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

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

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:

• 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.

-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh and Merry Christmas guys :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 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 <talk> 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 <talk> 13:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added another point to the rationale about the manual of style. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 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 <talk> 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 <talk> 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 <talk> 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 <talk> 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 <talk> 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 <talk> 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 <talk> 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 <talk> 23:17, 27 December 2011 (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 <talk> 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 <talk> 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 <talk> 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. --JN466 00:33, 28 December 2011 (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 <talk> 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 <talk> 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 <talk> 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.—Kww(talk) 15:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• A deserved self- Facepalm, 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 <talk> 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 <talk> 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 <talk> 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,

We suggest urging the community to continue actively reviewing and curating (especially controversial) content; this is a re-wording of [Harris & Harris'] recommendations 4,5 & 6 (reviewing sexual images) that is more inclusive to all kinds of controversial content, and that recognizes that content curation is a part of ongoing work on all projects. We frame this as a continued call to action.

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

Some kinds of content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature, may be offensive to some viewers; and some viewers may feel such content is disrespectful or inappropriate for themselves, their families or their students, while others may find it acceptable. "Controversial content" includes all of these categories.

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. [1] 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)

 Done 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. [2] 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)

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 The World's 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. --JN466 05:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Research is good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Note the same mi'raj image is also used as an illustration in Safi's Washington Post article: [3]. 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. --JN466 16:31, 29 December 2011 (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 [4] (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). --JN466 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 does no good for the encyclopedia at all. --Ludwigs2 05:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)