Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ali

I'm a member of the committee and I'm considering taking on this case as mediator. I would, however, like to ask a couple of questions first and, depending upon the answers, perhaps a couple of follow-up questions: I would appreciate it very much if each of you would answer those three questions and not comment or respond to the other user's answers; I'm not trying to mediate the issue with this question, but merely decide whether I want to mediate it. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I note that there has been no further discussion or editing on this issue at the article page. Now that some time has passed calmly, do both disputants still feel a need for mediation? (If either of you answer "no" to this question, neither party needs to answer the following questions.)
 * Second, if both parties do feel the need, I'd like to make first sure that there is no policy-based solution to this dispute. Thus I would ask both of them to comment upon the degree to which they feel that the following italicized provision of WP:IMAGE LEAD controls this dispute:"Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic."More specifically, can they provide instances of custom-created artworks being generally used in "high-quality reference works" in connection with specific material (as opposed, for example, to general illustrations on covers or book jackets)? Please do not provide such instances in your response, merely self-evaluate your ability (and desire) to do so.
 * Third, are there any other policies or guidelines, other than WP:IMAGE LEAD and WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE which might provide a definitive policy-based solution to this dispute? If so, please say what and why.
 * In the same order that you asked:
 * Yes, I believe mediation is still needed. I believe that User:Doc Tropics needs to join as well, per the recent sequence of edits (basically, the article entered GA review, the reviewer felt the image was obviously wrong (calling it "amateurish"), and removed it, and Doc Tropics reinserted it per the pending mediation). Since I've already explained at length why the picture doesn't, in my opinion, belong in this article, and I haven't received anything other than vague, non-policy based responses (again, my opinion), and the RfC produced no response, I don't know how to proceed other than asking for outside help in the form of mediation.
 * My opinion is that WP:IMAGE LEAD clearly indicates that this picture is unacceptable. The only time that I can imagine a high quality reference work using a custom-made or hand-made image would be for a line-art diagram (say, illustrating the component parts of an atom) for which the diagram is strictly stylized and informative, as opposed to being pictorial and descriptive. As such, I don't see why we would use a picture of unknown provenance.
 * I believe that WP:V applies indirectly, though it doesn't actually inform the dispute any farther than the two guidelines you site. That is, for me, there is no verification that this image is or was ever intended to be of Ali. For all I know, this is a self-portrait of some Wikimedian which was then uploaded under the name of "Ali". And even if the artist intended it to be of Ali, I don't see how that gives it any artistic or informative pedigree--as I've argued before, I don't see how this image has any more informative or encyclopedic value than me uploading a stick figure and calling it "Ali". Finally, WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE probably also applies, in the same way that it applied to the Muhammad image decision. That is, while it is true that we are not censored, our images should in some ways conform to the way the subject is normally represented in the real world. Ali, as with most important historical Muslim figures, is generally not represented as a visual image, instead being rendered as via calligraphy. As such, it is undue to make the lead image a pictorial one. As in the Muhammad decision, having pictorial images in the body would be okay (though not this one, as it has no historical or informative value), because there are real world instances of pictorial representation, but not enough to justify having the dominating image in the article be a picture.
 * I'm happy to clarify any of this further, though, as you requested, I won't respond to the other editor. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I should clarify my above statement in one way: if no one wishes to defend inclusion of the current picture, I have no problem letting this mediation end, as long as that is understood to be tacit acceptance that the picture will be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I obviously believe that this image is useful for encyclopedic purposes. Though the other editor may not believe that the image has any 'historical' merit whatsoever, a simple google search of Imam Ali will pull up many different images from various sites that are almost identical to the image we are talking about. Also, if you look on wiki Farsi & wiki Arabic, there are a number of historical images on there that bear striking resemblance to the meditation image. The other editor makes the claim: "there is no verification that this image is or was ever intended to be of Ali." If wikipedia were to use that logic there would be significantly less images on wikipedia. There are a number of pictures of various Islamic and Arabic figures on wikipedia that may not have been created to portray these figures, but we cannot possibly know due to the fact that these artists are long dead. They have merely been attributed to these figures. Brough87 (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Brough87: Again, this is not the mediation, but merely my inquiry to see if I care to serve as the mediator. Your response does not address the questions I raised in my request, above, and also comments upon things said above by the other editor mediator, which I asked you specifically not to do. Would you please answer the questions which I asked without commenting upon the things said by Qwyrxian? If you do not care to do so, that's fine, but I will probably not accept this mediation, though some other member of the committee may choose to do so. You indicated that you were willing to engage in mediation, do you still wish to do so? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 01:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Corrected as noted —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 05:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes I do believe there is still a need for mediation. I do not agree with the other editor's position and I see no way of resolving it without mediation.
 * WP: IMAGE LEAD states: " The image helps to provide a visual association for the topic, and allows readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page." The image in question, while not being a historical work per say, it does bare striking resemblance to most artistic images of Imam Ali. I am therefore of the belief that it is appopraite for use in the article.
 * I am not entirely familiar with all regulations of wikipedia, but if I can provide clarification during mediation I will do so.Brough87 (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Your answer to #2 does not answer the question which I asked. Please answer that question. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Brough87, I am a colleague of TransporterMan in the Mediation Committee. I also invite you to directly respond to TM's second question ("Second, if both parties..." at the top of the page). Thank you, AGK  [•] 00:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand how I have not answered the question asked. But I do believe this requires mediation. Brough87 (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Brough87, here is how you have not answered the question:
 * You have not commented upon the degree to which you feel that the following italicized provision of WP:IMAGE LEAD controls this dispute:"Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic."
 * You have not indicated whether or not you can provide instances of custom-created artworks being generally used in "high-quality reference works" in connection with specific material (as opposed, for example, to general illustrations on covers or book jackets). Please do not provide such instances in your response, merely self-evaluate your ability (and desire) to do so.
 * Just so you understand: We cannot here at Mediation Committee negotiate a solution which violates established Wikipedia policy or guidelines. It would appear to me as a potential mediator that the italicized portion of the WP:IMAGE LEAD guideline may control the solution of this dispute and, before agreeing to mediate this dispute, I would like to know what your opinion may be about that particular language - the italicized language - as it applies to this particular set of facts. That is what I would like to know before taking on this case. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 04:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothwithstanding the foregoing detailed request, Brough87 has again asserted that his prior answer here has answered my inquiry. I believe that to be a contentious refusal to respond and implies that he cannot adequately defend against that clear policy-based reason not to use the image in question. I do not agree to mediate this dispute and I recommend to the Chairman of the Committee that the acceptance of this mediation request be reversed due to Brough87's contentious refusal to mediate in good faith. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 04:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)