Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 6

message: Good day, everyone.  As you may know,  filed a request for mediation here regarding a dispute over adding this particular image to the article.  I took the case.  As  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
* No personal attacks
* Assume good faith
* All opinions are welcome and encouraged; breaking policies is not.
;Agreed?
Let's start by having every involved party sign below that they are on board this train.  Then we'll get started!
* --Aguerriero (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome 

message: People are bringing up the Jesus argument. IMHO, the comparing Jesus and Muhammad are a little silly. There is a big difference. Most Christians, indeed most people living in the Western world have probably seen many depictions of Jesus throughout their lives. Many of these are almost definitely extremely inaccurate but that is kind of irrelevant. What is relevant is that the depiction of Jesus is a very significant part of him because many people, especially those who are highly interested in him (i.e. Christians) have seen and can probably imagine him. However the situation is Muhammad is that most Muslims, and indeed most people have never seen a depiction of Muhammad. Most Muslims I presume have no desire to ever see one either or imagine one. An actual depiction of Muhammad is therefore a far less significant part of who Muhammad is. The fact that depictions are rare and frowned upon by most Muslims is perhaps an important issue for the article to cover but IMHO an actual depiction is far less significant to who he is. I'm not going to argue against including a depiction per se since I've never bothered to consider the matter in depth but I do think we need to consider the matter properly and not use analogies and considerations which are IMHO inaccurate. N.B. It's important to remember here that AFAIK what we're here isn't whether to include depictions in wikipedia, I don't think many people are still trying to remove all depictions; rather we're considering whether we should include one in this article  Nil Einne 14:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus

message: Again, back to the same arguments.
Primarily this time, it is WP:Profanity.  The claim is that images of Muhammad will violate this rule, because it triggers BOTH of these conditions:
1) it offends
2) the pictures do not add to the article
At least, this is the argument provided above.  However, the true case is that WP:Profanity does _not_ state this.  It does state:
"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical 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."
Let's examine this above, a bit.  First, and most important, we hgave "typical Wikipedia readers" above.  _TYPICAL_.  Whatever you might try to talk this word's meaning into, typical certainly does not indicate a minority of users.  Typical would, by its definition in fact, have to indicate a _majority_ of users.  So, on that premise alone, the entire WP:Profanity argument is absolutely null and void.  It is a non-starter, so if you want to argue that point, you'd best start with explaining how a minority of users equate to the typical user.  Naturally the word "typical" is exceptionally important, because for virtually everything you see posted to the Wikipedia, there are going to be words or images that are offensive to someone.  So again, you must explain how the WP:Profanity argument equates, in this case, to the TYPICAL Wikipedia user.
You can't, and so again, your entire line of reasoning is null and void.  Since I and other have already described why the images also add to the article, there is no other reason to prevent its inclusion...  Brad Barnett 16:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "typical reader" in the WP:Profanity guideline was recently added.  I have reverted to the long-standing version.  --BostonMA talk 20:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: A discussion is beginning at Wikipedia Talk:Profanity which may directly impinge upon this mediation.  Participants in this mediation may wish to take a look.  --BostonMA talk 00:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at [[Wikipedia Talk:Profanity]]