Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 5

message: *Disagree with point 3. It is standard practice to show an image of the subject of a biographical article doing nothing in particular. This seems to be an extra limitation for this subject only. The manner in which a person is depicted is very relavent to the article. See the Jesus article, these are all images made after his death by people who had never met him, depictions which vary over time, region and artist. I think that a person's influence in future art is not a tangental connection, but a very direct one. Points 1 and 2 are agreeable to me. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagree

message: I am interested in compromise, but not compromising the encyclopedic value of the article. I do think that having no images in the Muhammad article and all of them in the Depictions of Muhammad is the definition of a POV fork. The article Depictions of Muhammad is very valid because the content is to large to be in the originating article.
I think that multiple depictions are not needed on the Muhammad article. My idea of a compromise that does not damage the encyclopedic value of the article is a single depiction with a caption linking to the Depictions of Muhammad article is acceptable.
A biography without an image of the subject is a major departure from normal procedure, and I have not seen enough reason to make this departure. There are countless religions with countless ways of being offended, we cannot follow all their rules, and I do not see why this one should be treated differently. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand what I am saying. I was comparing it to other biographies on Wikipedia, not comparing Wikipedia's Muhammad article to similar articles in other encyclopedias. We don't set our standards based on what the other encyclopedia's do, you won't find alot of potentially offensive informative images in those encyclopedia's. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be nice if people stop comparing things around. Muhammad cannot be compared with any other personality and was unique like all other people. Every person should be taken on individual bases. For example Jesus pictures can be found in churches around the word. Can you find any mosque with Muhammad picture? Then why people compare Jesus and Muhammad. It would be easy to find book with Jesus pictures and not with Muhammad pictures. Muhammad disallowed to picture himself. Did Jesus or anyone else said so?. Why it is difficult to take each one uniquely according to their own history. We can find 6th Century image of Jesus at that time Muhammad as a young person but had no picture of that time of Muhammad. The norm to write a book or an encyclopedia article on Muhammad is to write it without picture. Hence once again. "A biography WITH Muhammad image is a major departure from normal procedure, and I have not seen enough reason to make this departure."-- ALM 15:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: While you disagree with comparing Muhammad to other people, I disagree with comparing Wikipedia with other publications. I personally don't see how the choice of a mosque or a church to show or not show an image has any bearing on Wikipedia. They show or not show the images based on religeous reasons, but at Wikipedia we should be using academic reasoning. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HighInBC's take

message: In Muhammad article you wish to have imaginary images with NO resemblance with Muhammad at all. However, in Quran article you removes real image of Quran . I feel your act really strange. --- ALM 16:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Proabivouac ??? 

message: Please answer only "agree" or "disagree", keeping comments to a very minimum in this section, and do not answer back on other peoples comments: 
:Do you agree or disagree with the assertion that there are no factual depictions of Muhammad, only artist pictures created long after his death, pictures whose accuracy can not be verified, nor have any consensus on its accuracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Striver (talk • contribs) 
*Agree --Striver 03:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question from Striver

message: You didn't want comments there--so, I will make it here.  That is not the point.  There are no factual depictions of Jesus--but they are extremely relevant.  There are rich traditions of Orthodox iconography, Catholic paintings (and then there grew different more distinctively Protestant art).  Sculptures.  Anti-clerical tendencies in newer art.  I am not an expert but how Jesus has been depicted has been incredibly important despite its lack of historical basis in the person of Jesus.  They are important because they represent perceptions of Jesus which created certain religious realities.  Your poll is obviously meant to have implications for this meditation--but, I don't think this logic should have any bearing. gren グレン 10:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Striver's question 

message: The central purpose of mediation is to help resolve disputes.  As Zora points out,  compromises that we reach here will only last until new editors become involved in the article.  It is for this reason that I am skeptical that a compromise will be at all useful if it does not include a sound statement of the reasons for the compromise.
User:Proabivouac has suggested an:
:"announcement at the top of the article that the article has been thusly censored".
I could not disagree more.  Announcements such as these, as well as edit summaries describing the removal of images as "reverting censorship", or talk page comments describing agreements on the contents of article as "yielding to Islamic <fill in the blank>", are inherently inflammatory.  If a consensus reached in this mediation will last only until new editors arrive, such language invites such new editors to become involved and attempt to overturn the decisions reached.  In my opinion, a compromise which does not settle the question of censorship, yielding, and the like, is a compromise which will not provide a satisfactory settlement.  If we can show with sound reasoning why the article should be one way or another, if we can point to policies and guidelines as the support for our decision, then we will be able to provide new editors some insight as to why they should not overturn our compromise.  If we don't provide these new editors with appropriate insights, but instead present them with a compromise that seems arbitrary, a compromise that is described as censorship, or yielding to Islamic influence etc, then our compromise will have little value.
Although an attempt to reach a compromise at this point may seem the fastest way to resolve the conflict, I believe that spending more time clarifying the guidelines, will more than pay for itself in terms of conflict resolution.
Regarding HighinBC's comments regarding depictions of Jesus with dark skin.  Yes it is true that some people are offended at depictions of Jesus as black.  However, in my opinion, there is something very informative about a depiction of Jesus with dark skin.    Although we do not know what Jesus looked like, it is extremely common for Jesus to be depicted with very pale skin.  An ancient depiction of Jesus with dark skin helps to inform its viewers that we don't know what Jesus looked like, not even the tone of his skin.  (Of course if all of Wikipedia's depictions of Jesus were of a dark skinned person, we would be guilty of misrepresenting in the opposite direction.)  --BostonMA talk 16:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BostonMA weighs in 

message: I will be taking a short Wikibreak and will not be monitoring this page during that time.  Please continue to discuss WP:Profanity and image inclusion under the appropriate sections.  I'd like to see some more compromise offers and responding to each others' concerns.  See you when I get back. --Ars Scriptor  21:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You user page says that you are retired? Are you coming back or not? --- ALM 09:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I get the feeling this moderator is not coming back, we need another one as this topic needs moderation(in my firm opinion). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was told that this moderator left due to real-world threats.Proabivouac 08:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short absence 

message: I have decided to not participate in this discussion until an active mediator can be found. This is not due to anything said or done by anyone else. Nor is it a retraction of any point I have made. I simply believe that further discussion without moderation will be unproductive. Please notify me when this discussion regains moderation. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the same feeling about things here.  --- ALM 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur.  Nonprof. Frinkus 06:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've left a message at RfM asking how we should proceed.Proabivouac 07:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've agreed to the case, but I'm a new mediator, so I might need to ask someone else to help too. I'll read through the non-archived parts, so I'll know what the case is about, as well as what the problems are. I'll come back on Monday, and will notify everyone (incase you haven't seen this post). | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 20:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declaration of intent by HighInBC