Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:45, 24 October 2011

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Controversial images, NOTCENSORED, and Foundation principles		24 October 2011	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information).
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or email the clerks email list.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Controversial images, NOTCENSORED, and Foundation principles

Initiated by Ludwigs2 02:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

I am not citing particular parties to this case, as it is more a matter of deep community disagreement than specific behavioral problems. I will leave general notifications on the two articles referred to in this request - Pregnancy and Muhammad - and notify those who posted the diffs I use for examples so that they are aware they have been mentioned.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notices to editors I diffed.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Talk:Pregnancy/Archive_4#Lead_image_RfC a recent RfC at talk:Pregnancy, originally closed as consensus to move (and possibly remove) the image, but gradually reworked so that the image is now back as lead image.
Talk:Pregnancy#RfC:_Which_photo_should_we_use_in_the_lead.3F second RfC ongoing, due to the problematic handling of the first, although with much talk about closing it on procedural grounds.
Talk:Muhammad/images#Resolution_on_controversial_images current discussion on talk:Muhammad/Images, leading up to an RfC that has yet to be opened. However, the page has 15 archives of the same material and stiff opposition to any current change, so the RfC is unlikely to reach any clear consensus.
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_85#time_to_fix_wp:NOTCENSORED an abbreviated policy RfC I started in order to deal with this problem. This link is useful to show the deep ideological divide in the community over this issue, and to demonstrate the near impossibility of reaching a consensus on the application of foundation principles through normal processes.

Statement by Ludwigs2

Main question

Under what conditions is a controversial image protected by NOTCENSORED? Under what conditions can the project justifiably offend or disregard the perspectives of groups who find the image controversial? I ask that the committee clarify the proper use of Foundation principles and relevant policy on Wikipedia. The hope is for a statement of general principle that can be applied to obviate situations which (under current practices) inevitably devolve into entrenched conflicts.

Preface

This is an unusual request for an unusual circumstance, so I am adapting the request structure to fit its needs. I ask for indulgence. I will be referring explicitly to extended disputes at talk:Pregnancy and talk:Muhammad/Images, but focus on the general, project-wide principle. All diffs are intended as examples of this general principle, not as specific references to the individuals quoted.

Statement of problem

My personal approach to controversial image is as follows:

Images that are necessary to give a complete and encyclopedic description of a topic (core images) should generally be retained regardless of the controversy.
Images that are decorative, illustrative, used for exemplification, or otherwise have negligible content value (incidental images) should be removed to keep the encyclopedia from becoming a party in the controversy.

This is, IMO, the correct reading of the intentions of NOTCENSORED, and is borne out in the Foundation's recent resolution on controversial content.

Many editors on project take a stronger view of NOTCENSORED, where controversy is never an acceptable reason for removing an image.[1][2][3][4][5]. This perspective, while understandable, can effectively circumvent wp:NPOV and wp:Consensus: images are used to make an claim for one side of the controversy, and NOTCENSORED is used to stifle talk page discussion.

The issue always follows the same pattern, independent of article topic:

a controversial image is added to the article, possibly without people realizing it is controversial.
- Pregnancy: an art nude added as lead image (problematic overall tone - is pregnancy really best depicted by an art nude? - may cause problems for browsing in public settings)
- Muhammed, addition of images of the prophet (atmosphere of hostility towards Muslim beliefs)
objections are raised, but are ghettoized as minority claims
- Pregnancy:[6], [7], [8], [9], [10]
- Muhammed:[11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16],[17]
positive reasons for removal are ignored under NOTCENSORED or dismissed out of hand, precluding discussion
- Pregnancy:[18], [19], [20],
- Muhammed:[21], [22], [23], [24],[25]
RfC's are opened, but opinions are too rigidly defined for any clear consensus; without clear consensus NOTCENSORED is applied again to retain the image(s).

The end result is article problems that cannot be addressed because discussion is stoppered by NOTCENSORED. The article ends up with images that add little, cannot be removed, and yet impose biases or drive people away from the article. Not only is this an apparent violation of the spirit of the project, it has a high pragmatic cost: endless, polarized, vituperative conflicts which ostracize minority groups and damage articles. A talk page focused primarily on suppressing discussion of images of trivial importance is not, in my opinion, healthy.

There are already 120,000+ words spilled over the Muhammad images, most of which (if they run true to form) run up against this ambiguity in the application of policy and principles. And that is just one page; volumes of text on this issue are produced on articles throughout the project. Clarification on this point would resolve countless amounts of dysfunctional discussion.

Statement by Kww

Actually, the issue is a little different than Ludwigs2 frames it. It's really a matter of what kind of controversy we perceive as even mattering. There are religions that forbid the use of photography, and we certainly don't consider them when deciding whether to include images. That are far more mainstream ones that would forbid us to look upon the face of a woman to whom we are not closely related or married to, but we don't consider them when determining whether a picture of a woman should be included. There are religions that forbid dancing, but we don't take them into account when considering image placement in waltz, for example. For nearly every image, I could find a religious objection.

Fortunately, we have a simple solution. We are a secular encyclopedia. Such objections do not matter. It doesn't matter whether it offends an obscure tribal religion, a mainstream sect like Shia Islam or Southern Baptism, or any other. They do not matter. The size of the group shouldn't influence it. The vocal nature of the group shouldn't influence it. The percentage of Wikipedians that follow it should not matter. It doesn't matter because it is not a secular issue, and, as a secular encyclopedia, we don't concern ourselves with anything but secular issues.

The only secular issue that I could see appearing is one of attack: if the intent behind the image was specifically to attack the holders of a given belief, that could be taken under consideration, because "attack" is a secular concept, and we don't go about attacking people. That doesn't apply to any of the cases Ludwig2 is excited about.

The particular issue I have dealt with is the issue of images in Mohammed. The images in this article should be held to no lower standard out of prejudice against some Muslims nor to a higher standard in deference to them. Any reasoning about the images based on religious preferences is invalid, as religious preferences are irrelevant to the editorial considerations of an encyclopedia. These images do not strike me as being particularly better or worse than images in other articles, and the only reasons people seem to object are based on religious considerations: either those they hold, or a desire to make the encyclopedia more acceptable to those that do hold them. Neither motivation is worthy of consideration.

Describing my statement as "ghettoizing it as a minority claim" is absolutely inaccurate. The size of the group doesn't matter: the fact that their objection is religiously motivated is what renders it irrelevant.—Kww(talk) 03:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, there is one important note: this doesn't fall into Arbcom's remit yet. That Ludwigs2 isn't happy with the results of previous RFCs on related topics does not mean that community discussion paths have been exhausted. It's possible that the community's patience with Ludwigs2 is being exhausted, but he's been working hard at that for years.—Kww(talk) 03:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Becritical

I would urge that this be accepted, although I'm sure others will say that this is a content decision. I think that at times ArbCom can interpret existing policy. We have here a clear policy in NOTCENSORED, which has been interpreted for example in this FAQ, but yet again we have the Wikimedia Foundation Board saying that at the same time they affirm NOTCENSORED, they also "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."[26] On the face of it, it's cause for wonder how one would interpret that as consistent with NOTCENSORED, and also difficult to imagine how editors are supposed to determine what readers expect in an internationally oriented encyclopedia. And further, it's hard to imagine how a reader's expectation is to be balanced with the need to create articles in such a way that a reader ignorant of the subject may be thoroughly introduced to it. All this leaving aside how a reader's expectation is to be balanced against reliable sources where the two may conflict. My own take on this is that the complications raised by trying to bow to reader's prejudices and "expectations" are a slippery slope which Wikipedia has heretofore been wise not to slide down, especially because such prejudices are a form of ILIKE/DON'TLIKE IT, and there is no objective way to judge such things: we should look for other ways to judge, especially the informational value of images.

There are certainly many editorial issues to be addressed here as well.

I also object to some of how this request is framed, for instance that the image at Pregnancy is an "art nude." It's not, it's just a picture of a pregnant woman with nothing artsy about it. B^e——C_ritical 03:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Griswaldo

There is a serious confusion among many Wikipedia editors regarding the difference between "can" and "should." We can include all kinds of content in our entries. We can include pictures of nude pregnant women and we can include depictions of Muhammad. I think most of us would not want that to change. However, should we include all the things we can include, at every opportunity? Of course not. Editors need to realize that WP:NOTCENSORED is not an invitation to be lazy about making content decisions that are appropriate for various contexts, and it isn't a trump card when someone raises objections to specific types of content for sensible reasons. And yes sensible reasons might be to minimize controversy. Pragmatic concerns should be dealt with on a case by case basis, and we should never fall into a mindless ideology when it comes to NOTCENSORED. That said, this isn't an issue for Arbcom as far as I can tell, unless we're looking for Arbcom to rule that editors should stop being ideological drones and start using more common sense.Griswaldo (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

=== Statement by User:Tarc

Much ado about nothing. We have a lone, disgruntled user who does not accept the consensus reached at the respective article pages. I have had no involvement in the pregnancy debate (though upon looking at the page now, I have to say...va va va voom), but I have encountered this user at the Muhammad page. Really, apples and oranges. One case is about whether users visiting the pregnancy page should reasonably expect to be presented with a naked woman front & center, while the other is is regards to certain vocal minorities within Islam who decry any and all visual depictions of their prophet. Ludwigs claim the images serve no appreciable value to the article and thus should be removed since they are there, in his sole opinion, only to cause discomfort to those who forbid such imagery in their own lives. Well, what I say to that is...probably unprintable in an Arbcom setting. But that's the crux of the matter, it is an issue of content, and nothing more.

If this case is taken, then I'd suggest a motion or whatever to strip (pun unintended) this down to only dealing with the pregnancy issue and not the Muhammad images one, though Ludwig's tendentious, battleground behavior in both should be subject to review. Tarc (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/1)

Decline I am not willing to rule on content (which placing an image into or not into an article certainly falls under), and I'm DEFINITELY not going to get involved in judging Art vs Pornography/obscenity, even under the I know it when I see it standard articulated by a US Supreme Court Justice back in the 60's. Just a thought for those who wish to not see this picture in the article, would it not be easier to find a picture that better suits your taste and better suits the article in question rather then to have multiple RfC's and now an ArbCom case request about it? SirFozzie (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting further statements. The parties may be interested in the discussion of the "controversial images" issue that is already taking place on the workshop of the pending Abortion case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 89: / Line 89: @@
 There is a serious confusion among many Wikipedia editors regarding the difference between "can" and "should." We ''can'' include all kinds of content in our entries. We ''can'' include pictures of nude pregnant women and we ''can'' include depictions of Muhammad. I think most of us would not want that to change. However, ''should'' we include all the things we can include, at every opportunity? Of course not. Editors need to realize that [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] is not an invitation to be lazy about making content decisions that are appropriate for various contexts, and it isn't a trump card when someone raises objections to specific types of content for sensible reasons. And yes sensible reasons might be to minimize controversy. Pragmatic concerns should be dealt with on a case by case basis, and we should never fall into a mindless ideology when it comes to NOTCENSORED. That said, this isn't an issue for Arbcom as far as I can tell, unless we're looking for Arbcom to rule that editors should stop being ideological drones and start using more common sense.[[User:Griswaldo|Griswaldo]] ([[User talk:Griswaldo|talk]]) 03:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
+=== Statement by [[User:Tarc]]
+Much ado about nothing.  We have a lone, disgruntled user who does not accept the [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] reached at the respective article pages.  I have had no involvement in the pregnancy debate (though upon looking at the page now, I have to say...''va va va voom''), but I have encountered this user at the Muhammad page.  Really, apples and oranges.  One case is about whether users visiting the pregnancy page should reasonably expect to be presented with a naked woman front & center, while the other is is regards to certain vocal minorities within Islam who decry any and all visual depictions of their prophet.  Ludwigs claim the images serve no appreciable value to the article and thus should be removed since they are there, in his sole opinion, only to cause discomfort to those who forbid such imagery in their own lives.  Well, what I say to that is...probably unprintable in an Arbcom setting.  But that's the crux of the matter, it is an issue of content, and nothing more.
+If this case is taken, then I'd suggest a motion or whatever to strip (pun unintended) this down to only dealing with the pregnancy issue and not the Muhammad images one, though Ludwig's tendentious, [[WP:BATTLE|battleground]] behavior in both should be subject to review. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 03:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 === Clerk notes ===