Misplaced Pages

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 8: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:Muhammad Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:54, 4 November 2006 editSpike Wilbury (talk | contribs)Administrators15,359 edits Statements← Previous edit Revision as of 20:11, 4 November 2006 edit undoDocEss (talk | contribs)880 edits →John Q. EditorNext edit →
Line 72: Line 72:
=== John Q. Editor === === John Q. Editor ===
I think the image should be included in the article, because blah blah blah. I believe this applies to all encyclopedic depictions of the subject <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> I think the image should be included in the article, because blah blah blah. I believe this applies to all encyclopedic depictions of the subject <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>

===DocEss===

I think any and all images should be included in any and all articles (to the point of expediency and reason, of course). This includes images of Mohammud in the Mohammud Article. I believe images should be included because doing so helps to illuminate the subject matter, to deepen our understanding of the subject, to satisfy the human mind's insatiable need to put a name to a face, and to act as a scornful snub of distasteful attempts at religious-based censorship in an encyclopedia (a more egregious affront to truth I cannot imagine). I believe images are benign by nature and this applies to all encyclopedic depictions of any subject.] 20:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:11, 4 November 2006

Welcome

Good day, everyone. As you may know, BostonMA (talk · contribs) filed a request for mediation here regarding a dispute over adding this particular image to the article. I took the case. As DocEss (talk · contribs) pointed out on the case page, I expect that the result of this mediation will logically apply to any depiction of Muhammad considered for inclusion in the article.

What you should know about me
  • I'm unbiased - I don't edit Islam-related articles or have a vested interest in the outcome of this mediation.
  • I am an administrator, which doesn't mean anything about my mediation style except that I can easily protect the article if edit warring occurs.
My ground rules
Agreed?

Let's start by having every involved party sign below that they are on board this train. Then we'll get started!

Request for clarification

Please feel free to move this to an appropriate section. The welcome section states "I expect that the result of this mediation will logically apply to any depiction of Muhammad considered for inclusion in the article." I agree that the policies and guidelines that apply, should apply equally to all images. However, I believe that the facts surrounding the Maome image are significantly different from the facts surrounding most other images of Muhammad. Thus, I believe that the application of the same policies and guidelines to all images of Muhammad may result in different outcomes for the different images. Could you clarify whether "the result of this mediation will logically apply to any depiction of Muhammad considered for inclusion in the article" is intended mean that outcome (i.e. whether to include or exclude) may depend upon the particular image under consideration? Thanks. --BostonMA 19:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It means that if the outcome of this is that the image does not appear on the page, and then someone runs off and finds another image an hour later and posts it, that the things we discuss here should be considered there as well. It's been my experience that where there's one debate, there is another waiting behind the door. Make sense? --Aguerriero (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It makes sense that the principles that are discussed here should apply to future images that may be added or deleted. I think we are on the same page, but I'm not entirely sure. Rather than beat this to death, I will sign my name above with the understanding that the uniform application of principles to different concrete questions can result in different concrete results. If you think there is further need to clarify this issue, please do so now. Sincerely, --BostonMA 19:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Aguerriero too. When the issue started, we had only one image. Now, I see that there are three images. God's know how many images will be added a year from now if the dispute is not over. --Truthpedia 20:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with Aguierro. BTW, looking at the edit and page history of Mohammed, I think there are many more people who have debated this issue, and probably should be invited. -Patstuart 20:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I look forward to a mediated discussion, as the subject can summon strong emotions even without trying. HighInBC 20:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
For me personally it was never a dispute about just one image but in general. Hence I also agree with Aguerriero on this. Secondly I hope soon more people will join it hence wait for few days please. --- ابراهيم 09:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we are still getting regular additions to the participant list, so I will wait a bit longer to begin. Thank you everyone for your patience thus far! --Aguerriero (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I bet you haven't had many mediations of this size before. :-D -Patstuart 16:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It is obviuous to me that the real issue is one of any images, not just of one image as Boston suggests. Golly, if we do this as a one-off then we'll be doin it daily, mediating cases of every image of Mohammud that's findable on the Web and uploaded into Wiki. That means there's no need to further clarify any issue - it's pretty clear already. So there's the 'concrete question' - should we include images of Mohammud? Anser that yes or no and we'll have a 'concrete answer.' I also agree that more people should be invited to this discussion so that when the resolution arrives there will be less whining about exclusion.DocEss 17:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Advertisement on Muslim Guild

It appears we have an answer to the question I’d posed above: User:Ibrahimfaisal solicited User:Striver’s participation in this mediation, who then placed a general advertisement on the partisan "Muslim Guild", which has earned a reputation for this sort of behavior (latest complaint).Proabivouac 05:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, mediation has not even begun and already we have a point of contention, yes? Well, allow me to comment. I'm willing to stick to ground rule #2(see above) for now until someone gives me a reason not to. We all knew that this topic was going to attract all sorts of interested parties, and I welcome them. This is not a "vote", so numbers of people will not matter in that way. It may make consensus harder to achieve and a compromise harder to reach, but such is the way of some topics. We'll start soon, within 12 hours, since most anyone who watches the article would be here by now. See everyone in the morning. --Aguerriero (talk) 06:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Mediation has not even begun and already we have what may be an attempt to alter its outcome through advertisement on pages whose editors may not on average entirely neutral towards the matter at hand. What other reason might one suppose for the referenced edit? It is a fallacy to assume that this observation includes an assumption of bad faith, one which forecloses the more obvious notion that the censorship of images of Muhammad is for some a matter of deep conviction. Ibrahimfaisal and Striver are both unfailingly honest and earnest editors who affect no pretense or trickery; they are entirely forthcoming in what they believe and what they hope to accomplish on Misplaced Pages, and in these measures are bad faith's opposite.
Whereas you say you welcome all sorts of interested parties, I would like to know that it is alright for me to contact a number of editors who might likewise find something of interest in these proceedings.Proabivouac 08:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
You said that several of the editors listed above have not made a single edit to either the article or to the talk page. Most of the Muslim editors listed above have made contribution in the article (forget about talk page). I myself have written 3 small sections of it. I asked Striver and some others to come because they do have given input on Muhammad talk page. These people were directly related to this dispute and I wish to have their side of arguments here. For example read the complete message I posted on Striver page (instead of using above mentioned URL). --- ابراهيم 11:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have always favored good arguments above numbers. My problem is when that does not apply. Like in the mentioned afd of the deletion list. People are just voting deleted without addressing any of my arguments, and that makes me angry. And the same applies here, its not the number of Muslim editors that matter, it is the validity of the arguments. i don't understand what is up with "NO!!! DONT LET THE MUSLIM EDITORS KNOW ABOUT THIS!!!!". So damn noobish... --Striver 13:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to assume these people that came here through advertisment will be disruptive, or non nuetrail. I am sure somebody will be by the end of this, but surely we can wait till it actually happens? HighInBC 15:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The only person who has not edited this article is Palestine48, so your contention that "several of the editors listed above have not made a single edit to either the article or to the talk page" is wrong. I removed the anon editor who seemed to have no mainspace edits. BhaiSaab 19:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Statements

Okay, let's get this rolling. First, I'd like to say that the issues here are obviously well-known. From reading all of the background information, I surmise that that no editor is alleging that a Misplaced Pages policy is being broken by either including or excluding the image in question (bear in mind that Misplaced Pages:Profanity is a guideline, not a policy).

Having said that, I would like to collect concise statements of position from anyone who cares to give one. State why you think the image should be included or excluded, as well as whether your position extends to all encyclopedic depictions of Muhammad (for more on what makes an encyclopedic image, see Misplaced Pages:Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedicity). Do not repeat sentiments already expressed by another statement. In other words, if someone has already summarized your position satisfactorily, you don't need to make a statement. The number of people having a position holds no bearing here; the purpose of this is to get all of the positions out on the table. Concise means not verbose or rambling. 2-3 sentences max. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Example:

John Q. Editor

I think the image should be included in the article, because blah blah blah. I believe this applies to all encyclopedic depictions of the subject ~~~~

DocEss

I think any and all images should be included in any and all articles (to the point of expediency and reason, of course). This includes images of Mohammud in the Mohammud Article. I believe images should be included because doing so helps to illuminate the subject matter, to deepen our understanding of the subject, to satisfy the human mind's insatiable need to put a name to a face, and to act as a scornful snub of distasteful attempts at religious-based censorship in an encyclopedia (a more egregious affront to truth I cannot imagine). I believe images are benign by nature and this applies to all encyclopedic depictions of any subject.DocEss 20:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)