| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Muhammad |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Requesting party | BostonMA talk 23:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
| Parties involved | BostonMA talk, User:DocEss, User:Truthpedia, User:Patstuart, and hopefully more |
| Mediator(s) | AndonicO ( talk · contribs), Captain panda ( talk · contribs) |
| Comment | The case might proceed to RFC or ARBCOM |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Muhammad]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Muhammad]]
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
Request Information
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Muhammad, discussion on talk:Muhammad
- Who's involved?
- BostonMA talk, User:DocEss, User:Truthpedia, User:Patstuart and others
- What's going on?
- Unable to arrive at consensus regarding whether the guideline WP:Profanity applies to the image Maomé.jpg with respect to Muhammad article. Editors have questions regarding whether others are discussing in good faith.
- What would you like to change about that?
- Clarify the issues and either build trust between editors, or establish clarity surounding the issue of whether debate is being conducted in good faith
- Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
- You may reach me on my talk page BostonMA talk 23:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Mediator response
From the article history, I think a compromise has possibly been reached. Would anyone be able to confirm... Addhoc 15:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, sadly no, no compromise has been reached. Rather, discussions have become unfruitful, and a number of editors, including myself have been waiting for a mediator, and have avoided making edits to the maome image in the interim. Hence the appearance that all is well :-(. --
BostonMA
talk 15:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for letting me know.
Addhoc 15:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please read the discussion at Talk:Muhammad/Depictions. Thank-you. -- BostonMA talk 13:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for letting me know.
Addhoc 15:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I will take this case. Please give me at least 24 hours to review the discussion up to this point. -- Aguerriero ( talk) 20:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Excellant. I wonder, though, if you'd care to wade into the real issue instead of this one-off. The real issue is whether on not any images at all of Mohammed should be included in the Mohammed article.
DocEss 22:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes I would, sir. Mediation has now started at
Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. See you there! --
Aguerriero (
talk) 19:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hm, well it seems mediation has stalled since the mediator has left Wikipedia. My recommendation would be to file another mediation request to start with a clean slate, or perhaps you could request formal mediation from the Mediation Committee at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation to try this from another angle. How does that sound? Cowman109 Talk 23:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes I would, sir. Mediation has now started at
Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. See you there! --
Aguerriero (
talk) 19:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to either close this case or mediate it. Please advise BostonMA, if you would like to proceed with this mediation or withdraw. Alan.ca 18:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
Discussion
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
- While the picture is offensive, it does not represent how Muslim's typically represent Muhammad and it does not add any value to the article. -- Truthpedia 16:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- It is only offensive if you happen to beleive it is offensive. Lots of people do not want to look at the image, but others still do want to. Not casting a vote, just saying that people get offended at all sorts of things. HighInBC 16:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Restatement of Underlying Issues
(I have tried to collect what I believe are the unresolved issues in the dispute and to restate them in a concise format. Undoubtedly, the list reflects my percerption of the dispute which may not be shared by others. I recommend that others prepare, if they are able, similar lists of what they believe to be the unresolved issues, (or of things that we may agree upon), in a similarly compact format. I would also recommend that that editors, if they are able, formulate compact replies to any points raised. Please place your counterpoints in their own compact space rather than interweave them with this statement. Thanks. -- BostonMA talk 00:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC))
The underlying issue to be resolved is whether the guideline WP:Profanity is applicable to the Maomé.jpg in the context of the Muhammad article. The guideline text under consideration is:
- "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."
Unresolved issues which form components of the central issue
- Whether or not the Maomé.jpg might be considered to be offensive by (a large number of) other Wikipedia readers.
- Whether or not the Maomé.jpg is informative in the context of the Muhammed article.
- Whether or not WP:Profanity should be applied according to the common meanings of the words in its text, or whether the guideline should be interpretted in accordance with some concepts which are not articulated in the guideline, and if so, what those concepts are.
Unresolved issues with regard to whether the Maomé image might be considered offensive to Wikipedia readers
With regard to whether or not the Maomé image might be considered offensive (to a large number of) other Wikipedia readers, it has been argued that some standard of objective and subjective offensiveness needs to be used. What that standard might be has not been clarified, or that is the opinion of some editors.
Unresolved issues with regard to whether the Maomé image is informative in the context of the Muhammad article
With regard to whether the Maomé image is informative in the context of the Muhammad article, the following issues have not been resolved.
- Whether the Muhammad article is only tangentially related to Islam as it developed after Muhammad's death.
- Whether the Maomé image verifiably depicts any known event in the life of Muhammad
- Whether the Maomé image is typical or atypical of representations of Muhammad created or owned by Muslims.
- Whether Maomé image is informative about anything other than Islam as it developed after the death of Muhammad, Islamic art, Persian art, or similar topics which may be related to Muhammad, but which should be covered only tangentially in the Muhammad article.
Unresolved issues with regard to whether WP:Profanity should be applied according to the common meanings of the phrases its text
With regard to whether WP:Profanity should be applied according to the common meanings of the phrases in its text, or whether the guideline should be interpretted in accordance with some concepts which are not articulated in the guideline,
- There is lack of clarity regarding what these concepts are according to which the guideline ought to be interpretted.
What is agreed
- Wikipedia is not censored
- The Maomé image is notable and it is appropriate to Wikipedia's mission to include that image on Wikipedia
- Images of Muhammad are not in general proscribed on the Muhammad page by WP:Profanity, but would only be proscribed if at least one of two conditions were met, 1) they are not informative in the context of that article, or 2) equally suitable alternatives are available. Agreement on this point does not imply agreement that one of these two conditions is sufficient to make an WP:Profanity applicable, but that at least one of these conditions is necessary for WP:Profanity to be applicable.
- Wikipedia guidelines and policies do not require that images in general need to be informative to be appropriate for Wikipedia articles.
- Wikipedia guidelines and policies do not require that images in general need to reference a particular known event to be appropriate in Wikipedia biographical articles
- Images in general do not need to reference a particular known event to be informative within a given context.
- Images in general do not need to be accurate likenesses of the persons they may represent to be appropriate for Wikipedia.
- Images in general do not need to be accurate likenesses of the persons they may represent to be informative.
-- BostonMA talk 14:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Policies
Sorry if this isn't the place, but I think Common sense and There is no common sense might be useful. They are not official policies or anything, but might be useful in reaching a compromise. -- Mechcozmo 21:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)