Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 4

message: *Agree - the second bullet is a little confusing, but after I've studied it, I don't believe it would be a problem, as surely there are enough relevant Mohammed paintings with online descriptions. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 21:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, come to think of it, obvious attack images would run afoul of point #4 anyway. So I guess I don't think #5 is needed at all. —Chowbok ☠ 04:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is explained on this page, and the edit history that point 3 s struck out becuase it was found undesirable(and should be ignored). This section is a sandbox after all. It was struck out instead of being removed so the numbers that people refered to would still match. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The explanation is too diffucult to find. A better system would help.DocEss 19:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well since you know now, and nobody else seems confused by it, I think it is fine. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Actually, not all 5 of those points are official Wiki policy, some are just guidelines.  So guidelines may be discussed, and even updated.  :-)  Nonprof. Frinkus 20:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree

message: proposes a limit of one image of Muhammad in the article, with no limit on other types of images.  Some discussion can be seen below his disagree vote in the previous section. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change from Irishpunktom 

message: Weak Agree.  I would support this as a practical compromise. --BostonMA talk 23:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agree 

message: *I think that a specific limit on the number of images is out of line with wikipedia practice, and sacrifices potential encyclopedic value. It is already a requirement in the profanity guideline that if it is potentially offensive then it has to be shown to be informative and usefull. This is enough to prevent too many images. Lets also remember the editorial practices of everyday life help determine how many images. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree 

message: *For now. I think we could have a better compromise, but if this works, I will stick to it. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral 

message: proposes that the qualification that the source of the image must be "neutral" be removed, since he contends that the vast majority of sources for religious images would not be neutral by nature. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with undue weight. Do we include the 1960's anti-John Lennon protests in the Jesus article? (it could be done artfully, but probably isn't). I'd also like to point out that the idea would never pass anyway here. Mediations tend to try for a "middle ground", and radical proposals tend to fail because the opposite crowd wouldn't support it. Demanding the inclusion of these particular images would be like a nuclear bomb on this mediation, the equivalent of the anti-image crowd asking that p.b.u.h. be placed after each reference of his name, or demanding a graphic homemade pic on doggie style (you'll notice that this article uses a drawing instead to minimize unnecessary offense). -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was only hypothetical: if the subject were covered here, as it rightly isn't for a variety of reasons unrelated to religious sensibilities, then an associated image might be appropriate. I am only asserting the general principle that anything discussed in the text potentially warrants the inclusion of an associated image.Proabivouac 03:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, no.  It means that the "neutral" requirement is being removed, theoretically widening the possible set of sources. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That means any cartoon image can be allowed to put there? The consequence of this sentence could be too wide it needs to changed.  --- ALM 14:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it doesn't mean that any given image is allowed.  It just means that more possible sources of images are allowed.  The other criteria still apply, as well as general Wikipedia criteria of being encyclopedic. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change from Captainktainer (1) 

message: Weak agree.  Religious sources would not be considered neutral about religious topics.  However, although I think the neutrality requirement is seriously flawed, I do believe that there is an important point that I think the neutrality requirement was an attempt to express.  The images at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy are certainly not appropriate for the Muhammad article.  The standards adopted should express that fact.  --BostonMA talk 23:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with undue weight. Do we include the 1960's anti-John Lennon protests in the Jesus article? (it could be done artfully, but probably isn't). I'd also like to point out that the idea would never pass anyway here. Mediations tend to try for a "middle ground", and radical proposals tend to fail because the opposite crowd wouldn't support it. Demanding the inclusion of these particular images would be like a nuclear bomb on this mediation, the equivalent of the anti-image crowd asking that p.b.u.h. be placed after each reference of his name, or demanding a graphic homemade pic on doggie style (you'll notice that this article uses a drawing instead to minimize unnecessary offense). -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was only hypothetical: if the subject were covered here, as it rightly isn't for a variety of reasons unrelated to religious sensibilities, then an associated image might be appropriate. I am only asserting the general principle that anything discussed in the text potentially warrants the inclusion of an associated image.Proabivouac 03:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agree 

message: Disagree: Is that means that we will reject any image from any Islamic source and will use only non-Muslim sources? --- ALM 14:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no.  It means that the "neutral" requirement is being removed, theoretically widening the possible set of sources. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That means any cartoon image can be allowed to put there? The consequence of this sentence could be too wide it needs to changed.  --- ALM 14:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it doesn't mean that any given image is allowed.  It just means that more possible sources of images are allowed.  The other criteria still apply, as well as general Wikipedia criteria of being encyclopedic. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree 

message: proposes that instead of WP:Profanity being used as a guideline, WP:NOT#CENSORED be used. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This sounds logical to me.  :-)  Nonprof. Frinkus 02:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change from Captainktainer (2) 

message: *  For rhetorical reasons … weak agreement here … though I think profanity guideline needs to be considered, the fact there is no widespread agreement on it, and that it is just a guideline, its weight should not be overtly strong (unduly weighted).  Nonprof. Frinkus 02:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agree 

message: Disagree.  The central purpose of an encyclopedia is to be informative.  If we are to intentionally include material that is offensive to some readers, it should meet the standard of  being informative for the context in which it appears.  --BostonMA talk 23:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree 

message: *Note that I have offered that WP:Profanity may be appropriate in determining WHICH images are included, while WP:NOT#CENSORED is more appropriate for discussing whether they are included at all; Captainktainer has not responded to this suggestion. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This sounds logical to me.  :-)  Nonprof. Frinkus 02:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments