Revision as of 17:37, 25 October 2011

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Requests for arbitration

Controversial images, NOTCENSORED, and Foundation principles

Initiated by Ludwigs2 02:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties

I am not citing particular parties to this case, as it is more a matter of deep community disagreement than specific behavioral problems. I will leave general notifications on the two articles referred to in this request - Pregnancy and Muhammad - and notify those who posted the diffs I use for examples so that they are aware they have been mentioned.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• notification placed at talk:Pregnancy
• notification placed at talk:Muhammad/Images

Notices to editors I diffed.

• User_talk:Becritical#ArbCom_mention
• User_talk:Dessources#ArbCom_mention
• User_talk:Doc Tropics#ArbCom_mention
• User_talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#ArbCom_mention
• User_talk:Kww#ArbCom_mention
• User_talk:Resolute#ArbCom_mention
• User_talk:Tarc#ArbCom_mention
• User_talk:RobertMfromLI#ArbCom_mention
• User_talk:HiLo48#ArbCom_mention
• User_talk:83.197.164.219#ArbCom_mention

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk:Pregnancy/Archive_4#Lead_image_RfC a recent RfC at talk:Pregnancy, originally closed as consensus to move (and possibly remove) the image, but gradually reworked so that the image is now back as lead image.
• Talk:Pregnancy#RfC:_Which_photo_should_we_use_in_the_lead.3F second RfC ongoing, due to the problematic handling of the first, although with much talk about closing it on procedural grounds.
• Talk:Muhammad/images#Resolution_on_controversial_images current discussion on talk:Muhammad/Images, leading up to an RfC that has yet to be opened. However, the page has 15 archives of the same material and stiff opposition to any current change, so the RfC is unlikely to reach any clear consensus.
• Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_85#time_to_fix_wp:NOTCENSORED an abbreviated policy RfC I started in order to deal with this problem. This link is useful to show the deep ideological divide in the community over this issue, and to demonstrate the near impossibility of reaching a consensus on the application of foundation principles through normal processes.

Statement by Ludwigs2

Main question

Under what conditions is a controversial image protected by NOTCENSORED? Under what conditions can the project justifiably offend or disregard the perspectives of groups who find the image controversial? I ask that the committee clarify the proper use of Foundation principles and relevant policy on Misplaced Pages. The hope is for a statement of general principle that can be applied to obviate situations which (under current practices) inevitably devolve into entrenched conflicts.

Preface

This is an unusual request for an unusual circumstance, so I am adapting the request structure to fit its needs. I ask for indulgence. I will be referring explicitly to extended disputes at talk:Pregnancy and talk:Muhammad/Images, but focus on the general, project-wide principle. All diffs are intended as examples of this general principle, not as specific references to the individuals quoted.

Statement of problem

My personal approach to controversial image is as follows:

• Images that are necessary to give a complete and encyclopedic description of a topic (core images) should generally be retained regardless of the controversy.
• Images that are decorative, illustrative, used for exemplification, or otherwise have negligible content value (incidental images) should be removed to keep the encyclopedia from becoming a party in the controversy.

This is, IMO, the correct reading of the intentions of NOTCENSORED, and is borne out in the Foundation's recent resolution on controversial content.

Many editors on project take a stronger view of NOTCENSORED, where controversy is never an acceptable reason for removing an image.. This perspective, while understandable, can effectively circumvent wp:NPOV and wp:Consensus: images are used to make an claim for one side of the controversy, and NOTCENSORED is used to stifle talk page discussion.

The issue always follows the same pattern, independent of article topic:

1. a controversial image is added to the article, possibly without people realizing it is controversial.
   • Pregnancy: an art nude added as lead image (problematic overall tone - is pregnancy really best depicted by an art nude? - may cause problems for browsing in public settings)
   • Muhammed, addition of images of the prophet (atmosphere of hostility towards Muslim beliefs)
2. objections are raised, but are ghettoized as minority claims
   • Pregnancy:, , , ,
   • Muhammed:, , , , , ,
3. positive reasons for removal are ignored under NOTCENSORED or dismissed out of hand, precluding discussion
   • Pregnancy:,
   • Muhammed:, , , ,
4. RfC's are opened, but opinions are too rigidly defined for any clear consensus; without clear consensus NOTCENSORED is applied again to retain the image(s).

The end result is article problems that cannot be addressed because discussion is stoppered by NOTCENSORED. The article ends up with images that add little, cannot be removed, and yet impose biases or drive people away from the article. Not only is this an apparent violation of the spirit of the project, it has a high pragmatic cost: endless, polarized, vituperative conflicts which ostracize minority groups and damage articles. A talk page focused primarily on suppressing discussion of images of trivial importance is not, in my opinion, healthy.

There are already 120,000+ words spilled over the Muhammad images, most of which (if they run true to form) run up against this ambiguity in the application of policy and principles. And that is just one page; volumes of text on this issue are produced on articles throughout the project. Clarification on this point would resolve countless amounts of dysfunctional discussion.

Comments

Note to arbiters

As a matter of principle, I want to point out that I believe you have defined your role on project in an odd way (which in some ways is typical of wikipedia procedures, mind you). I explicitly framed this as a matter of general behavior - poor behavior in multiple articles because of an overarching confusion about principles. Many of you seem to say, however, that it should not be heard because I did not frame it as a matter of specific individual behavior. Essentially you're saying that you refuse to close the barn door because the horses haven't escaped yet - do you see how peculiar that stance is?

I would suggest to that waiting until editors are at each others' throats before you step in to clarify general project concepts is destructive and counter-productive. Misplaced Pages was established with certain core principles that were meant to guide the project in a certain direction; if you don't stand up for those principles, who will? Who can? In any sensible system it would be within the remit of a committee like yours to say "Misplaced Pages principles are most in line with this particular set of understandings and behaviors", because decision-making like that is essential to keep any system on its correct course. If you would do so, you would save the project thousands upon thousands of editor-hours lost in ridiculous 'policy-interpretation' disputes, and significantly curb on-project hostility. You could make life better on project without the requirement that everything go to hell in a hand basket first; wouldn't that be better?

Statement by Kww

Actually, the issue is a little different than Ludwigs2 frames it. It's really a matter of what kind of controversy we perceive as even mattering. There are religions that forbid the use of photography, and we certainly don't consider them when deciding whether to include images. That are far more mainstream ones that would forbid us to look upon the face of a woman to whom we are not closely related or married to, but we don't consider them when determining whether a picture of a woman should be included. There are religions that forbid dancing, but we don't take them into account when considering image placement in waltz, for example. For nearly every image, I could find a religious objection.

Fortunately, we have a simple solution. We are a secular encyclopedia. Such objections do not matter. It doesn't matter whether it offends an obscure tribal religion, a mainstream sect like Shia Islam or Southern Baptism, or any other. They do not matter. The size of the group shouldn't influence it. The vocal nature of the group shouldn't influence it. The percentage of Wikipedians that follow it should not matter. It doesn't matter because it is not a secular issue, and, as a secular encyclopedia, we don't concern ourselves with anything but secular issues.

The only secular issue that I could see appearing is one of attack: if the intent behind the image was specifically to attack the holders of a given belief, that could be taken under consideration, because "attack" is a secular concept, and we don't go about attacking people. That doesn't apply to any of the cases Ludwig2 is excited about.

The particular issue I have dealt with is the issue of images in Mohammed. The images in this article should be held to no lower standard out of prejudice against some Muslims nor to a higher standard in deference to them. Any reasoning about the images based on religious preferences is invalid, as religious preferences are irrelevant to the editorial considerations of an encyclopedia. These images do not strike me as being particularly better or worse than images in other articles, and the only reasons people seem to object are based on religious considerations: either those they hold, or a desire to make the encyclopedia more acceptable to those that do hold them. Neither motivation is worthy of consideration.

Describing my statement as "ghettoizing it as a minority claim" is absolutely inaccurate. The size of the group doesn't matter: the fact that their objection is religiously motivated is what renders it irrelevant.—Kww(talk) 03:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

However, there is one important note: this doesn't fall into Arbcom's remit yet. That Ludwigs2 isn't happy with the results of previous RFCs on related topics does not mean that community discussion paths have been exhausted. It's possible that the community's patience with Ludwigs2 is being exhausted, but he's been working hard at that for years.—Kww(talk) 03:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Becritical

I would urge that this be accepted, although I'm sure others will say that this is a content decision. I think that at times ArbCom can interpret existing policy. We have here a clear policy in NOTCENSORED, which has been interpreted for example in this FAQ, but yet again we have the Wikimedia Foundation Board saying that at the same time they affirm NOTCENSORED, they also "support the principle of least astonishment: content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain." On the face of it, it's cause for wonder how one would interpret that as consistent with NOTCENSORED, and also difficult to imagine how editors are supposed to determine what readers expect in an internationally oriented encyclopedia. And further, it's hard to imagine how a reader's expectation is to be balanced with the need to create articles in such a way that a reader ignorant of the subject may be thoroughly introduced to it. All this leaving aside how a reader's expectation is to be balanced against reliable sources where the two may conflict. My own take on this is that the complications raised by trying to bow to reader's prejudices and "expectations" are a slippery slope which Misplaced Pages has heretofore been wise not to slide down, especially because such prejudices are a form of ILIKE/DON'TLIKE IT, and there is no objective way to judge such things: we should look for other ways to judge, especially the informational value of images.

There are certainly many editor behavior issues to be addressed here as well.

I also object to some of how this request is framed, for instance that the image at Pregnancy is an "art nude." It's not, it's just a picture of a pregnant woman with nothing artsy about it. B——C_ritical 03:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

JN466 gives a very rational and persuasive argument below. And it may indeed be the best course of action in policy, that is to make our media policy the same as our text policy, so as to require reliable sources (in some sense) for inclusion. But I do object to saying that educational sources are anything but merely censored, at least in the United States. This is a country which can barely keep creationism out of the schools. We respond to vocal minorities by trying not to offend them. Expert writers and artists are regularly censored in various ways. B——C_ritical 14:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:Griswaldo

There is a serious confusion among many Misplaced Pages editors regarding the difference between "can" and "should." We can include all kinds of content in our entries. We can include pictures of nude pregnant women and we can include depictions of Muhammad. I think most of us would not want that to change. However, should we include all the things we can include, at every opportunity? Of course not. Editors need to realize that WP:NOTCENSORED is not an invitation to be lazy about making content decisions that are appropriate for various contexts, and it isn't a trump card when someone raises objections to specific types of content for sensible reasons. And yes sensible reasons might be to minimize controversy. Pragmatic concerns should be dealt with on a case by case basis, and we should never fall into a mindless ideology when it comes to NOTCENSORED. That said, this isn't an issue for Arbcom as far as I can tell, unless we're looking for Arbcom to rule that editors should stop being ideological drones and start using more common sense.Griswaldo (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:Tarc

Much ado about nothing. We have a lone, disgruntled user who does not accept the consensus reached at the respective article pages. I have had no involvement in the pregnancy debate (though upon looking at the page now, I have to say...va va va voom), but I have encountered this user at the Muhammad page. Really, apples and oranges. One case is about whether users visiting the pregnancy page should reasonably expect to be presented with a naked woman front & center, while the other is is regards to certain vocal minorities within Islam who decry any and all visual depictions of their prophet. Ludwigs claim the images serve no appreciable value to the article and thus should be removed since they are there, in his sole opinion, only to cause discomfort to those who forbid such imagery in their own lives. Well, what I say to that is...probably unprintable in an Arbcom setting. But that's the crux of the matter, it is an issue of content, and nothing more.

If this case is taken, then I'd suggest a motion or whatever to strip (pun unintended) this down to only dealing with the pregnancy issue and not the Muhammad images one, though Ludwig's tendentious, battleground behavior in both should be subject to review. Tarc (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Anthonyhcole

Though WP:IUP says images should increase readers' understanding of the subject matter, the encyclopedia abounds with images that perform a purely aesthetic or emblematic role. Most editors, including me, do not object to the inclusion of minimally informative or uninformative images provided they relate to the topic and are not offensive or harmful. But a strict interpretation of this policy would see the removal of many pretty illustrations and emblematic images.

When an image is relevant to the topic but seems to add little or nothing to the reader's understanding and does cause offense to many readers, the educational value of the image must be demonstrated, and that value needs to be more than trivial to justify its inclusion. This is my reading of the following from the recent Foundation resolution.

We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use...

If I'm right, the resolution is urging editors to adjust their behaviour (tolerance for relevant but minimally edifying images) when inclusion is likely to cause offense. The argument is being put at Talk:Muhammad/Images that because artists' impressions of Jesus adorn Jesus Christ artists' impressions of Muhammad must be allowed at Muhammad, and their offensiveness to many readers of the latter cannot influence our editorial choices.

(To be clear, I'm not arguing that Depictions of Muhammad shouldn't be lavishly illustrated with such images, or that a section addressing images of Muhammad in Muhammad (there is no such section at present) shouldn't have an example or two, that would be very appropriate. Presently there are seven educationally valueless images of Muhammad in the article.)

This crux between educational value of images and offensiveness needs to be elucidated, and I would very much like to hear the views of the committee. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute

I am inclined to agree with Tarc and Kww's assessments. Not only does this proposed case attempt to join two separate debates on two separate issues, they are both content issues and beyond ArbCom's scope. In the case of the Muhammad article, which is where I enter this from, the community reached a solid consensus on the matter when the petition fracas occurred. There has been little indication since that said consensus has changed. Despite that, Ludwigs has been a consistent belligerent in favour of hiding the images on the simple premise that someone might take offence. Well, as many of us have told him, much of an encyclopedia is offensive to somebody and we do not practice censorship on that basis. But, he persists, and in fact, has promised to repeatedly push the issue until he gets his way: , . In just the very last discussion, coming over the past two days, he has engaged in bad faith arguments and accusations: , . He has shown numerous examples of tendentious editing in his arguments and a serious case of "I didn't hear that": , , . And, of course, he has resorted to gross and false accusations of bigotry against those who disagree with his position: "the extravagant effort I see dumped into defending these trivial images is only explainable by deep-seated anti-Islamic prejudice."

And in what might be the most amusing irony I've seen on Misplaced Pages in some time, my quick read of the talk page of the pregnancy article is that he appears upset that editors are continuing to push new discussions on the images there, all while he argues on Muhammad that he should be allowed to do the same. In short, he wants his cake, and he wants to eat it too. His perspective on policy will change depending on what his viewpoint is. And getting nowhere at Talk:Muhammad, he attempted to retaliate against one of his opponents, Tarc, by hauling him to WQA where near everyone who commented chastised Ludwigs on his behaviour. When that failed, his forum shopping world tour came to ArbCom. And he is doing it despite the fact that another editor is, in good faith, attempting to formulate an RFC question for the Muhammad article here. I suppose Ludwigs is just hedging his bets by bringing this to ArbCom as well. Truth be told, Ludwigs is the problem at Muhammad, and promises to continue to be so. That said, we are not at a point where ArbCom is necessary. I do not wish to silence his opinion ahead of the proposed RfC. However, I must question whether he will accept consensus if it should fall against him once again or if he will follow through on his promises to keep trying over and over until he gets what he wants? Until we know the answer to that question, we do not require either administrator or arbitrator actions. Resolute 05:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

@Jayen466 - "OR" in images is a near certainty in many cases. I have uploaded probably close to 300 images to commons, 95% of them BLP subjects. Wikimedia itself is the location of first publication on all of them, and really, you have naught but my word that the descriptions are accurate. If you wish to hold images to the same standard as text, then go to Commons and propose the deletion of 90% of what is contained there. If you wish to hold these images to a different standard, then we have a problem. Now, that said, given these are historical paintings, sources about their existence will exist. If all you wish is to verify their authenticity, knock yourself out. But their treatment should be no different than at Richard I of England as an example. Which is to say, we use images because they serve as graphical representations of the article subject, are interesting and are educational.

Not to mention that all of this discussion is notwithstanding the fact that methods for individuals who do not wish to see the images to hide them have been provided. I find the ways in which historical individuals have been depicted to be a valuable part of a quality article and see no justification for censoring useful material because some people choose to be offended. Resolute 23:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

I have not been involved in any of the image discussions, but have followed them from a distance. The discussions are long, often heated and uncivil; but ultimately many of the arguments are purely subjective, depending on users' cultural background and world-views, and have very little to do with wikipedia editing policies. Since ArbCom's role is to examine specific problems with editor conduct, and no conduct issues have so far arisen in these image discussions that cannot already be addressed by the community, it's hard to see how ArbCom can help here. Mathsci (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by SDY

I've been sort of involved with one of the two discussions, though I haven't been following that one too closely. I'm not sure this is really an ArbCom issue, it's mostly a question about undeveloped policy regarding what "least surprise" means and some clarification as to how to implement WP:NOTCENSORED. The one issue (the Pregnancy article) I've been involved in has involved some user conduct problems, but nothing unusual. WP:MEDIATION might be a better venue for the specific issues, and a well-publicized RfC at the WP:VPP a better venue for the general problem. SDY (talk) 05:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Hans Adler

If Arbcom decides that it can make a statement before you get to rule on it in a concrete case, then that would be a very helpful contribution to the very real problem described by Ludwigs2. Ludwigs2's presentation of the problem is excellent (assuming that the diffs, which I haven't checked yet, are well chosen), and there is nothing I can add to it other than my unqualified support and the observation that in my experience with NOTCENSORED disputes, they generally go on forever, with the controversial content in place for most of the time, unless finally a community-wide RfC catches Jimbo's attention and the atmosphere changes shortly after his involvement starts. Hans Adler 06:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466

It seems to me that there is a gulf between the way we are treating text, and the way we are treating images. When it comes to text, we insist that anything we include be verifiable in a reputable published source. Anything that isn't is removed. We don't accept self-published sources that lack professional staff, except in very narrow circumstances. All this is designed to ensure that Misplaced Pages articles are modelled on the best sources out there.

However, when it comes to media used for article illustration, our standards sometimes seem to go out the window. I would no longer be surprised one day to find a Commons video of someone defecating in defecation, to find an embedded amateur crush video from Commons in animal cruelty, to find an historic video of rape in the article on rape, or to find a video of murder (beheading) in the biography of a murder victim, and to find inclusion of such material defended by a posse of editors saying "Misplaced Pages is not censored!" I certainly recall editors advocating that such material should be included, must be included if available, with that justification. Quite apart from fundamental matters of human dignity, they didn't seem to be asking themselves whether any reputable educational source would consider inclusion of such material a good idea, and whether it would be educationally sound. Or they just didn't accept that looking at what reputable sources do should even be a relevant consideration for us.

Parts of the community seem to subscribe to the belief that it just doesn't matter for Misplaced Pages whether a media file is upsetting or offensive, the way it matters to reliable sources who "have to make a profit". There is a prim little conceit here that "we are not censored and they (reliable sources) are". But isn't that all it is – a conceit? Reliable sources do include explicit media, responsibly. We had an example in the news this week, the videos of Gaddafi's capture and killing (shown with viewer discretion warnings, but shown nonetheless). Historians, sexologists and writers of medical reference works use explicit images. Scholars do not restrain themselves when it gets in the way of their educational purpose. By relying on precedent in reputable sources for our approach to illustration, just like we absolutely, unconditionally rely on reputable sources for all of our text, we would not be forced to forego the use of explicit images. Our sources use them, and to the extent that they use them, so must we.

Nevertheless, some editors have a tremendous resistance to the idea that in illustration, as in text, we should look to reliable sources for guidance. They wish to go further than our sources. They don't seem to have thought about the fact that if we think we can do "better" than our sources, by adding media that no reputably published source would use, we may actually be more likely to harm and degrade our project, just as we would be if we threw our sourcing guidelines out the window and went back to allowing original research.

There are matters of reader psychology involved here. If we feature a video or explicit image of, say, defecation, urination, ejaculation, sexual intercourse, animal cruelty, a killing, torture or rape in an article on these topics, we are hitting the sensory apparatus of the human animal who reads our article at a very primal level. It has an immediate and involuntary impact on their state of mind. If a reader comes to a page and their first reaction is Whoa?!!!, and the next thing they do is leave, or click on the discussion tab to complain about a media file we have included, then we have failed that reader, because they're no longer thinking about reading our article, or what they wanted to learn from it. The meta-issue of our editorial judgment has ended up absorbing more attention than the content of the article. The reader ends up thinking about Misplaced Pages, rather than the topic they came to learn about. Is this the intent then, to show off how free we are?

When we observe that we include available Commons media as illustrations that have no precedent in any educational source, this is a warning sign that we ignore at our peril. Some editors appear to argue that reliable sources must be "afraid" to include such media, because of possible repercussions, lack of press freedom, or fears of complaints, and that they as Wikipedians are showing admirable courage by bucking the trend. But the argument that "Publishers have to listen to complaints because they need to make money. We don't!" is really the most perverse and self-harming rationalisation imaginable in this context. If high-quality scholarly sources don't show the kind of media and images we do, we should understand it as an indication that the way we present material differs from the way experts present their topic. Any such departure should be cause for concern, not pride. We should assume that educators and experts know what works in an educational context, and avoid what isn't helpful.

Disregarding educational expertise when it comes to illustration is just as dangerous as original research is in text. The recent board resolution on controversial content and the principle of least astonishment addressed this issue, and it could well do with the committee's support. --JN466 07:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

@Olive, RobertMfromLI, Resolute: Where media used for illustration are controversial, the onus should be on the editors wishing to include the media to demonstrate that use of such media is in line with good practice in reliable sources. Including a photograph of a BLP subject, for example, is widespread practice in reliable sources and will rarely be controversial. Harrowing images of the holocaust and other atrocities are commonly used as illustrations in high-quality historical writings; including such images in Misplaced Pages is therefore demonstrably in line with good practice in reliable sources. Discussions like those about the lead image in the pregnancy article, and whether or not to include controversial images in the biography of Mohammed, should likewise be informed by recourse to reliable sources (including other tertiary sources). Of course this does not mean that we should use the exact same illustrations as any source (not least for copyright reasons), but our general approach and style of illustration should emulate the approach and style commonly used in reputable published sources.

The important thing to remember here is that the neutral point of view is not defined as an abstract concept in Misplaced Pages, in the sense of foregoing any judgment. The neutral point of view reflects the judgment of reliable sources. We are neutral, and comply with the principle of least astonishment, if our presentation is a fair and unbiased reflection of the presentation in reliable sources. We all know and accept that this applies to text, but we seem to forget sometimes that the same principle should inform our choice of illustrations as well. --JN466 15:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Eraserhead1

Ages ago I made a comment about Muhammad images on the grounds that I felt deliberately offending sunni muslims worldwide was counterproductive and the "issues" raised by Ludwigs2 were basically dismissed. I think the argument made about photography above by Kww shows how little we understand this issue. None of the world's major religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism) have a general issue with that.

Offending a religious group deliberately seems counter-productive and some effort could be made to at least make it clear the images were present. With regards to pregnancy while the nude image does add something to the article it also means that it would be extremely difficult to use that article in education - you could achieve 99% of the effect with a drawing and that would allow the article to be used in education.

The problem with Misplaced Pages and consensus is that twentysomething American males - which the project is bias towards - aren't going to make a sensible judgment on something like nudity and Muhammad images which they don't personally have a big issue with - especially given how comparatively few Americans travel abroad compared to Europeans. If you take the Norwegian wikipedia (http://no.wikipedia.org/Muhammed) a country where people do travel extensively their image of Muhammad is veiled.

I think it is reasonable idea for either arbcom or the foundation to look at this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Kww made an interesting point above about photography which he mentioned on my talk page saying that deciding which religions are "major" and which are not is hard is a legitimate one. However according to Major religious groups there are 3 religions with over 1 billion worshippers - Christianity, Islam and Hinduism - then there is Buddhism, Chinese folk religions at 400 to 500 million worshippers and then Shinto, Sikhism, Judaism, Jainism and Bahá'í Faith with between 5 million and 70 million worshippers. You should fairly easily be able to rule a line in the sand on this.

Additionally it seems like Arbcom have missed my point about not getting the community to make this decision. In almost all cases it is reasonable to assume that the editing community is a relatively representative sample of the readership, in which case getting the community to make the decision is definitely the right one. However in both the cases highlighted here - Muhammad images and nude pregnancy images - the community isn't representative. In the former case the Islamic world is generally poorer and not native English speaking, however they might well read articles such as Muhammad in English to improve their English or because they use English online - your English level to read English needs to be much lower than to write it. In the latter case if you have a child then you have something that is a huge time sink so you are significantly less likely to be able to participate in long discussions over whether the image is inappropriate.

While we should not be censored we should try and make our material non-offensive to the largest possible audience so that they can gain the knowledge that the project contains. Its not a positive to annoy a whole bunch of people so they are turned off the project. WP:CIVIL is a Misplaced Pages policy as well - and it shouldn't just apply to editor on editor conduct. The loss to the project of cropping the pregnancy photo to avoid including the woman's breasts, finding a picture of a pregnant women wearing a bra, or using a clothed picture or a drawing is not significant. The same applies to images of Muhammad - which offend a significant proportion of the world's population but removing them would make a trivial difference to the "freedom" of the project - as well as the huge amounts of editor time wasted dealing with complaints - especially in the latter case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Struck material that's interesting but not relevant to the point here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

@Jarkeld, Dutch is a good counter-example. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by RobertMfromLI

I see numerous claims of "deliberately offending Snuni Muslims" and such above. Personally, unless ArbCom rules no content should ever offend, I see no basis for such at all. There is no deliberate attempt to offend anyone on the article on Muhammad. Including images that show historical depictions of Muhammad for such purposes is part and parcel to building an encyclopedia. There is a lot of value in such depictions. As a tangential example, there are numerous pictures of Thor, and various show a representation that is different. In some, Thor is depicted as fitting "the norm" of what one would expect a Norwegian to look like (blond or light hair, average build and height, etc), while others follow the descriptives found in Norse mythology (red hair, beard, very built (as one would expect of someone who can lift Mjolnir), etc). These portrayals, taken over time, show how the image and perceptions of Thor varied depending on the needs, customs, interpretations and societal makeup of the people who worshipped (and/or), represented/depicted, (and/or) researched, (and/or) wrote about Thor. I believe the same holds true here, as there are various visual depictions of Muhammad over various times, and from various sects of Islam, various historians, etc; which show how people felt he looked and how he should be portrayed. In attempting to understand the societal items relevant to the subject matter (ie: Muhammad), it's vital we have record of how that subject was perceived. This too is part of the reason many of the images were created in the first place. I also see claims from people trying to shoehorn this into the "least offensive" part of the resolution noted above. EVERY image on that page has been reviewed, hashed, and rehashed countless times to ensure there is relevance and that they were not simply being picked for shock value. I also see claims, including by Ludwigs2 about "oh, just want to remove a few", but diffs, which I will gladly provide if requested, show that Ludwigs2 and others, per their own words to comply with others' religious beliefs so as not to offend those beliefs, have stated they wish to see ALL the images removed. Backpedalling now with so many diffs to prove real motives seems silly at best. This seems (as per ongoing conversation on the Muhammad/Images page) more an issue of an editor (who is slowly convincing others he's simply being tendentious to the point of disruption) who has not gotten his way and wishes to do an end run around countless discussions on this matter. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 16:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Clarification of Ludwigs2's real position and intent: "since none of the images... on this page... (thus) they likely should be removed"
• In context, when read with later statements and numerous archives of talkpage discussions and consensuses formed, it has been made clear that such means "they all should be removed because it is against some's religious beliefs and may offend" "AVERAGE EVERYDAY PEOPLE WOULD FIND WIKIPEDIA'S PUGNACIOUSNESS ABOUT VIOLATING MUSLIM CUSTOMS FOR NO REASON ASTONISHING" (side note, justification and discussion has occurred dozens or hundreds of times for these images). This entire issue is a content dispute where a tiny handful of editors are not happy with previous consensus, or the (same) consensus forming now. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 16:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

@Jayen466, except in this case, much of what you wrote is not applicable:

• The sources aren't being disputed as non reliable - the images all came from historical books of history or of artwork.
• The true issue for this submitted case is one where Ludwigs2 does not want to see any image based on wanting us to adhere to religious beliefs, and is unhappy with consensus after consensus after consensus (see diffs I've provided and countless other talkpage discussions - this fact is one he lets slip out multiple times when pressed during the course of the discussions, contrary to his portrayal here or in other parts of the talkpage discussions).
• The supposed "reasons" being cited for image removal fly in the face of everything established on Misplaced Pages. For instance, not being an accurate portrayal - in which case numerous images need to be removed from Misplaced Pages, including every issue of a northern European Jesus (since we know he was not) and so on. Additionally, there's my comment above on how such indicates the perceptions of various groups of people.
• And finally, in depth discussion of these images has taken place, debating relevance, need, historical value and so on. This (again) is simply an attempt at an end run of yet another consensus that's forming which Ludwigs2 disagrees with.

Everything you said has a lot of merit - but simply not for this particular issue (images of Muhammad in the Muhammad article). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 19:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

@Jayen466: As noted above, your discourse is highly sound - but not for this issue, where all of that has been considered numerous times over numerous talk page archives. Including two editors who are at odds with each other over these images (myself and another) working together to make sure each had some sort of historical relevance and proper citations showing valid sources.

This ArbCom case proposal is nothing more than an attempt to game the system (there, I've said it). An attempt at an RfC is already ongoing, and the author of this ArbCom case proposal is not happy with the direction it's heading - and thus trying an end run here. Additionally (as the diffs note) it is solely because he does not want ANY images on the article. Reviewing the page history and talkpage archives thoroughly (as daunting as it would be) that all of your concerns have been addressed countless times. For this specific issue. For other issues, indeed, what you say may have a lot of validity - but here, it does not apply as it's already been covered. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 17:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Dweller, please, by all means, jump into our crippled RfC proposal attempt. I do ask that you do not take my word for the true motivations (as noted above) behind attempts at derailing it though, and instead spend the time reading up on all the conversations and looking into the back-history. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 17:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Looie496

I agree that ArbCom should reject this case, but I disagree with the reasons being given for rejecting it. This case asks ArbCom to establish policy, which is not ArbCom's remit. ArbCom is essentially a court, and should only address an issue in the context of a specific case. It has the power to establish procedures, and it would not be an abuse of process for ArbCom to treat the WMF resolution as policy and establish procedures to enforce it, but this should only be done as part of the resolution of a specific case, not as a prescriptive measure. Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment Olive

@Jayen per pregnancy article: Your statement touches on points I have never seen articulated before on Misplaced Pages. We may be running into problems on image use because we are in fact forced into a form of OR when choosing images. The problem, and I don't see a way around it is that while we can summarize a source in terms of text, we can't do that with images so we are forced into using whatever images we can find that don't infringe on copyrights and that have permissions. I'm inexperienced in use of images so I may be missing something. But thanks for the depth of your thinking.(olive (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC))

Comment by Jarkeld (talk · contribs)

@Eraserhead1: The Norwegian article weighs in at 12779 bytes vs our 121903 bytes. Hardly comparable. The Dutch version which has censored and uncensored images of Muhammad weighs in at 41678 bytes. Dutch people do tend to travel extensively and we have a sizeable population of Muslims. Bias is sometimes very relative. Jarkeld (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Have mörser, will travel

It seems that Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ludwigs2 is the next/right step here. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Dweller

A skilled mediator may be able to successfully work with interested parties to find a result that could be approved by a strong consensus. They may not, but it seems a shame not to try. I'd appeal to all parties to remember that all other parties are editing in the best interests of Misplaced Pages, even if they disagree. That's a good start point for finding a solution. And if it's not the solution you currently think should be applied, you may be surprised to find there's one you haven't thought of that you'd actually approve of. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/2)

• Decline I am not willing to rule on content (which placing an image into or not into an article certainly falls under), and I'm DEFINITELY not going to get involved in judging Art vs Pornography/obscenity, even under the I know it when I see it standard articulated by a US Supreme Court Justice back in the 60's. Just a thought for those who wish to not see this picture in the article, would it not be easier to find a picture that better suits your taste and better suits the article in question rather then to have multiple RfC's and now an ArbCom case request about it? SirFozzie (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Awaiting further statements. The parties may be interested in the discussion of the "controversial images" issue that is already taking place on the workshop of the pending Abortion case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Decline individual image issues can be decided with community discussion. We need more input from editors and better structure from noninvolved admins to better determine contentious content issues. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Also awaiting further statements. The wmf:Resolution:Controversial content has put forward two new principles, not previously part of our meta:founding principles, being "the principle of user choice" and "the principle of least astonishment". It would be preferable for the community to take these under consideration at an RFC, and determine how they should be applied. If the community doesn't find a position with broad consensus, users on each side of the dispute will continue to agitate and escalate. We saw this following wmf:Resolution:Biographies of living people, where Arbcom passed a motion to give amnesty to the folk trying to implement the boards resolution, and arbcom recommended that the community initiate an RFC which turned into a series of three RFCs lasting more than five months (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people; first edit is here) John Vandenberg 09:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Decline; regardless of how wise or applicable the Foundation resolution may be (and my feelings on that are well known), this is strictly a content matter and not an arbitrable dispute. — Coren  11:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Decline. If the English Misplaced Pages needs to develop policy following the Foundation resolution, as seems likely, the appropriate route is a community process not Arbcom. If there is debate about what images to include in any given article, the appropriate consensus process should be used. Arbcom resolves edit warring and name calling - let's hope it doesn't descend to that. There's certainly not a one size ruling to be pulled out of a hat that would encompass images of Mohammed and a mother-to-be.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Decline - the dispute as it's currently framed focuses on content - that is whether particular images should be included - as opposed to user conduct. In this context, I agree with my colleagues that it's outside our remit. PhilKnight (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Decline ArbCom is not a shortcut for the RfC process, but a remedy to remove users from the topic when poor behavior is making it fail. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)