have needed to drag out the intermediate WG report to figure out exactly what the final resolution meant, and even though you have replied after those posts of mine in the /Workshop repeating the above, for the sake of not prolonging this WP:DEADHORSE beating, I've struck those parts of my statements. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and "curating" is practically all-things-to-all-men vagueness in my opinion. Of course, some of those involved in this case read it as "curetting". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would stop referring to "sacred images" here, as what is clearly meant, at least in the first instance, is images of things regarded as sacred that are intentionally disrespectful and unsacred in nature, whether Piss Christ etc or the Danish cartoons of Muhammad. Johnbod (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm using the language of the documents I'm citing: "sacred" in the first, "religious" in the third. Your interpretation of the meaning of the documents is appreciated but until you can quote the sections that support that interpretation, I won't be accepting it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This was the line of attack Ludwigs began this mess with. It failed to gain support then, and it won't gain support now.  This is not a viable avenue from which to subvert community consensus. Resolute 16:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Attack"? "Approach" maybe. He politely approached the talk page with the suggestion that the resolution may apply to images at Muhammad, and was met with, in my opinion, ignorant contempt, insults and put-downs. Thanks to Jimbo and Ting Chen it is now beyond question that the resolution applies to controversial religious images on this project. AGK said (somewhere) that the committee will be referring to the resolution in this case. I believe we all need to come to terms with the implications of this resolution for the project, and for our future curatorial decisions. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that was ever in serious doubt. But what I find quite frankly to be a little nauseating is that you're acting like you have a bottle of champagne behind your back as you prepare for a victory lap. The study and the resolution cite both openness and no censorship as the primary values, tempered by least astonishment and educational value.  These are still decisions to be made by the Wikipedia community on just how to go about that, to determine just how much, if any, deference to allow for " scared sacred images". Tarc (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course. Wrt serious doubt, FormerIP and Franamax on the workshop page had serious doubts. I'm sorry I nauseate you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, attack. You yourself have already agreed that consensus holds we will use such images. With that in mind, I am left to wonder what, exactly, you expect to accomplish by trying to re-fight this particular battle?  Ludwigs intended to use it to censor the article to suit his viewpoint.  Is that your intention as well?  If it is not, then this is a pointless side discussion, as it does not change the matter of figuring out how best to illustrate this article.  Resolute 17:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This all began because of Ludwigs' suggestion the Foundation resolution is likely to be applicable to Muhammad. This thread is addressing that question. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Google Books survey
One of the things that I think is problematic about the current discussions is that editors who want to minimise the use of depictions of Mohammed in his article have, IMO, built their houses on the shaky foundations of various assumptions which I do not believe reflect reality. One such assumption is that depictions of Mohammed in reliable sources are either rare or restricted to sources that might be termed "fringe". This has frequently been asserted but no credible evidence has ever been produced to support it. So, I spent some time yesterday on Google Books. I set my methodology before starting and (except in one small detail, explained below) I did not deviate from it. I looked only for reference or text books containing substantial continuous material concerning Mohammed, the foundation of Islam or a closely associated topic where a picture of Mohammed migth reasonably be expected. I only considered books that would meet WP's RS criteria. I rejected any books written from a religious viewpoint or intended to communicate or document and anti-Islam message. I also rejected books in cases where the limitations of Google books meant I was not able to examine all relevant images. This can happen either because relevant pages are not available or because images are suppressed for copyright reasons (that second part applied to one book - the small detail I failed to think of in advance). In some cases, pages were not shown but these were fairly unlikely to actually contain images of Mohammed (an encyclopaedia, I figured, is unlikely to leave an image of the subject of the article until lower down and prefer to put other images high up - yes I know there's a notable exception to this, but let's leave that aside for now). In such cases, I did not reject the source. I did reject the source if the part missing was the beginning of the relevant section, since it might reasonably supposed that an image of Mohammed might be found there. I only considered books where the section relating to Mohammed contained illustrations. I grouped the books I found into two lists. List A consisted of books containing a depiction of Mohammed. List B consisted of books where the relevant section contained illustrations, but no depictions of Mohammed. I did not look at all search results, but considered them in order until it appeared that I was unlikely to come across any more relevant returns. I did not skip any and I did not reject any for reasons other than those I have mentioned. I found the books by using various combinations of "islam-mohammed-muhammad-religion-history-encylopedia-illustrated-world". List A Encyclopedia of World Religions World History The Story of World Religions Art and Culture of the Medieval World List B Encyclopedia of Islam Illustrated Guide to Religions What I would note about both the books in list B is that they use images that we could not use in our article on Mohammed, because of WP:PERTINENCE. If you want to critique my methodology, suggest books that I may have missed or suggest that the books I have listed are not reliable, then please do so. However, I am not interested in a sources arms-race. The question of interest is whether reliable sources that include images of Mohammed are rare/fringe. There are no prizes for being the editor who spends the most time Googling. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do that. Source-based research is useful and something I tried to encourage a few weeks back (to no avail); it would have been much more helpful than the lengthy discussions.

Some comments on your findings:
 * Encyclopedia of World Religions is by Johannes P. Schadé, who has also written or edited The Complete Encyclopedia of Medicine & Health. A Google Books search for the publisher of these two encyclopedias, "Foreign Media Group", returns exactly four entries in Google Books.
 * The image in The World's Religions is not an image of Muhammad, but an image of Ali.
 * World History is a book aimed at college students, by a reputable publisher; the image is, once again, the mi'raj image (veiled) that Mathsci suggested a few weeks back and that was included in Resolute's proposal, lending once more weight to the argument that if any image is due in the article, it's this one (also on the cover of at least three books).
 * The Story of World Religions shows one veiled image. The publisher specialises in books for schoolchildren.
 * Art and Culture of the Medieval World contains an unveiled image we also have in our article; it too is by Rosen, and aimed at children/young adults.

Going to the second list,
 * Encyclopedia of Islam is a reputable work, with highly qualified contributors.
 * Illustrated Guide to Religions is by a Christian publisher; the author is a bona fide scholar, Associate Director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion and Professor at Tyndale Seminary in Toronto, as well as the author of a previous short introductory book on Islam from the same publisher.

Also note Elonka's research. -- J N  466  05:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Research is good. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note the same mi'raj image is also used as an illustration in Safi's Washington Post article: . It really seems to be the most prominent image around. As an afterthought, the Encyclopedia of World Religions includes (at least) two images of Muhammad: one unveiled one to illustrate the article on Fatima, showing them both, and another one (veiled) to illustrate the article on Muslim Civil Wars. The Mohammed (thus spelt) article itself in the book is illustrated only with a photograph of the Prophet's Mosque in Medina. This is a small sample, but it may be noteworthy that among those books that do contain images, there is no discernible preponderance of unveiled images as there is in our article. -- J N  466  16:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are we supposed to take the lazyness of commercial picture editors as a model? The BL Safavid Mi'raj is probably the best-known and most artistically satisfying image of Muhammad (having also btw been on public display for many decades, though not currently) & I think I have suggested using it myself in the past, but these are the wrong arguments for doing so. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would certainly not suggest that any source or collection of sources should serve as a template for how the article should be constructed. The only real purpose of looking at Google Books is to examine whether - as is frequently claimed - depiction of Mohammed is something not normally found in mainstream sources. If Google Books is anything to go by, this seems to me to be baseless.
 * Jayen: You could be right about one of the images not being Mohammed but, before I remove it, how do you know?
 * BTW, Foreign Media Group is not some kind of self pub outlet or anything. It seems to be an imprint of Entertainment One. --FormerIP (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It says so in the caption on the previous page.
 * For reference, Elonka has summarised some further research here: . -- J  N  466  11:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've removed The World's Religions (I didn't get p 292 in my preview). --FormerIP (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

And if people think the WMF resolution is so crystal clear...

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

The tag is mine. Does the first sentence in the bullet/paragraph defines the scope of the word "community" in the 2nd sentence of the bullet/paragraph or not? Does the "categorization and placement" refer to Commons only, or all projects? After some divination email Q&A (yesterday) we found out it's generally applicable. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

And the resolution is hardly self-contained because the principle of least astonishment as normally defined is not about issues of controversy. It took some further divination to figure what they probably meant by that. And of course, we might have missed some email or forgotten page on meta with other crucial details... The Harries report actually spoke of this principle in the context of the image filter, which involves user/reader choices in an interface, so it made more sense. How to apply it without any user/reader choice was only said later in the image filter referendum FAQ. Quite a paper trail to follow. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with AGK that the image filter is irrelevant to discussions about editorial judgment and content curation. The filter's purpose is definitely not to make it easier to include images that some readers may find offensive (with the justification that readers can simply filter them if they don't wish to see them). -- J N  466  16:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

A note on mobbing and the evolution of the project
The mob is in full swing on me at the moment, so this seems like a good time to open up this thread (I've been waiting for an opportune moment). Apologies in advance for what is undoubtable going to be unpleasant ride, though I personally view it as a mere analysis.

Wikipedia (like any complex environment) is subject to a form of natural selection: certain traits prove advantageous; people who display those traits succeed on project; people who don't display them learn them or leave. I've been curious about this issue since almost my first day on project, wondering which way the project's evolution is leading, and whether anything can be done to influence it in the direction of ethical democracy. What I see is acutely fascinating, but far from that kind of idealism.

To put it in short (and slightly poetic) terms: Wikipedia has become a culture of the perverse, where the capacity for stubborn vexatiousness is the primary selective trait of successful editors.

Bluntly, what I observe is this:
 * 1) Editors rarely get in trouble for saying things that are ignorant, offensive, prejudicial, snotty, uninformed, unethical, or downright rude.
 * 2) Editors often get in trouble for pointing out that such things were said.

In short, all one needs to do to win a dispute (in most cases) is repeat the same daft comment over and over, with no outward sign of mental reflection or common sense, and then wait until the editor on the other side gets frustrated enough to point out how daft it is; after that, the other person can be hounded endlessly for being 'mean', and the intellectual dimensions of the dispute can be comfortably forgotten. In fact, the more intelligent one's opponent, the easier s/he can be frustrated, and the easier it is to get a sysop to dispose of him/her by fiat, just by carefully repeating the same ignorant comments.

Wikipedia has effectively neutered intelligent talk-page discussion, because any request that other editors make intelligent contributions is always cast as an insulting personal attack.

That's what's happened on this dispute, in spades. My flaw here (as on so many other pages) is that I am stubbornly intelligent: I insist that other editors take the time to think through their own comments. I ask them to account for logical inconsistencies, I point out that comments they make may sound unethical or prejudiced, I make it obvious when they have failed to provided reasonable evidence for their position. This (as you can all plainly see) gets spun so that I look like I am accusing people of having bad attributes where I am actually insisting that they follow good reasoning: e.g. editors assert that Muslims need to be controlled or they will strip the project of images; I point out that statement sounds anti-Islamic; I get pounded for 'accusing' editors of something that they've actually done. That's part of the perversity - editors claim the right to throw shit, but scream bloody murder when it hits a fan - and there's not much I can do about it. The more I insist on intelligent discussion, the more trouble I will get, because I am interfering with the operation of an adaptive selection tool, and that kind of thing cuts too close to the bone.

C'est la vie...

I always AGF that people's intentions are good; I don't think there's anyone in this discussion who doesn't believe they are doing the right thing, though I question some of their conceptions of rightness. But my AGF does not extend to treating bad reasoning as though it were good. If an editor wants to keep repeating things that simply do not hold up under rational scrutiny, then it is natural and correct to call them on it, and I am not at all concerned if they dislike it. If they dislike it, they are free to create better arguments that are not so easy to criticize; that will improve both the discussion and the encyclopedia. Complaints about the fact that I've caught them making bad arguments do no good for the encyclopedia at all. -- Ludwigs 2 05:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There is much that could be rehashed in crafting a response to this, but there's nothing to really say that hasn't been said already. You simply don't get to accuse other editors of racist, prejudiced, or "colonial" (as I believe you phrased it once) motivations.  Racist speech is easily identifiable and should be called out and sanctioned when seen.  Motivations?  No.  You aren't in our heads or tapping our internets.  This entire affair never would have happened if your accusatory invective never made its way into the topic area. Tarc (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As I expected someone would say. In fact, you're wrong in almost every respect: a system in which people can be as aggressively ignorant as they like with full impunity is the worst possible way of making decisions imaginable.  I get that you don't want to be questioned on your attitude, but as far as I'm concerned you own the statements you make, and you are responsible for legitimizing them.  If you want to say something anti-Islamic, that's fine; but it's your responsibility to demonstrate that it's a necessary perspective for the project to take, and not some random prejudice that's percolated into the conversation because you didn't stop to think.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Continuing to call people who disagree with you "aggressively ignorant" and claim that their position is anti-Islamic (you really did just do both, by the way) is probably not a wise course to chart. Neither I nor anyone else should have to step up and say, or prove that we're not anti-Islamic.  This is line of thought is so surreal I wonder if I'm not asleep already.  You've called other editors racist, and when given a chance to clarify or retract, you just call them more names.  Protip; when you find yourself in a hole, perhaps step 1 is to put away the shovel. Tarc (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs there is no requirement to be rude. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The most rude thing here is Tarc's persistent behaviour over many weeks. It's so bad that it's hard to describe it accurately witout the description sounding rude. Hans Adler 11:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Tarc: Now, see? this is a great example of what I'm talking about.  I did not call you (or 'people I disagree with', or anyone) 'aggressively ignorant'.   I've said people can be that way, which is true of pretty much anyone human: strident thoughtlessness is something we all fall into at times.  The point I was making is that being that way on project gives one a distinct advantage precisely because on project one can recast an analytical statement as a personal attack so that the intellectual weaknesses of one's position cannot be discussed.  Which is precisely what you just did, no?


 * So let's make this distinction very clear, for everyone to see
 * I do not know what your attitude towards Islam is; I'm happy to believe that you are (as a person) as liberal and enlightened as you sometimes claim to be.
 * It is an observable fact that you regularly make statements that can easily be interpreted as anti-Islamic. One or two such might pass by as incautious wording, but these kinds of statements constitute the core of your argument for retaining the images.  That calls for explanation.
 * I point out that you do this (without really caring about why you do it); You assert that I've made a claim about why you do this (and try to brush the fact that you do it under the rug). You shift the debate away from reasoned discussion and and hide behind emotional politics.  You tempt me to tell you to follow your own advice, as in the first line of this diff...


 * @Eraserhead: look over the articles on emergent phenomena and natural selection. There is no 'requirement to be rude' in any conscious sense, but rudeness is systemically advantageous.  Rudeness plays a particular and heavily defended role in wikipolitics; look back over any of the perennially-shot-down discussions about strengthening civility rules if you don't believe me.  And note that if you're talking about my behavior, the correct word is 'impolitic', not 'rude': I'm that guy who points out self-evident things that people would rather not see in themselves.  But that's a quibble that's not worth getting into.


 * @Hans: Yes, but I don't think it's Tarc's fault precisely. He's adapted to a particular role on the article.  -- Ludwigs 2  13:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Ludwigs, people opposing changing the civility rules is down to two things, firstly there is a substantial minority (at least) who believe that WP:CLUE should guide our actions, secondly that its difficult to describe how we should change them. Banning the use of the word fuck doesn't achieve anything useful as it can be used in a fairly reasonable manner that isn't really uncivil.
 * With regards to emergent phenomena and natural selection perhaps there are issues there that need addressing at a higher level - possibly they should be bought to the attention of the Arbitration committee.
 * With regards to "pointing out self-evident things that people would rather not see in themselves." - that's called losing face - and its something that in Asia that's considered grossly unacceptable - this is a worldwide project and so such things have to be taken into account, by the same arguments that you use in favour of reducing the number of Muhammad depictions if nothing else.
 * And actually everyone has an issue with losing face, its just the Asians are more honest about it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect to your last point, I actually agree with you - it's something I worry about, at any rate. However, there's a critical difference between between the concept of 'losing face' in east asia and what happens here.  In Asian cultures there is a high premium placed on 'appearing correct' - an editor who was (say) traditional Japanese would proactively self-regulate so that s/he could avoid doing things which would cause him/her to lose face.  If such an editor felt the need to express concern over Muslim editors s/he would carefully and tactfully build a case for it, and just as carefully apologize for the possibility of prejudicial impressions, in order to prevent the stigma from attaching to self or project.  Here, however, editors boldly make such claims and present them as unquestionable facts, and actually seem proud of them.  They do not self-regulate and show no shame over appearances, and so their annoyance at being called on their problematic claims is disingenuous at best.  I get stuck in situations where I am forced to choose between:
 * conforming to an implicitly prejudicial mindset
 * walking away and allowing the prejudice to stand unchallenged
 * confronting the mindset and suffering through the resulting shit-storm
 * It sucks for me that I am not inclined to choose options 1 or 2.


 * Just FYI: what really happens here (as I have said previously) is that the project currently privileges a certain stage of cognitive development - a kind of puerile liberalism in which one's own belief structure is a sacrosanct truth, and all collective ideals are not merely false but are acutely repressive and must be rebelled against. But there's not much to do about that until the project grows up a bit.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * With regards to your first point, its an area where eastern culture is superior to Western culture.You've got to work with that ;). With the second point you can make sure you are attacking the argument and not the person - that's what I do. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * E: what I actually do is irrelevant on Wikipedia. No matter how careful I am, other people will say what they need to to make me look like whatever they want me to look like.  Tea Party syndrome: hormones rule reason…

My flaw here (as on so many other pages) is that I am stubbornly intelligent. LOL. This is beyond hilarious. I am happy that I have never met an individual who said or wrote something like this about themselves. I am sure many people think that way about themselves but to actually say it out loud shows the character (I won't add any adjectives). The above thread shows why Ludwigs2 (unlike other editors with similar views) has difficulties on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and minimal respect to other editors and opposing views is required. The above thread shows that this is clearly lacking. I would also add that a lot of problems could be solved amicably if people did not take themselves too seriously. - BorisG (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems like this discussion conflates a lot of independent factors. Anti-Islamism is surely not "stubbornly ignorant"; failing to believe in any religion is by default a rational stance, and rejecting one which offers little real moral guidance can be principled.  Bigotry (or rather, I would distinguish, intolerance) is another issue entirely - we can indeed protect and respect the rights of people we believe are wrong, whether they have the wrong politics or the wrong religion or the wrong editing philosophy.  And ethics, well... the most unethical thing we could do would be to compromise our ability to find and present verifiable information to the readers, however and whenever we find it.  When these things are all blurred together we end up with propositions we can't meaningfully accept nor reject. Wnt (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Boris, you can laugh all you like, but when it comes right down to it you can't say that I don't make good sense. Don't confuse a simple statement of fact for vainglory: I'm smart as a whip, and it would be pointless for me to pretend otherwise.  You don't have to respect it (at least not as far as I'm concerned - I don't have to do anything special to prove it), but I don't recommend you ignore it.


 * Wnt: I don't see the conflations you're suggesting. Proper rationalism is not anti-religious; one can not believe without getting caught up in arguing against.  The stubbornly ignorant component here has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of a particular position, but rather with what might best be described as 'tactical anti-social behavior'.  Recall that the first response I got when I posted about the Foundation Resolution was: This may come as a surprise to you, but Wikipedia does not cater exclusively to Muslims. There was no excuse for this kind of overtly hostile comment right out of the starting-blocks (there's no excuse in any case, and certainly not with respect to my fairly reasonable observation).  The only point to something like that is to put Muslims on the defensive immediately so they feel like they are in a weak, threatened position: TASB.


 * In a real-world office setting Resolute's comment would have gotten him dressed-down by the boss (or fired outright, if he made it in front of clients). On Wikipedia - because there are five or six like-minded editors making the same kinds of comments - they assert that this "in your face, Muslims!" attitude is consensus and create an intractably hostile editing environment as the norm.  The rudeness of singling out Muslims as a particular 'problem group' makes it impossible to have anything like a reasonable discussion (just as it would be impossible for you to have a reasonable discussion with someone who consistently addressed you as 'boy' or suggested that someone of 'your type' wasn't really worth listening to).  I don't know whether it's intentional or not (I suspect Tarc does it consciously because some of his comments are so over-the-top, but I think the others may just have slid into the habit of it), but the point is that we should not have talk pages that are dominated by this kind of emotional politics: editors should not create such a pervasive air of hostility just to make it unpleasant for other editors to address issues on the page.-- Ludwigs 2  05:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs, did you really once again just accuse me of intentional anti-Muslim prejudice? I mean, seriously...it was bad enough when you were doing this during the actual image discussions, but to keep doing it over and over during an Arbcom itself is just...I dunno, words fail me at the moment.  Do you have a filter?  I'd also be curious to know precisely what you meant by "Tea Party syndrome: hormones rule reason… " above. Tarc (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Tarc, I simply said that I suspect you make these comments consciously; you should take it as a compliment, because it implies a more thoughtful approach than that of some other editors. I did not speculate directly on why you might do that, and if you are in the mood to read between the lines you should note that my main point is that these kinds of comments are a tactical behavior designed to increase hostility on the page in order to suppress discussion. If you are asking me to choose whether I think you are actually prejudiced against Muslims or merely feigning to be prejudiced against Muslims in order to drive editors you disrespect off the page, I would have to admit that I don't know and don't care.  The tone is impossible to miss, and either behavior is sufficiently disreputable.


 * With respect to the 'Tea Party Syndrome' thing: That's a comment on a particular style of wikipolitics, which is rife in discussions like this. The Tea Party is noted for downplaying substantive issues and exaggerating emotional contexts, usually by hand-waving away serious thought while creating an atmosphere of self-victimization from which they can justify highly personal and completely irrelevant attacks against figures they dislike.  It actually started before the Tea Party formed - you can look back to the Starr report's obsessive focus on what Clinton was doing with his penis to see its early roots - but the Tea Party has raised it to an art form.  Why else do you think they manage to avoid all realistic discussions of fiscal policy while continuing to scream that Obama is a Kenyan socialist out to destroy 'their' country?  This tactic has not been lost on wikipedia editors, who are not constrained by even the minimal decencies afforded in the mass media.  Wikipedia makes possible a degree of suffocating emotional rhetoric that Tea Partiers can only dream about.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs2, you just expressed your prejudice against a political movement. May I suggest that you leave your political preferences out of here. Wikipedia is not a forum, nor a platform for your political advocacy. Your views on the Tea Party and Obama are irrelvant to this page (and Wikipedia more generally), while calling K. Starr's behaviour obsessive may be a violation of the BLP policy. If you were as stubbornly intellgent as you claim here, you would strike out these irrelevant comments and stop digging your own hole. - BorisG (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever... -- Ludwigs 2  17:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

On the whole I endorse Ludwigs2's analysis of the toxic atmosphere that dominates many Wikipedia talk pages. "Tea Party tactic" is not a bad shorthand for what often passes for debate, here. I don't really know what to do about it, though, when so many editors are so comfortable with swift boat campaigns and character assassination, rather than genuine debate.

If any arbitrators have the tenacity to reach this far into the wall of words, can I just tell you that, if you are to make a sound judgement in this case, you will need to actually follow the diffs in the evidence. As it is presented, the evidence against Ludwigs2 is largely a big lie repeated often enough. I'm sure no one really expects you to follow all those diffs, you're expected to simply rely on what you're told is the context. But, if you take the trouble, you'll see that Ludwigs2 is responding to a constant wall of hostility, insult and ignorance. He loses his cool occasionally, and should be admonished for that, but mostly he's just begging for people to address his arguments, which they steadfastly refuse to do. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure you need to read many diffs to see the manner in which Ludwigs2 engages in debate. Enough to read his own words on the Workshop page and this page. I am new to this debate, and I see both sides engaging in interesting and rational argument based on somewhat different perspectives, reflecting the natural real-world tension between, roughly speaking, tolerance and freedom of speech. In my view, there are many rational arguments on both sides, but unfortunately, some editors from time to time choose to shoot the messanger rather than the message, so to speak. This poisons the debate, creates drama, and is disruptive. Hopefully these editors will be topic banned for a long time to allow this dispute to be resolved by those who are capable of dispute resolution without assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks. - BorisG (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There appears to be very little difference beween the conduct issues here and those discussed in the WP:AE request concerning Astrology here with its  subsequent unsuccessful appeal here . It's worth reading the comments of experienced (ex-)administrators and uninvolved editors there, which chime with the evidence presented in this case. I should empasize that, contrary to what has been suggested, I was not involved in any way whatsoever in either of those discussions and in fact my only recent contribution to WP:AE regarding Ludwigs2 was in May here with an edit summary much ado about nothing: "I do not understand why this request has been made. Ludwigs2's feathers might have been ruffled by the AE arbcom case and he did make a few inappropriate remarks immediately after the closure, but none of this warrants any action here or elsewhere." Mathsci (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, on Astrology I lost my cool - it happens, particularly when dealing with the kind of trenchant opposition I'm talking about in this thread. I still don't think the topic ban was appropriate, but I can't say it was unjustified.  Again, people whose goal it is to frustrate are far less likely to get sanctioned than those who get frustrated: it's the Wikipedia Way, at least for now.


 * But, since Mathsci has decided to weigh in on this thread, I am going to use him as an example - Mathsci is a master of Tea Party Tactics. Note that in his single paragraph above he has not bothered to comment on the actual substance of this thread at all, but in fact used this post to:
 * draw in an unrelated issue in order to question my character
 * name-drop to give himself authority ("comments of experienced (ex-)administrators and uninvolved editors")
 * defend himself against a discussion in a different thread
 * He's effectively trying to shift the discussion away from the critique of wikipedia politics that I started with, and restructure it as an emotive discussion of character (where I am a bad guy victimizing good people such as himself). his post was 100% deflection from the original topic.


 * BorisG is trying to do the same thing, mind you, but Boris isn't half as skilled at it as Mathsci.


 * Sonner or later Wikipedia is going to have to acknowledge what every political system known to man' has instituted: That basing political/legal decisions on emotions or imputations of character is never fair, just, or rational, and must always be discouraged. So long as these kinds of arguments are the dominant form of reasoning on project, this place is just going to suck for everyone.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So you suggest I engage in substantive debate with someone who says about himself that he is stubbornly intelligent while his opponents are stubbornly ignorant? No, thanks:) - BorisG (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, whatever… -- Ludwigs 2  05:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Editing the workshop page
A lot of comments have needed to be restored to the workshop page. Can people please try and be careful and not leave the editing window open for ages? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This was caused by Tivanir2, who twice accidentally removed a large amount of other editors' contributions. Johnbod and I left notes on his user talk page. Not all the comments removed have been restored. Mathsci (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed restored a couple more this morning. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed? Mathsci (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Summary by AGK
I would like to commend the decision of the drafting Arbitrator to publicly summarize their view of the case during the workshop phase. It is a move towards greater transparency that I think the Committee could certainly use, and I hope that it becomes standard practice in the future. NW ( Talk ) 19:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a good way to proceed, though it's a little unclear as to how exactly we should comment on it. My own opinion is that, overall, it's a very good summary. There is one sentence that needs to be changed, where it says that there are few images of Muhammad from his lifetime. In actual fact, there are no known images of Muhammad from his lifetime -- only verbal descriptions. To my knowledge, the oldest images available were created (by the Mongols) several centuries after Muhammad's death, as miniatures to adorn a Mongol history text.
 * My only other comment about the summary is about the sentence, "Discussion be participated in primarily by editors who are not involved in this topic," as I'm not sure how to interpret that. How can editors who are uninvolved in this topic area, engage in a coherent discussion about it? Or is the sentence intended to refer to editors who are parties to this particular dispute? My main concern being one of competence, or as is said in WP:COMPETENCE: "The best good will is unavailing if basic understanding of the facts, their mainstream interpretation and the cultural context is lacking." --Elonka 20:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm pleased you both found my summary useful. NW, the style of working varies between arbitrators, but I agree that the type of approach I have taken here is a step away from the practice we sometimes see of a proposed decision materialising out of nowhere. I am, of course, still learning, and my colleagues may think of ways to refine my practice of posting a summary in advance of a draft proposed decision on the workshop. Elonka, I don't mind if you comment in my own section, immediately underneath the summary, although this page might be a more practical venue; the workshop already appears unwieldy to me. Another editor has pointed out that we have no (not few) images of Muhammad; I actually knew this to be the case, having read it multiple times in the archived discussions, and I'm not sure why I made such an error. Anyway, now fixed. On the question of uninvolved editors, my primary concern was that the community discussion be comprised mainly of people who are not involved in this case - that is, the named parties. You aren't a named party to this case, so I'm not very familiar with the extent of your work on the Muhammad article. However, I haven't noticed your name in the talk page discussions, and I understand from your own comments in this case that you are knowledgeable about the topic but have not participated in this article. If my understanding is correct, you are precisely the sort of editor whose involvement would be beneficial: knowledgeable but uninvolved in the previous discussions. If you recall, there was also an RFC on WT:NOT that attracted a lot of involvement from neutral contributors. My own thinking is that that RFC failed because it was framed loosely (I do not know whose fault that might be - probably no-one's), so I think a more structured discussion with the same type of participation as the RFC would have a great deal of success. When I posted the summary for the other arbitrators to review, one point that was raised was that it might be difficult to attract such an audience - people don't engage in things they aren't interested in. I confess at this point that I can't answer that very conclusively. AGK   [• ]  20:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I too find this to be an excellent (and even eloquent) summary. I would say, however, that one sentence appears to be inaccurate: Broadly, the aim of the first faction of contributors was to retain the images used in the current version of the article, and the current order of images. I think it is more accurate to say that the first faction was actually in favor of having more images (than now), and that the current version is already a result of a compromise between two subgroups of the two groups. It appears to me that the majority of the first faction agrees with this compromise, while the majority of the second group argues for further reduction of the number of images. - BorisG (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One more point that I find important. AGK says: The offensiveness of the image to the reader (critical to the "principle of least surprise") and the argument that removing the images must be censorship (critical to the tenet that "Wikipedia is not censored") are secondary issues. I am not sure how to interpret this. It appears that this is a key motivation for a number of parties. The first faction asserts that religious sensitivities should never affect any editorial decisions. The second faction believes that images (or other material) that are of little or no educational value but are offensive to some religious (or other) groups should be removed. I know ArbCom does not rule on policy, but as a quasi-judicial body, it should interpret policy, and guidance on this issue would be very helpful for future disputes of this nature. Personally I do not have a strong opinion one way or the other. - BorisG (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Images needs changing to depiction in multiple places to clarify you are talking about images of Muhammad rather than of someone else. All in all it seems useful. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi AGK. Is it possible this line "Resolute also proposed an alternative method of treating the portrayal of Muhammad (by basing Wikipedia's portrayal on that of secondary sources), but this was unsuccessful" is referring to this thread started by Masem? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Problems with AGK summary - Johnbod

 * "...involves a group of contributors, most of whom were named as parties to this case...." Dubious - the parties involved are very much the class of late 2011 as far as the dispute is concerned, and of course there are a great number of one-off anti-image contents, mostly from ISPs. 13 parties are named, but the images talk page shows 15 editors with over 100 edits, (apart from top contributor, which is Sinebot). There are another 10 with between 50 & 100 edits, and so on. Several of the main contributors in 2011 are not parties, and some parties are very minor contributors by volume (eg Hans Adler - only 19 edits, beginning October 22, 2011). I suppose 13/25 is "most", but .... This is obviously very relevant if you are recommending the matter be settled largely by editors who are not named as parties, a definition that includes several of the most committed editors who happened to have taken a break recently.
 * "In Islam, drawings or paintings of Muhammad are rare..." - "rare" can be referenced, and has mostly been so to an outdated (but fully online) book by T. W. Arnold (1864-1930). But the leading specialist today, Christiane Gruber, says, for example: ""There exist countless single-page paintings of the meʿrāj included in the beginnings of Persian and Turkish romances and epic stories produced from the beginning of the 15th century to the 20th century" ("Gruber (Iranica)", Gruber, Christiane, "MEʿRĀJ ii. Illustrations", in Encyclopedia Iranica, 2009, online).  Does "countless" (of just one scene) = "rare"? Not in normal usage I would suggest.  There has been intensive debate of such issues over the last year, and the understanding of most regulars on both sides has considerably advanced, and the text at both the biography and Depictions of Muhammad considerably improved.
 * Taking that full sentence: "In Islam, drawings or paintings of Muhammad are rare, so this faction asserted the article must rely on artwork created after Muhammad's death (such as those from an atypical period when Islamic artwork was common) because no images of Muhammad exist that were created during his life." Everybody agrees there are no contemporary images, so the "assertion" that any images used must be later ones is not a matter of dispute as the phrasing implies. There is no "atypical period" - there has been a continuous production of Muslim images of Muhammad since the 13th century at least, but it has been geographically restricted, and in particular there is very little evidence of their production or use in Sunni Arabic-speaking areas like Egypt, North Africa or Arabia. In modern times such images are nearly all Shia, but this was not the case in the past. Nor are figurative images of Muhammad used to decorate mosques, as everybody accepts.  Gruber again, says there exists a "notable corpus of images of Muhammad produced, mostly in the form of manuscript illustrations, in various regions of the Islamic world from the thirteenth century through modern times" (Gruber, Christiane, Representations of the Prophet Muhammad in Islamic painting, pp 240-241, in Gulru Necipoglu, Karen Leal eds., Muqarnas, Volume 26, 2009, BRILL, ISBN 900417589X, 9789004175891, google books)
 * "The disputants engaged in informal mediation of the dispute and discussed the issues extensively, without success" - Depends on your view. There was some movement, but clearly not everyone was satisfied.
 * "In addition to the question of striking a balance between images of Muhammad, it was suggested that more use be made of alternative forms of portrayal, such as calligraphic images (which are comparatively common in Islamic art) and veiled representations (which are more common than portrait-type images). The disputants explored a different composition of files, including more calligraphy and less images of Muhammad, and of a different order of images. The discussion was complicated by there being several possible ways to order the images, by debate about whether using less images constituted censorship, and by the question of applying the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on the 'principle of least astonishment'. The dispute has been deadlocked for some time, and its intractability has been compounded by the conduct of several disputants, which was abrasive, unprofessional, or confrontational." - It was agreed, with little difficulty, to add a number of calligraphic images to the article, which has been done. Jayen would I think like to see more, but there is not I think widespread support from this (including template images, there are now 11 calligraphic ones). "Portrait-type images" - there are no images that are what this would normally imply, as all the images used are narrative ones of incidents (an important point to my mind, and to the society that produced them). Better to say "unveiled". I might as well repeat my view that there is no evidence at all that the mass of Muslim protesters find veiled images less objectionable than unveiled ones - I've never seen one distinguish between the types. I don't think we actually did/do have a deadlock, though progress was certainly slow, not surprisingly given the number of people and views involved.

More later, Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Images being "rare" is cited to Arnold in Depictions of Muhammad, but not just; we also have Wagtendonk, and other recent authors that say much the same thing could be added. To be sure, (1) there was a courtly tradition of manuscript illustration – limited to Ilkhanid and later elites, rather than part of Muhammad's public reception – and (2) images can be found today in Turkey and especially Iran. I think Omid Safi summarises it well. -- J N  466  16:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We've just removed Wagendonk for a better source, and I don't think "rare" should be used without qualification. As you know there are, as soon as printing became common in the Islamic world, printed images with a very wide distribution. Almost all medieval Islamic art was commissioned by the courtly elite, including your Koranic inscriptions in mosques. There has been a great deal of talk on the image page grossly underestimating how common such images were and are, some of it since you joined the discussion, and some in this case. Elonka for example seems underinformed in this respect.  Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference is that Quranic inscriptions in mosques are displayed very prominently in public; they were and are seen by everyone, whereas book miniatures were private, out of reach of the average Muslim. That's a key difference to Buddhism or Christianity, were images and statues of Buddha and Christ abound in public places. Mosques were never decorated that way. They were and are decorated with Quranic inscriptions and calligraphy (as well as geometrical designs and arabesques). -- J N  466  17:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, we still have Wagtendonk (1985) in both articles. Elonka never made a statement about the rarity of images in terms of the number of images held in museum collections. She researched their prevalence in generic published sources on Muhammad today (and we are not talking about specialist art history works on Persian miniatures, where the images are of course essential illustrations, as they are in our Depictions of Muhammad article). I have not replicated that research since the beginning of this case, but will try to do so next time I'm in town. Thousands of images is not a lot either. If there are 40 extant illustrated manuscripts in museum collections containing 50 images each, created over a period of 500 years, that's two thousand images. Of course many manuscripts will have been lost, but sources are in agreement that it was a courtly and private rather than public tradition. In Iran children's books of the mi'raj were (and perhaps still are) printed with images, like comics. If we count these, we will have thousands more. The point is that the contexts in which the images appear are rare (with the exception of a small number of countries like Iran and perhaps Turkey). By focusing on this issue, we should not lose sight of the wider context. Regards. -- J N  466  18:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When the leading expect says they are "countless", it is the height of OR for you to try and count them! The numbers are not as you suggest at all - there are many many times that number of manuscripts, but with many fewer images of Muhammad in the typical example. 50 miniatures of anything is an unusually large number for a single manuscript, as you would know if you knew the subject.  Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are multiple infinities. There are countless images of Jesus in churches in England, and there are also countless images of Jesus in France, and yet there (clearly) a lot more in the whole world. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am definitely only a learner about miniature painting, John, and have been quite aware that with your art history background you know more about it than I do. My idle napkin doodling above notwithstanding, I happily acknowledge that I'm not qualified to make any pronouncement on how many miniature paintings (and Iranian schoolbooks) depicting mi'raj scenes there are, or were, in existence. However, I do feel you don't see the forest (of Islam) for that one (book miniature) tree. We have good sources speaking to the relative significance of miniature painting, and they agree in assigning the miniature tradition a socially and/or geographically very limited role overall. Again, I believe Omid Safi summarises it well – it's safe to assume he knows more about both the miniature tradition (which he is actually championing in his writing, as a way to foster a more relaxed attitude among Muslims about depictions) and – more importantly – Islam as a whole, than either of us. -- J  N  466  22:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * John, thanks for your comments. Could you reduce the length of your evaluation of my summary? This might be rich coming from me, but you've taken quite a few words to put across only a few problems, some of which are technical in nature (eg. the first pg is essentially "most major editors were parties to this case" should be "some of the major editors"). On the second point, the images are rare, unless the disputants have been wrong in basically every archived discussion. To open every choice of wording in my summary to extensive debate would be a very poor use of our time. AGK   [• ]  16:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No I don't think I can, nor do I think it reasonable of you to ask me. I have been pretty sparing of words on the case pages compared to several others, and this is a talk page after all. No the images are not correctly described just as "rare", and yes, a very large number of disputants have been completely wrong on this - for example a few months ago I remember someone claiming with an air of knowledge that fewer than 100 such images existed in toto. Obviously it is a key point on the issue, though far from the only one. In fact the rarity issue has been very extensively debated, as I say. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It certainly is reasonable, but I am happy for you to retain the current form of your submission, and I will take it into consideration. Regards, AGK   [• ]  17:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Have depictions been created in Central Asia, China, Sub Saharan Africa, South Asia, South East Asia, the Caucus or the Balkans? If so which of those regions and under which time periods? Only 20% of muslims live in the Arab world and only 4.6% of muslims live in Iran (as per http://features.pewforum.org/muslim-population-graphic/), with a further 4.6% in Turkey. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Central Asia certainly. I don't know about the other areas. Now why did you miss India and Pakistan off your list? Let me see if I can guess. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Citation for these claims please. And I didn't leave India and Pakistan off my list - I just called them South Asia. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, 350M muslims between them. What claims - you know perfectly well one of the images actually used is from Kashmir? Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, one in Kashmir produced in a period of strong Persian influence given the language. What about the rest of the region? And even in Kashmir is the tradition continuing as you've said it has in Iran? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know, nor do I have to know. But one thing I'm quite certain of is that you don't know either. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So I think we can safely say that Jayen466's analysis that the artistic tradition has only continued in Turkey and Iran is correct - as he clearly has done quite a lot of research in the area. That certainly matches my experience of India and Southeast Asia and visiting mosques there.
 * Back to AGK's statement possibly he would be better off using the word "uncommon" in his statement? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am in a better position than you to judge Jayen's research, which is pretty narrow and prone to OR extension, as his remarks just above illustrate well. "Uncommon" is an improvement, but very vague - surviving Islamic art of any time from before say 1800 could reasonably be called "uncommon", more so than most people realize, & far more so than its European equivalents. The points of geographical restriction, and restriction to books, are the key ones. It is agreed that depictions in mosques are vanishly rare, & probably always were - that is not at issue. You will also find modern depictions in other Shia populations - they are the majority in Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrein etc, and a minority in other countries, including India & Pakistan. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if we are saying "Shia + Turkey" that's still only ~15-20% of the Islamic population, which certainly falls under "uncommon" compared to Calligraphy and other art forms that are much more widely used in the Islamic world.
 * And your research is also clearly fairly narrow as you have no idea how this stuff plays out in South Asia, South East Asia and China.
 * And if it isn't used in mosques, even in the Shia world (+ Turkey) that will take another hit to its overall usage, which pushes it down to below 10% or so, which makes it getting towards "rare". -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps replace rare with uncommon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BorisG (talk • contribs)
 * No one disputes text/calligraphy is much more common overall, but as I say, without contextualization the word "uncommon" (like "rare") could mean almost anything. "Much less common than ...." is fine, but it's best to avoid the issue of overall quantification. I just said they aren't in mosques, though heaven knows what your maths is here. We are clearly reaching the bottom of the barrel here, so in deference to AGK's wishes I suggest we stop. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good point, I'm happy to agree with you (as well as not continuing discussion). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by FormerIP

 * Broadly, the aim of the first faction of contributors was to retain the images used in the current version of the article, and the current order of images. I don't think this is correct, in that I don't think any editor has a specific attachment to the current set of images or their order. I can only speak for myself, but so long as the article is neither completely stripped of images nor turned into a sort of Where's Mohammed? game, I care only that good image choices are made. That could result in there being 6 images of Mohammed in the article, as is currently the case, or it could result in fewer or more. I don't think that it is correct to frame the debate as being about the status quo versus alternatives - this gives the false impression that one side takes a more rigid stance than is the reality.
 * The summary appears to uncritically adopt various assertions of editors, whereas these assertions are either the subject of dispute or else unsupported by evidence. In Islam, drawings or paintings of Muhammad are rare has already been challenged above (I suggest changing "rare" to "controversial", which is the one thing we can say with certainty). Additionally, I would dispute that calligraphic representations of Mohammed are "comparatively common in Islamic art" or that veiled representations "are more common than portrait-type images". This is connected to the suggestion that The dispute turns on whether the use of portrayals that are not typical of artistic coverage of Muhammad is a subversion of the neutral viewpoint. I would counter that this is only the case if the view is taken that what constitutes "typical artistic coverage" is somehow self-evident.
 * I agree that the key to resolving the issues involved here may well be to seek wider community consensus regarding one or more of them. However, I am less sure about excluding from such a process participants either to this case or to past discussions. On the one hand, this seems very close to a proposal to topic-ban editors regardless of whether their conduct has merited such a sanction. On the other, it seems to be that such a process would actually benefit from the contributions of previously involved editors. Without this, there may be a risk that the target is missed. An RfC question, for example, ought to address the heart of the dispute (or, at least, a given component of it) with precision. Who is better-placed to know what precision is required to resolve the dispute than people who have been involved in it? And what would be done in the case where an RfC provides an answer, but previously involved editors return to the article simply to declare its irrelevance and then pick up where they left off? --FormerIP (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is anyone actually disputing that calligraphy is much more common? Because Johnbod definitely isn't, and I don't think anyone else is either. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To properly consider the assumption, we would need to address a number of questions. Firstly, what is meant by "calligraphic representations"? What sort of calligraphy might we be talking about? In the ordinary linguistic sense "Mohammed" might be said to represent Mohammed. But is this really equivalent to a representation such as might be afforded by an actual picture of him? It seems tenuous, and it is clear that many Muslims do not feel it is the case.
 * But supposing we allow this in spite of the obvious difficulties that many reasonable people might have in accepting it. How common is a calligraphic "representation" of this kind in Islamic art? Comparatively, I would suggest, not very common. Quranic quotes are, of course, very common. But I think it would be too much of a stretch for anyone to consider these representations of Mohammed, even where they incorporate his name. --FormerIP (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. But calligraphy of or including the name of Muhammad is very common in lots of Islamic contexts (and now well represented in the article), and I don't have a problem agreeing it is more common than figurative depictions including him, without counting detached Quranic quotes, which are also very common, though much less clearly "representing" Muhammad. However, especially to those who can't read them, calligraphic images are much less useful as illustrations than pictures. Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, it may be reasonable to concede that calligraphy is more common (although, I would insist, this can only be done on the basis of "whatever, dude" - there is no evidence to show that it is the case). The more important point is the extent to which images of Mohammed and his name in Arabic script are interchangeable. The idea that we don't need images of the person because images of his name will do just as well is plainly wrong. As is the idea that having seven images of Mohammed's name in calligraphy compared to four images of his face, as in the status quo, somehow represents a terrible bias against calligraphy. --FormerIP (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * FormerIP, a wealth of such evidence has been provided throughout these discussions, and much more could be added.     And just as a point of fact, I am surprised to see you say we have seven images of calligraphy of Muhammad's name. Looking at the article, we seem to have two very basic such images, nothing in any way artistically distinguished. In addition, some very poor calligraphy of the name decorates the Muhammad template, and the name occurs in the images of the seal and the shahadah. -- J  N  466  11:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See also http://www.hf.uib.no/religion/popularikonografi/devotion04.html -- J  N  466  12:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree the first point above. I think the overall number and balance of types of images is about right, but the individual selection is certainly capable of improvement. We should have a Mi'raj image, the commonest type of figurative image, and the choice of the two images of the Qu'ran is I think poor, and so on. No doubt we should have made progress on this front if there was not so much circular discussion of more fundamental questions getting in the way. Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Kww
The summary states that some editors have misprioritized the issues, and that the issue of the particular images to be used in a particular article is paramount, and the policy issues and reasoning used to arrive there is secondary. I submit that this is a reversal of priorities. Priority one is establishing the role and impact of religious offense on our content. If the images of Muhammad are removed from this article based on "offensiveness", then I have no idea how to address the numerous LDS editors that are offended by images of their sacred items on articles that I monitor. Do I tell them that Mormonism is less important than Sunni Islam? Or, after several years of protecting those articles from censorship, do I turn my back and allow all images to be removed? Does the specific language in WP:NOT that prevents this reasoning remain, or is it invalidated?&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I will try to include guidance on dealing with the issue of "censorship", but I am restricted by the complexity of this dispute and the inability of this committee to rule on content. A further problem with this dispute is what I perceive to be the fetishisation of policy: the making of anti-censorship an end of itself, rather than a means to the end of ensuring a neutral viewpoint. AGK   [• ]  13:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It actually isn't a complex issue, AGK. That's the shame of this whole dispute. Once you step back and ask the question "Is there any secular reason not to include an image of a seventh-century military ruler in an article about him?", the answer really does come back as "no". Ignoring religious offense isn't easy, but it isn't complex, either. It's similar to being asked to ignore testimony in a jury trial: it requires caution and diligence to make sure that the decision a juror reaches is made without reference to the invalid testimony, and it requires caution and diligence to make sure that the decision made here is made without reference to religion.
 * As for "fetishism", that really doesn't seem to be at play here. No one is arguing for attack images, images of Muhammad in hell, or anything other than images that were apparently made by people that had every intent of being respectful when the image was made. They aren't being edit-warred into the infobox. They aren't being given disrespectful or provocative captions. They aren't being placed in inappropriate articles. They aren't being placed in positions or contexts that could be treated as an attack. There's simply nothing even remotely equivalent to the problems we've had on other articles.
 * The only issue that even comes close to being relevant to Wikipedia is the issue of our image selection vs. other sources. There, unfortunately, we have a deficit of evidence. We are told such images are rare, but we aren't told what texts have been examined. We have people arguing that potential sources of bias in the image selection process of our sources shouldn't even be discussed. Rarity of an image that is proscribed by a major religion really isn't too surprising, either. Try to find images such as File:Mormon garments.jpg in wide circulation, and you will fail at that as well. That's the reason that our articles on Mormonism are illustrated with self-made photographs, pictures from 130-year-old newspapers, and etchings from the 1870s: it's the result of a relatively successful campaign of suppression. That campaign was aimed at many places, and it was quite effective. Wanting to ignore it really isn't a matter of some kind of fetishism, and finding that similar prohibitions against images of Muhammad have been effective shouldn't come as a major surprise to anyone. Shouldn't be treated as something to be emulated, either.
 * It really is a pair of fairly simple questions: "are we expected to conform to the expectations of religious groups?" and "Is there any secular reason not to include an image of a seventh-century military ruler in an article about him?" I think there's a simple pair of answers, too. "No" and "No". The first question can even be argued to be in the domain of Arbcom.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi AGK. I was struck by the fact that the Harris report suggests that policy is the only thing that can "lubricate" between offensiveness vs. presentation. But the summary suggests that policy can't or at least appears to reverse the order - presentation, then policy.  Ultimately, the Harris report concluded the issue of the "sacred" image can only be settled by a filter because there is no mediating between "this image must not exist," and "one must look at the image to judge" (the second position presupposes that the image exists, and thus, cannot countenance the first).  It might suggest that these disconnects are at the root of what you call policy fetishism. Good luck, and/or god speed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the Harris' report does not address a clash between presentation and offensiveness, it discusses the rare instances where our principles of intellectual openness and public service clash:
 * Also, it is true that the Harris' report made no recommendations regarding curation of religious or sacred images, but the Board working group expressly included religious/sacred controversial images in its curatorial recommendations, and the Board resolution expressly included religious/sacred content in its advice concerning curation of controversial content.
 * The Board has advised us to pay particular attention to real educational use and the principle of least astonishment when curating controversial content. This expressly applies to images of Muhammad. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And that's just what we've done. I suppose it is completely pointless to complain again about the hopeless use of language in these reports; the very idea that these images might be considered "sacred" is exactly what fuels Muslim objections to them. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is indeed a paradox, or irony, or muddle of that term, which is why I put it in quotes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The educational usefulness of images at Muhammad is not being addressed. Several figurative depictions of Muhammad in that article are purely decorative and shed no light whatever on the topic of the section they illustrate. So, I can't agree that we are understanding and following the guidance contained in the Board resolution at Muhammad. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your claims of "purely decorative" were rejected during the discussions, though. It always stuck me as a rather silly line of argument anyways; how can it not be educational to see historical depictions of the subject matter that one is reading about?  But really, no one has ever come to the Muhammad article citing "un-educational!" as a reason for the images be removed; they come because of offense.  Some have argued the "un-educational" rationale as a secondary reason for image removal.  The primary reason for removal is, always has been, and always will be, offense. Tarc (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There hasn't been an appropriate place here for me to rebut this argument in full, but the arbs seem mostly disinclined to address such issues anyway, so maybe it should be saved for the upcoming RfC. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any particular reason that my response to AGK is being used to rehash the entire debate? I didn't make any reference to the Harris report, Board decisions, educational merit, decorative content, or astonishment. I tried to make a short-and-sweet summary of why AGK's summary is lacking, not spawn yet another 2000 post debate.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree and I apologize. I entered it here because of the 'policy then presentation' issue that you appeared to allude to with "I submit that this is a reversal of priorities" comments, and the Harris report goes into more depth about these issues than anything we have elsewhere (as imperfect as it maybe). Just food for thought, that's all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to Tarc, above

 * I don't recall anyone engaging me in discussion regarding the educational value of image placement at Muhammad. Could you please provide the diff? I tried to raise it three times on Talk:Muhammad/images, but was ignored on the first two occasions and bullied on the third.


 * Why wouldn't we remove an image that many of our readers find offensive if it adds nothing to the readers understanding of the section it illustrates? Please don't recite policy to me. I'm wondering about the motivation of a person who would defend retaining such an image. Note, I'm not assuming a motive here. I'm asking for one. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hesitate to have any further discussion of this here for reasons stated above. Refer you to the workshop page where there are many statements on educational value in response to the questions to the parties, submitted by AGK. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Alan. I arrived too late to contribute to that thread, but Ludwigs2 sums up my position fairly well. That, however, is not the place for a detailed civil argument on the issue. That belongs on the article talk page, and no one will engage me on that question there. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * At the first link you provide, you weren't ignored. I see quite a lively and rancor-free discussion that resulted in text being added to the article describing the Black Stone image, therefore justifying the image usage. What was the point of even raising it the 2nd and 3rd times (there was no bullying btw; you began that discussion with snark & pointedness and got called on it) if the concerns were already addressed the 1st time? Tarc (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken, and your comment is misleading. That discussion was about whether to mention the black stone incident in the text. In my opening post there I said, if it is decided that "reputable encyclopedia articles on him tend to include a description of the black rock incident, then I'd favour adding a section on it and discussing whether an artist's impression of the event is WP:DUE."
 * When it was revealed that Encyclopedia Britannica's Muhammad article mentions the black stone incident, it was agreed by all that we should mention it too.
 * So I then brought up the question of educational merit:
 * and was ignored and ignored and bullied.
 * I did not begin that discussion "with snark & pointedness". It was a sincere question, that I had asked twice before, and you responded in your typical bullying style. Worming your way out of that by blaming the victim and misrepresenting the facts might work on some article talk page backwater, but I'll be very surprised if your black is white style of obfuscation succeeds here. This is bullying, pure and simple. It is at the root of Wikipedia's declining editor numbers, and arbcom needs to start taking it seriously. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Alanscottwalker
Thanks for the great work and allowing comment.

I sympathize with summarizing many different discussions but if we divide them between, what went before Resolute's proposal of 18 November 2011 and what came after, I agree with Boris G (above) on the earlier discussions and Former IP (point 1) on what the positions were staked out thereafter. And therefore disagree with the summary.

I would caution that the editors named in this arbitration were primarily active after Resolute's 11/18 proposal. Although many were also active before, they are different sets.

I disagree entirely that the "so" causation, in this sentence, is an accurate description of the dispute: "In Islam, drawings or paintings of Muhammad are rare, so this faction asserted the article must rely on artwork created after Muhammad's death (such as those from an atypical period when Islamic artwork was common) because no images of Muhammad exist that were created during his life." Whether they are "Islamic" or not, depictions of most anyone from that century are much less common than depictions of individuals from many other centuries; nonetheless, there are free use depictions of Muhammad in our files and in the article, concerning important events in Muhammad's life. It's these that many editors agree have and do improve the article. All do agree that there are no known surviving depictions of Muhammad created in his lifetime, although there are descriptions of him. All also agree that there is controversy within Islam about depictions, that's also covered in the article and other articles. I also agree with the other criticisms of this sentence, others have made.

I heartily applaud getting others involved and have suggested that on several occasions, since November 18. Thanks, again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Ludwigs2
Overall a good summary. -- Ludwigs 2 09:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up by AGK
Thank you for your comments. I understand that my summary is widely regarded as accurate, but there are some objections to specific representations of the factions, and a couple of issues with the wording used when discussing calligraphic images and depictions (which is to be expected: I'm not very familiar with this subject). I will consider the feedback given here and amend the summary as appropriate, before I convert it into a draft final decision. The workshop phase remains scheduled to begin on 11 January 2012. Further feedback here and more evidence submissions are welcome before that date, and will be considered in full. AGK  [• ]  13:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (feel free to delete my comment once handled). I think you meant to say that the workshop phase remains scheduled to end (not begin) on 11 January. Or that the decision phase is scheduled to begin. Your choice! --Elonka 17:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The evidence phase is due to end in a week ;). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I won't continue with a full analysis, but I think your summary of the reactions above is optimistic. One wonders why it is necessary to give such a lengthy account of the progress of the dispute as you see it at all when the content issues will not be decided here.


 * One sentence stands out, which a) I think is both incorrect and unnecessary, but I will anyway suggest a different wording for in the hope this will demonstrate better terminology (bolds are added): "In addition to the question of striking a balance between different types of figurative images of Muhammad, it was suggested that more use be made of alternative forms of portrayal representation, such as calligraphic images Islamic calligraphy (which is are comparatively common in Islamic art) and veiled representations depictions (which are more common than portrait-type unveiled ones images) . Actually no one knows this last point, which has never been cited to an RS, and the logic throughout doesn't follow - veiled images are part of the "balance" at the start.


 * "The dispute has been deadlocked for some time..." actually there has been considerable progress, sometimes made with little fuss, as when the calligraphic images were boosted, though of course Jayen & others immediately wanted more, and this should be recognised. The last figurative image to be removed was agreed after a perfectly sensible debate in March 2011, when each image had an individual straw poll. The understanding of the factual issues re Islamic practice and history on all sides has advanced considerably I think over the last year, including most parties on both sides here. As the RFC will of necessity involve more consideration of the factual issues to do with forms of representation of Muhammad, that increased understanding should be available within it.  Knowledge of the factual issues is spread very thinly within the community, including Muslim members of it, and erroneous ideas are widespread.  Johnbod (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When did those things happen? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Before your very recent arrival on the page. I'll dig up refs. Johnbod (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Link added above. As far as I can see, Jayen's addition of two calligraphic images in November generated no opposition on the talk page - there had just been similar changes at Depictions of Muhammad, also agreed. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well its good to know some progress has been made. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Johnbod: If you ever expected us to decide the content issues, then you misunderstand what arbitration is. I view a summary of the case as necessary, and I will include it anyway. My summary was that there was specific errors with the wording of the summary, for instance where I have said "portrayal" instead of "representation". You have implied my summary is inherently wrong, but then suggested factual errors of precisely the same nature as those I have acknowledged. Also, the dispute is deadlocked - I refer you to the fact that no consensus has emerged from megabytes of discussion and many months of debate. I am, in fact, struggling to find anything in your response that I agree with, but if I have misunderstood you, please correct me and I will look again. AGK   [• ]  16:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I never expected the content issues to be decided here, and I hope they are not, though I note that some of your colleagues' acceptance comments left it uncertain if they shared this view. There has been little evidence submitted addressing these issues, partly no doubt because your preliminary summary said the issues would not be decided here, though there is rather more on the workshop page. How many "factual errors" does it take to make a summary "inherently wrong"? Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If drafting/sitting Arbitrator then about an infinity, else one. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole's evidence
Mathsci is questioning whether my evidence is appropriate for an ArbCom case here. Could we have the opinion of a clerk or arbitrator, please? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wrote that the way you have so far presented your evidence, with all the emphasis on what you claim you were going to say, is not very helpful. A simple way out, even now, would be to rejig your evidence with the main emphasis not being on what you might have said, but just stating what actually happened from your point of view. Mathsci (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with Anthonyhcole's evidence, although he might consider whether Mathsci's suggestion would make his submission more effective. AGK   [• ]  13:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, AGK. I've changed the wording per Boris' suggestion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

24 hour break
Very little productive discussion has taken place recently, and a lot of heat has been generated. I'm closing the Workshop for 24 hours. If you are someone who has been uninvolved up until now and you wish to make proposals over the next 24 hours, feel free to contact me and we can work something out. To everyone else: please use this time to think over your comments and figure out how you want to approach this discussion when it reopens. NW ( Talk ) 04:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought myself we were in quite a useful phase of giving people enough rope to hang themselves. Johnbod (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Suddenly I'm almost sad I stopped paying attention to this. Ok, not really. Three hockey games a day is far more entertaining than an ArbCom case.  ;) Resolute 07:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Heck, Vancouver at Boston pretty much was an ArbCom case all by itself! :) Franamax (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, Vancouver finally figured out how to beat us...a few months too late. :) Tarc (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This was wise, as was your curation earlier in the day. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with the break. This page has been near impossible to follow, with dozens of new messages per day, and had grown to an unmanageable size (over 660K for a single page load). The discussions also appear to have gone far afield from the policy and conduct issues, to a rather endless rehashing of the debate that caused the case in the first place. May I suggest that we resume discussion about how to handle the article in a more appropriate location, at Talk:Muhammad/images? There may still be a craftable consensus here somewhere, especially with more eyes on the situation now. My own suggestion is that each person post a single brief statement of how they would like to see the image issue handled, and then we can kind of scan that and see where we stand? --Elonka 22:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have started such a poll, at Talk:Muhammad/images, for anyone who would like to participate. --Elonka 23:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I and others have expressed there, this poll prior to the arbcom case closing is premature, although done in good faith. I'd encourage any neutral and uninvolved admin reading this to consider closing the poll on this basis. (For the record I too think the 24 hour timeout was a good idea, and I hope tomorrow doesn't bring a continuation of yesterday). Thryduulf (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow is never a continuation of yesterday, because today intervenes.--FormerIP (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * True. For "tomorrow" and "yesterday" append "'s behaviour" :) Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Meta issue: amateurism
If Wikipedia would get over its cult of the amateur, this stupid controversy might likely be avoided. The question of whether the images of Muhammad are offensive or not is beside the point. The real question is, what images would be included in a decent article written by an expert in the subject? Experts in the subject would only be concerned that the images in the article were concomitant with the best possible presentation of the subject. Not being an Muhammad scholar myself, I cannot say what the right answer is. But Wikipedians really ought to get off their duffs, write a few e-mails, and ask for some opinions of experts (most don't bite, I tell you). That should be the way these content conflicts are resolved. Dispense with this sophistic sniping and arguing by know-nothing anonymous internet denizens and get down to the brass tacks of finding out what the opinions of the experts are. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a significantly more sophisticated way of making the point that me, Jayen466 and Johnbod have been making (although we are all ameuters). It would be nice for a ruling along this line and I think such a request would come across much better from either Arbcom or the foundation. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I dropped Omid Safi a line a week ago, asking him for his views on what Wikipedia should do to be NPOV. But I've had no reply to date ... -- J N  466  12:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The "expert's encyclopedia" is better known as the citizendium. Go login there and see what the activity level is like these days.  Maybe you can help rearrange a deck chair or two.Tarc (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Their "draft" article on Muhammad is underwhelming []. I take it it's not even a real article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is an interesting idea, worth exploring but it should not be limited to one article for special treatment. Certainly, we could have some articles "peer" (expert) reviewed but at present we don't have any mechanism for that, that I am aware of. There would be the issues of design and compensation. And it should be studied, as it's designed, that other similar reviews in the outside world have generated things we may wish to avoid. See eg., Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book; Academic Freedom Abridged at Yale Press.  There are probably other such issues out there that the design team would benefit by studying. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds sensible all round. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The initial comment assumes that experts on the subject would have a consistent view, which is certainly not the case, and also that authors decide what images go into their published books, which they very often don't, if only because of budgets, as they constantly complain. Having worked in the publishing industry for many years, I am not at all surprised at the Yale censorship. The industry has been extremely sensitive on any issue involving offence to Muslims ever since The Satanic Verses controversy in the late 1980s, in the course of which nearly 100 people (nearly all Muslims) were killed in riots, bombings and assassinations, bookshops burned etc. That is why Elonka's evidence means nothing - Rupert Murdoch etc do not subscribe to WP:NOTCENSORED, and as we see at Yale, such matters are decided at a corporate level rather than by mere authors. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say Elonka's research means nothing. The passion (that is what amateur originally means) and good sense is evident. Its relevance is subject to debate, and it does seem like synthesizing and original research. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Timothy Winter is closer to home for Jayen466; and Winter has written comments in newspapers about some of the issues above. To my mind, those comments he's made in the real world should be sufficient as far as wikipedia is concerned. Any active form of involvement would be like inviting him into the lion's den. Mathsci (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

How offensiveness relates to the content descision process
This has been discussed in several places on the workshop page, so there is no clear best spot for it there, hence it's here on talk. Any arb or clerk is free to move it if they think it fits better somewhere on the page.

Basically, as a great believer in diagrams, I've spent several hours wresting with inkscape to get this flowchart working. It illustrates exactly where offensiveness fits in to the decisions about whether or not to include content, particularly images, on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Anthonycole and others claim that a lot of images on Wikipedia fall into a third category: they are relevant but not essential but rather illustrative. They call these images incidental. Anthonycole has a great example: first two images in ADHD. That is where they think offensiveness should matter. I think they have a point. - BorisG (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries and minor edits
This is a general reminder/plea/rant for everybody to use edit summaries for their edits to the workshop page and to click "minor edit" where appropriate (e.g. should have an edit summary and be marked as minor). Only about half the most recent 150 edits have an attached summary (impression from scrolling down the list, I've not counted). It's not any one person, nor is it restricted to one 'side' of the debate. If you find you often forget to put an edit summary, you can set the software to prompt you when entering a blank summary by clicking the appropriate box on the editing tab of Special:Preferences. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I try to remember the m where appropriate, but have been slack on this page. Will improve. By the way, thank you for the illustration. I haven't responded because I'm still processing it and don't want to present half-thoughts. I'm wondering about how we curate the content that falls between the two extremes. But will hopefully have something constructive to say when the muse has moved me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Outline of final decision discussion
AGK: With respect to "circular discussion": I hope such is not confused with either discussions that are spiraling down (where most everyone just winds up angry - and are marked by personalized comments), or with discussions that are spiraling up (frustratingly, halting discussions but where thinking and positions are clarified). I am also intrigued by "sober eyes." (Also, I left a question for you in the workshop today, if you have a chance to respond). Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, AGK, your committee should also consider specifically advising interlocutors in future discussions in these issues, to strive to avoid making assumptions about the personal faith (or absence, thereof) of other editors (or groups of editors), or their families, friends, or acquaintances, and perhaps also prospectively banning from further discussion (under sanction) any such comments not made by editors about themselves. Avoiding such assumptions would promote assuming good faith, and banning such comments would promote reasoned discussion about the strict content issues. Alanscottwalker(talk) 19:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In reviewing AGK's proposal, it looks pretty good. I was a bit surprised to see that Kww wasn't included in the list, but that's of course up to the arbs. Regarding discretionary sanctions, I'm curious whether AGK is going to propose sanctions for all Muhammad-related articles (might as well make it Islam-related or religion-related in that case), or whether it's just going to have a narrow focus on images. I might also have a few other minor quibbles, but nothing major enough to really argue about. I look forward to seeing the full text of the proposed decision. --Elonka 23:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it looks pretty good. I don't think sanctions need to be wider than images. The only addition I'd like to see (as I've asked on AGK's talk page) is to get us to solve it editorially rather than taking offence into account - we are far more likely to come to a good solution on editorial grounds IMO. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * pro-forma, I object to being singled out so strongly in the outline. I understand that this is a side-effect of a multi-editor campaign to kick my a$$, so there's a lot of chatter about it in the evidence, but it unfortunately ends up as a scattershot tactic; the hope being that if I don't get hit by one charge I'll get hit by another, or a third, or…  I'd prefer you create a single entry dealing with sanctions (equivalent to the single entry other editors face), and leave it up to the arbs to determine the level/scope of any such sanctions.  Don't dignify the mob strategy with over-representation, please.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs2, I'm sorry, but I'm in agreement with AGK's proposed decision. If you'd really like to stay on the project, you need to (1) Keep comments focused on content, and not on contributors; (2) Stop reacting to everything; (3) And most important, go work on some articles. I do agree with some of the points you bring up, but looking at your contribs, all you seem to do is sit on talkpages and argue endlessly about policy and arbitration stuff. When's the last time you actually worked on an article? It appears to have been a very long time. --Elonka 00:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! And 2&3 apply to a number of people here. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, E, that's all well and fine to say, but you ought to walk a few steps in my shoes before you say this stuff. Fact is, there are very few pages that I can sit down and edit normally without being instantly reverted and attacked, just because of who I am and the topic areas I normally work.  Why do you think I never bothered trying to edit Muhammad?  all that would have accomplished would have been getting a charge of edit-warring added to the list of charges raised against me had I so much as made more than one edit to the page.  Now, I could go far afield to pages I have little interest in or knowledge of and edit those, and I might have better success.  or I might not, depending on whether someone follows me across pages just to make things difficult.  Sorry, but I've learned to take a very cautious approach to actually editing the encyclopedia.  There are just too many people on project looking for an opening to fuck me up the ass.


 * Pardon the vulgarity, but don't think for a moment that I'm exaggerating.


 * Besides, Wikipedia is not mandatory, and it currently needs a good bit of cleaning up on the internal-politics side. One doesn't have to like me to recognize that I'm good at thinking my way through those kinds of messes (and I'd hazard that the recognition that I'm good at that sort of thing is one of the reasons people really don't like me).  If the project were savvy it would make me an administrator rather than trying to figure out what to do with me otherwise; as an admin, the constant stream of personal attacks I am subject to (which accounts for so damned much noise) would disappear, I'd feel an obligation to set a better example (which would make me much more careful all around), and I could get down to the business of creating calm, rational deliberation on talk pages (which is all I ever ask for, and the kind of thing I really enjoy anyway).  If that had been the case when this debate started we wouldn't be here now, this issue would have been settled months ago, and we'd all have moved on to do better (or at least other) things.  That's not going to happen, obviously - I have all the qualities we look for in an admin except the one that matters - but you do have to recognize that this is part of the problem I pose for other editors: I present myself with a moral and intellectual authority that's not backed up by anything except my own intellect and my ability to express complex concepts clearly and forcefully.  Being rational is what I'm good at - if it weren't, someone would have gamed me into getting site-banned ages ago (and they may yet succeed, we'll see) - but rationality by itself is simply not respected on project.


 * Right now Wikipedia is an awful place to edit. Just awful: I don't wonder a bit that we're losing editors and admins at a staggering rate.  I'm doing what I can as a normal editor to fix that - probably presumptuous of me and not a fun process for anyone involved - because that's what I think ought to be done.  If you want to bust my chops for that I won't hold it against you (I recognized when I started this process that it would be impossible to make forward progress without personal risk to my username), but in my heart of hearts I will condemn you as shortsighted if you won't at least acknowledge that I'm trying to do right.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Awful" is a fairly strong term: perhaps a little contemplation of the role you play in making it awful would help. Making false statements, for example: that's something that tends to cause negative reactions. For example, "I never bothered trying to edit Muhammad" can be quickly verified and determined to be false:
 * Removed an image of Muhammad
 * Removed another image of Muhammad
 * Reverted Amatulic to preserve your deletion
 * Continued to edit war to preserve your deletion
 * Removed more images while falsely claiming consensus
 * Reverted an effort to restore those images, still falsely claiming consensus
 * One apparently well-justified and accurately described reversion


 * If you want to make editing less "awful", making accurate representations of events goes a long way. I'd also suggest dropping the proclamations that people that disagree with you are too immature or unintelligent to understand your points. A bit of care and attention to actually reading and understanding your opposition in debates would help, too. I've been making the same basic argument for months, and it is only in the last few days that you have shown any signs of having read it carefully enough to understand my perspective. You still belittle it and deride it, but at least you are finally acting like you understand it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Substandard participation in the case
While it is fair to say that there has been a lot of off topic discussion about the content in the case and I am certainly guilty of that I think we have had some interesting (and more productive) discussion about content that we weren't having before.

Probably the most effective way to control discussions about content in my view would be more strongly encourage such discussions to take place on the article's talk page. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is in a case like this difficult to say exactly where the policy issues end & the content issues begin - note the disagreement on this point between JClemens and AGK on the workshop page, which I suspect won't be the last between the arbs. So people go a little over where they think the boundary is to be sure. I expect all points have been covered somewhere before but one of the problems with the debate was that in late Oct & early Nov it spiralled beyond the point where anyone could keep up with it all, and was in several places at once. Johnbod (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I rather doubt the proposed section is primarily about the content issue discussions, since Arbitrators have asked about that, but rather about some users' continued or new untoward conduct, and perhaps about urging arbitrators to change policy? At any rate, we will see soon enough. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We may as well record that we are talking about a blank section header at this point, which I suppose goes to show Wikipedians will argue about anything! Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As I suggested before this case was even accepted, the content/behavior dichotomy is insufficient for this issue. There are some behavior issues and some pure content issues, certainly, but the real sticking point in all of this is over differing interpretations of the nature and goals of the encyclopedia and of the proper use and functioning of policy.  The dispute on the article boils down to this:
 * The article contains a number of non-vital images that contain depictions of the prophet
 * One side says they should be removed because they aren't vital and they offend the mores of a cultural group
 * The other side says they should be retained because removing them would be a form of censorship
 * So the actual issue here is whether Wikipedia should lean more towards social responsibility or freedom of expression; it's got nothing really to do with the content of this particular article or the behavior of particular editors (except where editors stepped over the bounds).


 * Even if every editor here were as even-tempered as a baked saint, this issue would still have ended up at ArbCom. It's an ideological divide that's going to plague the project until it's sealed.


 * I'm tempted to toss up a remedy that I half-jokingly recommended on Jimbo's talk page: Ask ArbCom to set up a constitutional convention so that we can revise, formalize and rationalize project policy, If we're going to have established editors treating policy like a code of law, then we ought to take steps to make sure that it's a self-consistent code of law that's rationally derived and difficult to alter. The accretion method we've used to date worked fine as long as the project was small and tight-knit, but it's grown large enough now for factions and interest groups to develop, and that is sooner or later going to lead to a painful death for the project.  I personally think it's timed we stopped being half-assed about it; if we're not going to respect the pure consensus principle (as seems likely from many of the views editors have voiced in this discussion) then we ought to buckle down and make proper rules to live by.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't think your three points above accurately convey the nature of the arguments. Closer would be:
 * The article contains a number of images that contain depictions of Muhammad.
 * Some or all of these images are offensive to certain cultural groups
 * Some editors believe that
 * at least some of these images do not add to the article (for whatever reasons)
 * images that are both (1) not representative of image use in (some collection of) reliable sources, and (2) offensive to certain groups should be removed.
 * that image use in religious sources is irrelevant to a secular encyclopaedia
 * that image use in sources that are not uncensored online secular encyclopaedias is not relevant to the choice of images to illustrate an uncensored online secular encyclopaedia
 * all images they regard as "trivial", "incidental", "non-vital" or similar (for whatever reasons) should be removed because they are offensive to certain groups.
 * as a general case irrelevant images should be removed, but that most/all the images in this article are not irrelevant.
 * images that cause offence need to be held to a higher standard of relevance than images that don't.
 * all images should be held to the same standard, regardless of whether they cause offence or not.
 * NPOV is incompatible with taking into account offence
 * NPOV requires us to take into account the offensiveness of images, etc to different groups in accordance with the relative prominence in reliable sources
 * the primary goal is to produce a neutral biography of Muhammad regardless of whether it offends anybody
 * the primary goal is to produce a neutral article about the founder of Islam that doesn't offend Muslims.
 * the primary goal is to produce a neutral article about Muhammed that offends as little as possible followers of the religion he founded
 * that Muhammad is (primarily) a historical biography
 * that Muhammad is (primarily) a religious article
 * there are too many depictions of Muhammed presently in the article
 * Not all of these are mutually exclusive, and most editors believe a combination of them. Personally I go with 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 14. I suspect Kww and Tarc believe similarly (although not necessarily identically) and that you (Ludwigs2), Jayen, Eraserhead1 and Anthonyhcole will identify with three different sets of beliefs but which are closer to each other than they are to those to which I subscribe. It's possible that I've left out something relevant, but I think I've got it all. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Ludwigs2's 3 points are a good summary of the focus of the dispute. - BorisG (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Boris, It maybe close (but, of course, there are always many ways to look at a problem), yet the sticking points would still need elucidation. Looking back, I have always stopped after examining the several issues surrounding, "are they educational?" for the biography, and I ultimately answer those, "yes." I have not been much involved in the NOTCENSORED debates, because that's where I got my answer. So, if you follow me, modifying the three points, it would go something like this (avoiding the contentious "sides" language, because we are all participating as individuals):


 * The article contains a number of educational images that include depictions of the prophet - that some argue are not vital
 * Some say they should be removed as they offend the mores of a religion
 * Others say that would be a form of censorship

I think, I stopped at "educational" (step 1) because the standards and rubrics of the "not vital"-for-images determination are undefined, unusual, and outside policy, in my experience of our editing process. I think that's where the wisdom of the Harris report -- that only policy can lubricate such disputes may come in -- as much as some don't like policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ludwigs, in so far as, 'line-drawing' (or 'arbitrary line drawing,' depending on which side of the line you find yourself on) has usually been the function of authority (eg., government; parents; taboo, which is kind of a consensus derived system but was backed up by sacred authority, etc.) in human communities. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I think the best way to rectify the points people have raised is to remove the evaluative from the first point:
 * The article contains a number of images that contain depictions of the prophet
 * One side says they should be removed (in whole or part) because they they offend the mores of a socio-cultural group and are not vital to the content of the article
 * The other side says they should be retained because removing them would be a form of censorship
 * I could condense Thyrd's long list into a few sub-points that capture different flavors of the dispute ('functional value', 'religious POVs excluded', 'Wikipedia as Western', 'project conventions and standards', 'NPOV vs. NOTCENSORED', 'number of images of given types'), but I don't think any of this gets around the idea that the core of this dispute is social responsibility vs. freedom of expression, which is neither a behavioral nor a content issue. At any rate, I'll add this modified version as a FoF, we'll see what comes of it.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that my list is probably condensible (brevity is not one of my strong points), but the above is not accurate. For example you paint NPOV and NOTCENSORED as being in opposition when they are not - a key aspect of the arguments against removing the images is that NPOV is not possible without NOTCENSORED. It's also not the case that there are exactly two sides to every issue - there are at least three philosophies about the nature of the Muhammad article for example. Additionally I dispute that it's "social responsibility vs freedom of expression" - the socially responsible thing to do is to uphold the values of society, and the core values of Wikipedia are that it is a neutral (and thus uncensored) encyclopaedia. There are other places online where a sympathetic point of view is the guiding principle (Wikinfo is one example), but that is not Wikipedia's mission. Thryduulf (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thyrd: the one unarguable point in this entire discussion is that Wikipedia is a significant figure in a cross-cultural, cross-national, deeply intertwined world. Wikipedia is not separate from the readership it serves or the world they live in; if it were separate, we wouldn't need principles like NPOV or V, and we could just write whatever we felt like writing with impunity.  Given that we are a significant figure in the greater world, it is contingent on us to ask what social responsibilities we have as a members of that world community.  Sorry, but the days when the project was just a bunch of computer geeks tapping away in relative internet obscurity are long past.


 * With respect to your list, ok; I was really just throwing those out there without too much thought. shall we try to condense it sensibly?  It might be productive to do so.  Just as a (serious) first stab, how about this:
 * the question of content value vs. offense
 * the question of consistent standards is a subset of this, I think, since it's generally used to say that standard usage on project is a value that overrides offense
 * the question of whether religious POVs have any place on project
 * the Western/Secular threads are a subset of this, I think
 * the question of whether Muhhamad is a religious article or a biography also falls here, I think, though it overlaps the 'consistent standards' point
 * whether NPOV or NOTCENSORED is the more central core value
 * what have I missed or misstated? -- Ludwigs 2 23:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no requirement for controversial images to be "vital" in either WP policy or the WMF resolution, which says: "We urge the Commons community to continue to practice rigorous active curation of content, including applying appropriate categorization, removing media that does not meet existing policies and guidelines for inclusion, and actively commissioning media that is deemed needed but missing. We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement." Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe "vital" is too strong a word for what the images have to satisfy to stay in, but the point of the word as I understand it – and it's much harder to put this succinctly than extremist black/white claims – is that their encyclopedic value, if any, must be weighted against any other reasonable concerns. As I also had to point out to you at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop, the paragraph from the Foundation resolution that you are quoting here is from the second half of the resolution, which is explicitly addressed at Commons, not us. Applying it to our situation would require careful interpretation. However, the first half, though apparently also written with Commons in mind as the most pressing application for the moment, is explicitly directed to the entire Wikimedia community, and we have explicit later clarifications affirming this was intended. It says: "We support the principle of least astonishment: content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain." It's clear from the context that "astonishment" doesn't refer to the general feeling of surprise that we all may feel if an article on an important topic is still a little stub, or if we find a POV tag on an article on a totally innocuous topic. It refers to the astonishment that one would feel when encountering hardcore pornographic images in Commons categories with perfectly innocuous names. Muhammad depictions on the Muhammad articles are neither a particularly typical examples of this astonishment nor are they a particularly poor example. Hans Adler 10:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to admit to being perplexed why anyone would be astonished to find depictions of Muhammad in an illustrated secular encyclopaedia article about Muhammad. The consensus of previous discussions is that all the images currently used have sufficient relevance and educational value to be included, and that images such as "Muhammad in Hell" do not and so were removed. No more recent discussion has come to any different consensus, so this still applies. The foundation's position can be succinctly summarised as "Don't astonish people by including things with no educational value in articles; don't astonish people with misleading or overly generic categorisation.", and as we do neither here we're fine. As the principle of least astonishment was rejected as a guideline by the community it's a fairly insignificant point anyway. Our image choices are driven not by what some people do or don't find offensive, but by what is the best set of images available to us to illustrate our encyclopaedia article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Would we be having this discussion apart from offensiveness.
In reply to Johnbod's comment on the workshop.


 * on calligraphy not referring to particular episodes, I really don't see how calligraphy (or more traditional art with calligraphy) can't refer to particular events.
 * With regards to offensiveness, if a significant majority of the representations of an individual weren't depictions but were rather calligraphic, then yes we would still be having this discussion in order for our image usage to represent reality.


 * If in 100 years time muslims generally accepted depictions of Muhammad outside of a purely religious context and they were widespread in contemporary culture throughout the Islamic world we would still be having this debate. The terms of the debate would change a little as it would then be sensible to add a "modern" Islamic depiction as well as the historical imagery. However we would still be in a position where if we had 5 historical depictions and 5 pieces of calligraphy that it would be totally out of balance as to the actual usage as calligraphy would still be significantly more common than depictions given the previous 1400 years of Islamic tradition.


 * John, if we can justify each and every depiction editorially to have significant value then lets have that discussion, so far people have spent the past week failing to come up with any justification for any of the depictions currently included in the article beyond WP:ILIKEIT, its nice to see you've moved forward from that.
 * With the black stone depiction I don't think any paragraph in any article requires a specific illustration, you'd be on stronger ground if it was a whole section, but there are plenty of sections even in featured articles without illustrations. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is I suppose no reason why calligraphy can't refer to specific events, but in Muslim usage it just doesn't; I explained the very limited range of things that calligraphic representations of Muhammad do in practice cover (to which Qu'ranic quotes in stone etc could be added, but they are I think different, and also don't cover the narrative parts of the Qu'ran). They are the equivalent of portraits rather than narrative images. You are again falling into the trap of believing that the purpose of illustration is to give a balanced and representative survey of what images have been produced - again I dealt with that idea in my post. Perhaps no specific paragraph requires an image, but the article as a whole does require them; the exact selection could obviously vary. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * John - again - images are not required anywhere on wikipedia. They are nice and often useful, granted, but we could write a perfectly good encyclopedia without any images at all if we so desired.  All these efforts to find some blanket, black&white rule that sidesteps the difficult discussion…  really, they just get in the way.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * John, then prove it with some sources.
 * What's pretty interesting is stuff like this exhibition at the British Museum is clearly going to include quite a bit of art around this topic, and not contain just that one piece that we use. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What one piece? Having just received my invite to it, I'll be in a position to say in a few weeks, & it will be interesting to see what they do include, although since it is "In partnership with the King Abdulaziz Public Library Riyadh" I don't think WP:NOTCENSORED will have been a guiding principle. Though btw the very few Persian miniatures they had on display before the British Library split off included that Safavid Mi'raj one that Jayen & others like.  Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The one in the article currently. Given the British Museum are doing the exhibition with the Saudis there probably won't be many (if any) depictions of Muhammad, but it makes your claim that there isn't anything else that we could use instead look rather inaccurate. The British Museum is hardly going to be able to put on an exhibition like this with no art about the Hajj, as that would be quite a poor exhibition. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we don't have a Mi'raj image currently. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that depend on the museum's focus, eg., if it's Saudi perceptions of the Hajj? Also, you and Jayan, and others have said, in the past, that religious offense matters, (even Jayen when he presents his NPOV argument says that sources take account of religious offense), so isn't that an issue? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * With regards to the exhibition that isn't my point, my point is that given the existence of this exhibition, which I presume won't be full to the brim with depictions of Muhammad (especially given the Saudi connection), that there is other art available for which we can illustrate this article. If anyone bothers to ask I'm sure there's a fair chance that the British Museum (and other museums around the world) will be able to give us suitable imagery to use for this article.
 * There's no shortage of stuff on Commons, but the Haj is a different topic from Muhammad. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * With regards to your point about offensiveness I personally think offensiveness is a valid concern, however I think discussing it is getting in the way of reaching a sensible conclusion, so lets agree to disagree. If there are specific pieces for which there is a strong justification for including then lets include them, and lets try and make sure the balance is something that a reasonable person would expect given some background reading in the topic - that delivers additional value to our readers. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The existing position in the article is based on a curated approach, with a limited and tactful placement of images. Perversely some editors concerned about offence actually want to increase offensiveness by adding an image to the infobox (Eraserhead1) or adding both overtly hostile images and extra-offensive statues (Anthonyhcole). Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On editorial grounds the infobox image is the key one, as that is present in every other article.
 * If we are going to solve this dispute we are going to do so on editorial grounds. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It would be nice, if an expert would do it. Yes. Let's get the things off the table that we can, through this process you brought us to, so we will all proceed in an orderly fashion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! If you can come up with a good proposal on taking offensiveness off the table lets do it - we are more likely to come to a good conclusion with far less heat if this isn't a freedom issue. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've spoken to AGK and its covered already. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Ludwigs, certainly it is true that this particular section doesn't require illustration, its way too short. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * According to what policy is that? Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you actually look at any Wikipedia article on the project its blindingly obvious. If you need an example, Elvis Presley, an FA, has a ton of entire sections without illustrations - claiming we have to have one for this particular paragraph seems really rather odd. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea that a section is too short to illustrate is highly odd. That illustrations have to be exactly next to relevant text is a common mistake in Wikipedia. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really. There is only a single paragraph on the black stone in the article. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking Europe as an example, somebody added a two sentence section on Integration and then somebody else attached three maps. There are no hard and fast rules for deciding on how to illustrate an article. Mathsci (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA blackout
I hope the workshop deadline will be extended to allow for this late development. I have 2 WMUK events tomorrow & was planning to add stuff that I now won't be able to do by the original deadline - which was exactly when, btw? No point looking at the help pages. I'd better put up a motion I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Right at the top of the page :) "Deadlines: Opened 21 December 2011 • Evidence closes 11 January 2012 • Workshop closes 18 January 2012 • Decision posted 25 January 2012". N o f o rmation  Talk 04:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The SOPA RfC closing statement says
 * --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This could also be clarified by NuclearWarfare, who with Risker, helped draft the SOPA announcement. Mathsci (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks both, I think we are entitled to assume this unless we hear otherwise, & I will do so. Johnbod (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So you think this TLDR workshop is not sufficient? - BorisG (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They are always TLDR, but there are actually many aspects that have been littled covered. Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly. But I think there are bugger all chances that Arbs will read it. And even if they do, I doubt any human can make any sense of all this mess. It is a game of vastly diminishing returns. - BorisG (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well most of it will be recycled into the RFC, so it won't go to waste. Actually, I'm not as gloomy as you on the effect of discussion. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It would not surprise me if some people are planning on writing a final summing up of the evidence and workshop from their point of view - not something I feel the need to do personally, but hardly unreasonable for others to want. If they've been planning this for some time, bringing the deadline forward by 24 hours (whatever the reason) is not really fair. Whether or not the Arbs read it or take note of it is not for us (non-arbitrators) to influence. Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am consulting my colleagues regarding schedule changes for this case due to the SOPA/PIPA blackout, and hopefully I will publish guidance on this page soon. AGK   [• ]  15:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA blackout: minor change to schedule
In response to enquiries about whether there will be an amendment to our schedule for the SOPA blackout (see above thread), I confirm that the workshop will close at 20:00 (UTC) on 19 January 2012.

The workshop phase of this case was scheduled to close at 11:59 tomorrow evening UTC). Due to the blackout tomorrow, the workshop phase will instead close on Thursday evening, and no submissions after this time will be considered. The workshop has been open, and in regular use, for the duration of this case, including throughout the evidence phase (for one full month, due to the one-week extension over the election transition period); we therefore feel that a full extension is not necessary. The Arbitration Committee will publish its proposed decision on Thursday evening, which due to the blackout is a day later than scheduled but still as soon as possible, and voting will begin thereafter.

Of particular note is Hans Adler's extension (which I granted due to his significant real-life unavailability for the majority of this case). Hans will submit as much of his evidence and workshop proposals this evening as he can, and I will contact him to confirm if he can submit the remainder on Thursday morning; if he can't, he will e-mail me the remainder and I will publish it promptly, on his behalf. For the rest of Thursday, the parties will have time to respond to his submissions, and these responses will be taken into account; however, other discussion probably will not.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions; I can be contacted at Special:EmailUser/AGK or. AGK  [• ]  23:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to post the draft tomorrow, but I still can't take into account any submissions made after today. Thanks, AGK   [• ]  09:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)