The following discussion is closed and should not be edited.

For archival purposes and ease of reading this is available in segments, with links to each section, from the file Info.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Introduction

Pursuant to the Arbitration Commitee case on images of Muhammad, the community has been requested to:

. . . hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.

This Request for Comment (RfC) is closed. Black Kite, Someguy1221, and Keilana have volunteered to present a consensus analysis, per this AN thread. Content policies and image guidelines are listed here for easy reference and to address in your responses (you may also find others to bring forward):

Mission:

Policy:

Guideline:

Please keep comments within your own sections, as per usual RfC procedure. Please use the "additional discussion" areas if you wish to make general comments. There is also a general discussion section at the bottom of the RfC.

Background on images of Muhammad

  1. No images of Muhammad are known to exist from his lifetime (570–632) or for centuries after it.
  2. The earliest images that do exist of Muhammad do not show very consistent or distinct features.
  3. Islamic art showing Muhammad first survives from the mid-13th century.
  4. The earliest surviving Islamic images of Muhammad are limited and varied in their geographical origin, coming from Persia (Iran), Central Asia, and areas inhabited by Turks; they are much less common in Arabic-speaking areas, although they can be found illustrating texts in Arabic.
  5. Calligraphic renderings of the name of Muhammad are more common than depictions, and are more widespread geographically; calligraphic renderings are also the only type of representation of Muhammad to appear in mosques, and in editions of the Quran.
  6. Medieval Islamic images of Muhammad are narrative images, usually showing a number of figures and depicting specific biographical events in Muhammad's life.
  7. In the 15th century, Islamic artists began to show Muhammad with a blank or veiled face, as an artistic convention to avoid representing his features. From the start of the 16th century, this became for a time the most common representation in Persia (Iran), and common in Ottoman Turkey.
  8. Sometimes Muhammad is shown entirely as a flame, extending a convention of showing him with a flaming halo.
  9. When printing became common in Islamic countries, images of Muhammad began to be printed.
  10. In modern times, images of Muhammad are mostly found in Shia (instead of Sunni) contexts, though this was not always the case historically. The modern images include both veiled and unveiled types. (Shias represent a minority in Islam; well over three-quarters of all Muslims are Sunni.)
  11. As of March 2012, prior to this RfC, the Muhammad article has 6 figurative depictions of Muhammad.(permalink).
    • One of these depictions is Western and the other five are of Islamic origin. Of the Islamic images all are from former empires, two are from the Ilkhanate (Persia/Iran), one is from the Durrani Empire (Kashmir), one is Ottoman (Turkey) and one is an Ottoman copy of an image from the Ilkhanate.
    • The images in the Life section of the article portray events and are placed in the article to be near the relevant event in the text.
    • The dates of the non-Western images range from c. 1307 to 1808, the Western image is mid-19th century.
    • Of the non-Western images, three show his face, one is veiled, and one uses the flame convention.
    • The images are placed starting several screens into the article; the infobox uses a calligraphic treatment of his name.
    • There are regular complaints from new and anonymous editors for and against the use of images of Muhammad, and image-use has required the creation of a separate discussion page, Talk:Muhammad/images. The issue has in the past been subject to news articles about off-wiki pressure. (e.g., here and here).
    • There have been disputes among established editors as to whether the current type and number of images in the Muhammad article are appropriate. These disputes have led to the arbitration case, mediation on the approach for this RfC, and then here.

Participants to this RfC are advised to keep in mind that Wikipedia policies and guidelines allow for many different ways to illustrate or not illustrate articles. Participants may wish to view various alternative mock-ups of the Muhammad article here: (sample 1), (sample 2), (sample 3), (sample 4), (sample 5) or other similar biography articles, for example, here and here. As with any content discussion, careful compromise is important.

Question 1a: Should there be an instructional hatnote?

Should the following hatnote be added to the top of the article Muhammad?

  • This article includes depictions of the prophet Muhammad. If you would like to view the article without any depictions, click here for instructions.

(place answers under the subsections below)

Support 1a

Further to this, and to the arguments about not doing this on sexual/nudity/swastika/... articles - we could, maybe we should, lets discuss, but elsewhere. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose 1a

Additional discussion of 1a

I count 30 different people who have invoked WP:CENSORED or WP:NOTCENSORED. None of them has explained the reasoning behind applying a policy that reads "Wikipedia will not remove content..." to a situation where Wikipedia is not removing any content. Censorship says "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient...". Again, what is the logic behind calling something that does not suppress anything "censorship"? Which part of WP:CENSORED applies? Can anyone give a direct quote from that or any other policy that says we can not or should not give people a choice as to whether to view images? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People always have the choice to not view images; they can choose to simply not read the article in the first place. The project is not obligated to provide a mechanism of choice for them. I view a hatnote in the same way I viewed the Tipper Gore-instigated parental advisory stickers on my Blackie Lawless cassettes in the 80's. If people don't want to hear music with naughty words, they can listen to something else. If you don't want to see images that offend you, go somewhere else. Who are you (a general you, not you specifically) to categorize my music as offensive? Who are you to put cautionary note on the top of an article I am interested in reading? Let the listener and the reader, respectively, judge for themselves without your preconception of "it offends". Tarc (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above appears to be an argument against the hatnote, not an explanation of how WP:NOTCENSORED applies. I am looking for an explanation for how so many people appear to be seeing something in WP:NOTCENSORED which isn't there. There is a difference between putting a parental advisory sticker on a cassette and making that cassette unavailable because of its content. Both are undesirable, but the latter is censorship, the former is not. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a work of art is not presented in its original form, then by definition it has been censored. Clear enough? Tarc (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Not clear at all. Please describe, in detail, exactly how an instructional hatnote changes the form of any work of art. What does the work of art look like before and after this alleged change? What mechanism does the instructional hatnote use to make the change? It appears to me that the only actual censorship being discussed here is an attempt to censor the instructional hatnote itself. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to me that censorship generally involves more than simply declining to provide technical instructions. It usually involves blocking certain manifestations of thought or expression from a target audience for cultural or political reasons. Having a page in project space showing users how to block images—and even linking to that page from every article—wouldn't be a problem because it would be across the board, neither topic- nor user-specific. Having such instructions at one particular article is something else again. While it wouldn't constitute censorship per se in and of itself, it would promote and could even help enable actual censorship. The cassette analogy is flawed. To extend it, however, let's be clear that the work of art in question isn't one or more images within the article but rather the article itself. The proposed hatnote isn't so much instructional as anti-instructional in that it facilitates the willful, continued ignorance of a certain subset of Wikipedia readers. (Note: I didn't make or support the censorship claim in my !vote because I don't think it's the main argument against the hatnote. I do think it's a valid argument, though.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you explain why it is that you think the invoking WP:NOTCENSORED is a valid argument? How does giving someone a tool that allows them to freely choose to view or not view images fit any reasonable definition of "censorship"?
I just counted again, and by my count 42 people have WP:NOTCENSORED as their primary or only argument, 40 have made all other arguments combined, and 5 did things like writing "oppose" with no explanation. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mitch Ames explains the policy relevance below better than I could. My comment above was really speaking to the spirit of non-censorship—the principle which gave rise to the policy. As I said, the hatnote would promote and could help enable censorship; i.e., it would conflict with the principle. That's why I think it's a valid argument (in the broadest sense). Rivertorch (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The essence of WP:NOTCENSORED is that the definition of objectionable content is inherently personal and can not be used as an argument for including or removing content. Hatnotes are part of the content of an article in the same way style is, it forms the article, thus WP:NOTCENSORED do bring valued guidelines in how we should behave when when editors want to change an article to address concerns off objectionable content. Belorn (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd just like to chime to to say that No Disclaimers is a very weak stance for an issue of this magnitude. NODISCLAIMERS is not a Wikipedia policy, there are numerous exceptions to it already.
Muhammad images are the most notable case of image offense on planet Earth, and we all know that as an objective fact-- our readers are routinely reporting negative emotions because of unexpectedly viewing images.
Removing the images themselves is off the table. NOTCENSORED is what makes Wikipedia Great. But is this "NoDisclaimers" guideline really more important than the feelings of so many of our fellow human beings?
A quarter of the world is Muslim-- there are more Muslims than there are residents of China. That's a LOT of Wikipedia readers. Is it really so bad if we offer these readers a brief description of our article's contents?
I totally understand that NOTCENSORED is the core of Wikipedia. When we remove content for being controversial, we are no longer Wikipedia.
Bbut NODISCLAIMERS is not a policy, there are many exceptions to it already. Given the gravity of this issue, I'd be tempted to cite Ignore All Rules, but in truth, NODISCLAIMERS doesn't rise to the level of a rule.
The open problem is certainly preserving NPOV/neutrality as we consider the generic case-- in future, precisely when is it appropriate to inform readers that some of their peers are distressed by a page. I have great understanding of that particular concern, and we don't have a firm answer yet.
But I just want to push back against the NODISCLAIMERS citation. A very narrow problem exists-- it is real: sometimes our readers experience unwanted, unexpected negative emotions because of our articles. There can be a complex religious or cultural cause, or it can also be as simple a gross medical image or scary image of spiders. This problem is real, and it remains unsolved.
We are smart people. We can solve this problem. NODISCLAIMERS alone is not adequate justification for inflicting emotional harm on a scale of billions of people. It's bad strategy for Wikipedia, it's bad strategy for world peace, it's bad strategy for education. It's focusing on half-accepted dogma rather than what really matters. --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hector, I'm not saying there is no issue here, but I think "inflicting emotional harm on a scale of billions of people" lacks any sense of proportion. FormerIP (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hehe-- well, I'm decidedly taking the "long view" here. Once the planet was once defined by the World Wars or the Cold War. Much of the actual violence during this period is an extended conflict between "Western/Global/Capitalist World" and the "Muslim World".
I doubt very seriously that a billion people will visit this page and experience direct upsetness. But Wikipedia is a unique place where the citizens of both worlds can interact directly, without governmental interference. How the two populations interact will affect the future of geopolitics in very real ways. Silly as it seems, readers in the Muslim world really will look to this page in forming an opinion about how the rest of the world treats them.
Hyperbole has it's place, but you're not wrong to point it out. :)
Essentially, I'm trying to knock people out of a conventional mindset of "business as usual" and remind them that this issue is one people are dying over. We can't abandon our core values, but we need to look very very hard for solutions that are consistent with our core values. Just citing a guideline about business as usual-- that's not giving the issue the weight it deserves. This isn't a case to ignore our values (NOTCENSORED, NPOV), but it is very very clearly a case to Ignore All Rules. --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm one of those who cited WP:NOTCENSORED. In response to Guy Macon's quite reasonable question "Which part of WP:CENSORED applies?" - the part that I consider applies is

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so ... Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, ...

... some articles may include ... images, ... which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content.

... Any rules that forbid members of a given ... religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations.

I acknowledge that "hiding" images is not literally the same as "removing" images, but to me the spirit of the policy is clear: Wikipedia will include the information, and the onus is on the reader not to look at, rather than on Wikipedia not to show it.
More specifically:

Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers ...

Yet by providing a hatnote telling people how to hide the images we are in effect trying to guarantee that the article will be acceptable - a direct contravention of WP:NOTCENSORED.

Any rules that forbid members of a given ... religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations.

I don't believe it is our business to tell people how to follow their rules (not looking at certain images) when they are not our rules. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We still may contain upsetting images with a hatnote, we still cannot guarantee our articles will be acceptable to all readers. And no one is saying that we are 'bound' by religious law.
Notcensored (as a policy) applies to articles, not Wikipedia's paratext. We don't have a pornographic logo, don't have an offensive user interface. A hatnote is part of an educational user interface-- notcensored is not in play in terms of policy. (But with a nod to NOTCENSORED as a value). --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re: "by providing a hatnote telling people how to hide the images we are in effect trying to guarantee that the article will be acceptable", we also provide a link to the main page. Clicking on that link will take someone who is offended away from the objectionable images. Is that also trying to guarantee that the article will be acceptable? Perhaps we should disable the back button on their browser. Better yet, we should tape their eyes open, put their head in a clamp, and force them to view the images. Of course I am being silly, but there is an important point here: providing an link to instructions so that someone can freely choose not to view images is really no different from all the other ways we provide to not view content that you don't like.--Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem with the hatnote is that its existence makes a value judgement, ie that some images on this page are offensive - and I do not believe we should be making such value judgements. The Main Page link, back button etc apply equally to all articles; they do not act only on some pages that someone has decided may be offensive. An item on the Toolbox that hid images would be OK (in my opinion) if and only if it applied equally to all articles. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The better analogy is if Ashcroft had left the statue intact but put signs alerting visitors that there was a "Topless Statue ahead". --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's really not a relevant distinction. The point is, you want to put something in place that says "this may is objectionable" on an article where a visitor will damn well know there may be something objectionable. It is THEIR responsibility to avoid the objection here, not OURS. I am opposed to the very concept of warning users that something ahead may be objectionable to their religious beliefs. I'm actually more amenable to the notion of hatnotes on nudity where none may truly be unexpected, e.g. pregnancy. Religion? Never. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a completely relevant distinction. It is the distinction between warning and censorship. I see that you added an argument that warnings are bad, but that is getting away from answering the question you set out to answer, which is why you think something that removes no content is censorship. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But let's think about this. We know, for a fact, as an objective fact, as a notable fact, that this page contains images objectionable to a notable faction of the planet. This isn't a subjective call-- there have been whole news stories just about this Wikipedia article and our policy on it.[2][3][4] We all agree, by consensus and by evidence, that page contains controversial images. The statement "Wikipedia's article on Muhammad contains images of Muhammad that upset some readers" is verifiable. It's not hearsay, it's not speculation, it's a fact.
Since when is providing readers with verifiable facts a problem? No one disputes that this page contains images that many people find upsetting. It is a fact. Stating this fact may raise new problems of neutrality, but I really am having a hard time understanding how a disclaimer would be a violation of the notcensored policy. --HectorMoffet (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hector, regarding hyperbole, I don't think it does have a legitimate place in the discussion. I think some editors have a gravely distorted take on what the actual issues are, and it doesn't help. A certain proportion of Muslims, whose number we can only guess at, probably 'will not like us having images of M in the article. But the number who will need counselling as a result is likely so small that we can ignore it. FormerIP (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree the number of readers who would truly be helped by a disclaimer is a relatively small fraction of our readership. But when you're dealing with such a large population, it's hard to ignore even a small fraction-- a small fraction of a billion is more people than I'll ever meet in my entire lifetime.
You can almost view this more as a "Wikipedia Public Relations" issue. An overwhelming number of people asked about this article. "Giving in" is off the table, but can't we at least "reply" to all these readers with explanatory link?
I know it's a complex question, full of slippery slopes and interlocking political interests. But people ARE being unnecessarily upset, and I'm frustrated by dogmatic argument that this doesn't merit special consideration to try to find a way to minimize negative effects. --HectorMoffet (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm actually in favour of a hatnote, so that's not really my point. I'm purely talking about ensuring that we maintain a realistic attitude if we feel it is appropriate to imagine how Muslims will feel about the images (it's been an ongoing feature of the debate that Muslim wikipedians have generally steered well clear of it). I don't think images are going to induce trauma or even anything you could properly call upset. They are merely something that some people don't like. We have a no censorship attitude when it comes to children. I'm concerned that, while they are undoubtedly well-meaning, some editors appear to consider Muslims to be less capable of coping with the Internet than children. FormerIP (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This dialog has been really enlightening for me, FormerIP. It's interesting that you say "Some editors consider [some] Muslims to be less capable of coping with the internet than children." This is actually something I firmly believe. The technology is old enough now that we can see children are often the most sophisticated users on the entire internet. Adults just can't compete with kids for adaptability. I never worry about kids just reading online, I don't even worry about kids in Muslim nations reading online-- the kids will adapt without missing a beat. The people I do worry about some of the older adults who are reading a NOTCENSORED publication for the very first time after an entire lifetime of exposure to only their local cultural norms.
To go full geek, [scene from the matrix]: "We never free a mind once it's reached a certain age. It's dangerous, the mind has trouble letting go. I've seen it before and I'm sorry."
I was here when conservative Americans first got online, and though we forget it now, even conservatives Americans often had complex reactions to the radical increase in information freedom. As the unwired world comes online, their adult populations should undergo a 'culture shock' akin to the one experienced in the US in the 1990s, only worse. By and large, we can't stop that 'culture shock'-- but it's important to keep an eye out for little things we could potentially to to minimize it. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is though that we're already really past the point that you wish to discuss. This is Request for Comment for the entire Wikipedia community to weigh in on, and though we have a lot of questions and sub-sections, much of it really boils down to one thing; consideration of religious offense vs. the openness of the information in the project. You may disagree, but it seems that many here do not believe that the Muslim point of view regarding Muhammad is critical enough to temper that openness. Tarc (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must respectfully disagree with the underlying assumption. Nobody has given me a shred of evidence establishing that 1a (hatnote) in any way compromises the the openness of the information in the project. Nothing gets removed, not one letter, much less an image. Nobody is hindered in any way from seeing exactly what they see now - in fact that is the default if they do nothing. Some of the other sections do boil down to considering religious offense vs. the openness of the information in the project, but not 1a. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree. There is nothing relating to censorship about the note. People are told what the article contains (true fact, which is the spreading of information - the very opposite of censorship), and then they can do what they want with that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, disagreement is fine, but if the premise of "hatnote equates to censorship" is what an overwhelming number of Wikipedians believe, then at the end of the day that will be the finding of RfC 1a. Tarc (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But my arguments are so darn persuasive (plus, of course, my overwhelming charisma) that I am sure that we will be seeing a mass swing in the voting Real Soon Now... (sound of crickets) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed a mention of spiders above, and it illustrates my view (see my !vote). Disclaimers should not be needed, because Wikipedia content should be encyclopedic: image use should be as unsurprising as spoilers in a plot summary. Purely alarming image use is not encyclopedic. We do not have images of real spiders at Arachnaphobia, nor do we have images of clowns at Coulrophobia and these are issues which have been extensively discussed: an image of spider or clown would not be expected by someone reading either article to learn more about the condition; it would add no value to the article, and would disturb readers with either condition. Notice, however, that Arachnaphobia does have a cartoon illustrating the prevalence of the fear of spiders as represented in popular culture.

Writing encyclopedic content is not easy, and Wikipedia is a work in progress, but "look away now, dear reader" is not the solution. Geometry guy 23:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News sites often warn readers when graphic content that might be disturbing is about to be shown. Likewise, adult websites and blogs include similar messages to their readers before displaying contentious content. This practice seems to be respectful with no negative side effects apparent. Informing a Wikipedia reader that content, which may be alarming or objectionable to literally millions of people including themselves, is included in an article seems entirely appropriate. Those wishing to see the material may do so. Offering a mechanism, such as a hatnote, provides a simple solution and is absolutely no way akin to censorship. The material is still available to everyone; it is merely a courtesy to give a person a choice before proceeding.

Editors who are fervently against this option might want to ask themselves what their deeper motives are in denying this important choice to others. IMHO it seems petty and insensitive to do so with not one redeeming motive. When it comes to tolerance, magnanimity rather than meanness is key. Veritycheck (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not try to find deeper motives when there is none. Assume good faith, and if the arguments someone gives are too spares to make sense of, ask the commenter to explain in more details what his arguments are. Questions at users talk pages is a better method to reach an consensus than generic dismissal of peoples arguments. Belorn (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, concerning controversial topics like this one, I don’t assume good faith. My experience on editing such articles has shown that, more often than not, personal agendas take precedence over fact and common sense. It is precisely the reason why I have commented on this. Furthermore, at this time you don't even have a User Talk Page where editors can message you; how peculiar that you recommend this method yourself. Veritycheck (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle. Without it discussions like the one here is utterly pointless. If cynicism takes a hold and prevent you from doing it, then its prime time for WP:DOGGY :). As for user talk page, every user (and IP users) has one. Mine is User_talk:Belorn. The red link in my signature is for my user page. User pages are presentation pages (mostly), and is not the place people should message me. My talk page is the place where people can message me, which is linked next to the red text and in parentheses. Here it is again just in case the talk link is too small! Belorn (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we are considering per-article hatnotes on those articles that might offend people, what criteria do we use to make the decision? Should we include such a hatnote on Dinosaur, Birthday, Halloween, Dancing, Wealth, Poverty, Divorce, Disease? The New York City Department of Education considers that all of these topics "could evoke unpleasant emotions" and has banned them from their tests, so perhaps we should warn our readers, just in case some of them are NY students. Seriously though, how would we decide which topics might offend enough people to put a hatnote on them? I still assert that the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:DISC requires that we not make any such decision, which means we place a hatnote on no articles, or add a toolbox item that applies equally to all articles. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have read WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:DISC several times slowly and carefully, looking for anything in either that even hints at the "spirit of" that you apparently perceive. There is absolutely nothing in the spirit or the letter of either that supports such a conclusion. I think you are reading your own POV into both documents. These sort of "the spirit of X requires" arguments are not falsifiable.
As for your slippery slope argument, it kind of implies that we as a community cannot be trusted to arrive at a wise decision through consensus concerning those other articles. I reject that. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Guy that the slippery slope argumetn is invalid here. Also I cannot comprehend how either 1a or 1b could be censorship. I used to listen to music on LPs. When compact discs were introduced, I could skip the tracks I didn't like by pressing a single button. Does that mean that the record companies were engaged in censorship when they invented the tracking system on CDs? After all, the tracking system is nothing other than a button that allows me to skip tracks I don't like. How does that differ from the 1b proposal? — Lawrence King (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guy Macon, I acknowledge but disagree with your opinion that there is no hint of the spirit to which I refer; we may simply have to agree to differ on that matter. As you rightly point out, the spirit of the law is difficult to objectify. (I'm not sure that "Falsifiability" is a meaningful term in this context; the term is only relevant to physical laws or scientific theories of fact, rather than imperative laws.) However I notice that while WP:CENSORED doesn't prevent us from adding hatnotes to specific articles, it does not say that we sometimes do, nor does it make any other mention of editorial judgement about the offensiveness of specific articles, although I concede that WP:DISC does. WP:CENSORED's lack of mention of editorial judgement, together with the parts that I quoted (14:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)), strongly implies to me that the intent is that such editorial judgement (and thus hatnotes) is undesirable and not the intent of the policy. If we do intend to put hatnote warnings on some "offensive" articles, perhaps we should say so explicitly in CENSORED, as we do in DISC. (I disagree with both the hatnotes and the addition to CENSORED, but if we have the former, we should consider the latter.)
Lawrence King, skipping tracks on a CD is not a good analogy - the issue is not about whether you can "skip" an article, the issue is about whether Wikipedians decide about the offensiveness of specific articles. A better might be: your CD player doesn't warn you that specific tracks might be offensive and tell you how to skip them. At most, there is a warning sticker that the CD may contain offensive material. The "skip track" button works applies equally to all tracks on all CDs. Mitch Ames (talk)
Mitch, while I disagree with you on the substantial question, I completely agree with you that once this issue is resolved, the WP:CENSORED policy should be updated to clearly specify what the policy is with regard to hat notes and the other things we are discussing here! — Lawrence King (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One reason, I cannot agree that anti-censorship rules apply (to these hatnotes) is that the hatnotes proposed are functionally similar to hatnotes Wikipedia has everywhere: 'This article is about ______, if you want _____, click here.' They make no judgment on why the reader wants to 'click here.' Neither do the proposals. And readers ignore or use those all the time. Now, if a different proposed hatnote actually said to the reader, 'we know you don't want to read or see this,' that would, perhaps, be a different argument. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that is a valid comparision. Those hatnotes ("this article is about... click here for ....") serve a different purpose; they are navigational aids, not content warnings. In particular, they don't conflict with (the spirit, as I perceive it, of) any policy, whereas hatnotes that say "this article might offend you" do. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The proposals before the body don't say that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your pedantry precision is acknowledged, but are we putting the hatnotes (as worded in the proposals) there for some other reason than "the article might offend"? If we are going to have the hatnotes, perhaps we should state explicitly why they are there, lest some ignorant reader wonder why some articles have picture toggles and others don't. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question 1b: Should there be a functional hatnote?

Q: The following hatnote is technologically feasible. Should it be added to the top of the article Muhammad?

To view this article without any images, click here.
See also Demonstration screenshots

(place answers under the subsections below)

Support 1b

As creator, I agree 100% with your provision. Having "only one such article" would be inappropriate and inconsistent with NPOV. The viable options are to add it "when requested by sufficient numbers" or to add it "to the toolbox of all articles". --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose 1b

Additional discussion of 1b

The nudity comparison is a false on. Somebody searching, say, 'blowjob' can be reasonably assumed to not be offended by an image of such, or else why would they be searching for it? Of the people searching for Muhammad, however, a very percentage WOULD be offended by an image. I'm not saying that that means that there should absolutely not be an image, just pointing out that the comparison doens't hold up to scruitiny. Euchrid (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By extension, does somebody reading a child pornography article expect pictorial examples? People interested in reading articles concerning sexuality do not necessarily desire to see graphic images. I object to the principle of removing offensive material and providing an unrepresentative view on the topic. To me, it is analogous to providing the option to remove the Israeli or the Palestinain point of view from all I-P related topics for reader comfort. Wiki should always seek to provide all relevant info on a subject.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with User:AnkhMorpork above. Brendon is here 14:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, it's not a false comparison. Just because you want statistics or factual data on the mechanics of an erection doesn't mean you want to see a series of six pictures depicting the stages of an erection. Educational or some guy who wanted to put pictures of his dick on Wikipedia? You decide, I already have. My cmparison wasn't false but your selective example is false. You talked about "nudity" but then used an example about a sex act. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that's necessarily true. Many people might want to find information about what a blowjob is without having to look at one. To what extent we should cater to people who want the info without the images is a question that applies in both cases. FormerIP (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No material is being removed! An optional, purely voluntary button to click at one's own personal discretion is what's being considered here. It's like the foul-language filters that can be turned on or off depending on an individual user's personal preferences that exist on many websites/communities. There is no institutional censorship happening here because the images are not being actually deleted. Florestanová (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the closer comparison is Flag desecration. I know we get frustrated by nudity, but virtually no one is as upset as people accidentally viewing Muhammad. To my knowledge, Muhammad images are unique in their sheer power to upset unwary readers. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the risk of inflaming the situation, would it be appropriate to add a picture of someone burning (or otherwise desecrating) the Quran to the Quran desecration article? By any objective measure, such a picture would be relevant, and no more offensive than the picture in Flag desecration. (I'm not intending to add such a picture; this is a thought exercise - with the risk of WP:BEANS.) Mitch Ames (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's hard to imagine a standard that includes Muhammad and Flagburning but excluded Quran burning. I don't feel the article is calling out for such an image, but if such an image achieved local consensus, it'd be hard to justified its deletion on based on offensiveness. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Flag and holy book desecration is certainly an interesting comparison. As someone who is mildly offended by both, I should point out that while I don't like those acts being carried out, depictions of them (including photographs of actual incidents) aren't in of themselves offensive. The issue surrounding depictions of Muhammad is that, to some Muslims, the image itself, not the person/act who the image is of, is what considered to be forbidden.Euchrid (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're quite correct that the Muhammad case is very different. When westerns get angry over a flagburning on TV, we're mad at the burner, not the photographer.
Some people really do want censorship. I don't care about them-- we can't give them what they want. Demands to remove images altogether are antithetical to WP.
But, looking past the extremists-- there are a lot of people who just want to read articles in public without getting in trouble with their peers and passerbys. These people don't want images removed from the article, they want a chance to "preview" the article before deciding to view images, to avoid embarrassing themselves. They don't want control of other people's screens, they just want control over their own screens. THESE people we can help. Surprisingly easily, in fact.
Most of all though, this is just for us. I'm proud to defend NOTCENSORED, but I'd be more proud if I knew we didn't impose a computer "literacy test" on our readers who want to browse without images. Non-tech-saavy readers should be able to enjoy the same reading experience that the rest of us enjoy. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I'd be more proud if I knew we didn't impose a computer "literacy test" on our readers who want to browse without images. Non-tech-saavy readers should be able to enjoy the same reading experience that the rest of us enjoy." - English Wikipedia is not for everybody to read and edit.
Obvious criteria:

  1. Readers must be able to read English.
  2. Readers must have access to computer.
  3. Readers must have access to the internet.
  4. Readers must know and fully understand the policies and traditions of Wikipedia.
    and so on.
The thing is that you have to give something in order to get something.

Anyway, you don't have to be a computer genius for installing a software (these days it's even easier).

You don't have to be a computer genius or friend of a computer genius to simply follow quite lucid instructions in native english.

So, I guess downright lazy, hyper-sensitive users (same goes for fanatical or doctrinaire bigots) with unfounded, gratuitous demands for special treatment will not enjoy wikipedia like the rest, not because they are "non-tech", but because their mentality is intrinsically opposed to the several important Wikipedia policies, and their appeasement will affect others.

Wikipedia Editors should not take the trouble of modifying the interface (even in the least bit) only to appease the sentiments of minority which doesn't comply with Wiki-policies to begin with. Brendon is here 14:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Solving the generic problem

Question How do we decide where we provide these options and not? Certainly Bahá'ís generally reserve depictions of Bahá'u'lláh for special events, Muslims generally don't depict Muhammad, and some Christians (e.g. RPCNA) avoid depictions of God, but I know that I am personally offended by all manner of images about violence on Wikipedia and those aren't blocked, nor am I given the option to block them. Do my sensibilities not count? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course all sensibilities count. :)
If we know factually that our readers would like the option, we should offer it to them. Indeed, if we wanted to, we could add the button right into the user interface for every page. Imageless pages don't violate our principles-- it's just letting novice users do what experienced users already do-- browse with images off. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this option is made available on every article (or within the user settings) then I would accept it. I am entirely against offering this option and presenting this hatnote on only the Muhammad article. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 10:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that an option in user settings or under (for example) Toolbox in the sidebar to disable images would be both useful and acceptable. It may be feasible to have a non-persistent "hide images in this article" option in the sidebar, which would be useful for readers not logged in. Such an option must apply to all articles, because we should not make judgements about what people might find offensive; all articles should be treated identically. It might even be technically feasible for an option - for logged in users - to "add this article to my list of articles not to display images for" (similar in principle to "add to watch list"). This means that the reader chooses what is offensive, not the editors. Such an option would need to be unobtrusive, and/or hideable, so as not to clutter up the user interface for the vast majority of users who'll never need it. Adding something to the sidebar toolbox should be fine - it's already full of things I rarely use, and one more wouldn't be a problem. The fundamental principle here is that the reader makes the choice - Wikipedia editors make no judgement about offensiveness of images in Muhammad or any other article. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that, if this function were to be implemented, there are plenty of other articles that it could feasibly be added to. I disagree with the 'slippery slope' argument because, frankly, I don't see what would be so bad about adding this function to other articles. Plenty of candidates have been mentioned in this discussion, and I'd be happy to see this function on all of them. Euchrid (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Allow me to clarify that I would only support this function if it were added to or available on all articles on the English Wikipedia, not only certain articles that are deemed for whatever reasons to be appropriate. Given this, clearly a hatnote would be too cluttering, so perhaps it would be added to the "toolbox" sidebar as I have seen suggested. But that's subject to another discussion, not this one. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 07:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, and I suggest we start another discussion (somewhere?) on having a general option for logged-in users to disable all images. It would be turned off by default; if you turn it on, then on any article you are reading, there will be a hatnote or a sidebar link that allows you to turn the images back on. If you haven't turned this option on, I don't think there should be a hatnote on every article - the hatnote only shows up if you decided to turn images off to protect your sensitive eyes.--Karl.brown (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just found the following: Help:Options to not see an image, which gives a number of ways for people to avoid seeing images, even on a per-article basis. --Karl.brown (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To people suggesting that this be done by turning off images in the browser-- we could do that, but it wouldn't allow for 1-click-to-reveal-all-images instantly. To toggle images back on, a user would have to tweak options again and reload. If we use the hatnote, the images are never more than 1-click away. Our hatnote will actively encourage users to turn it off, a browser won't. :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We really shouldn't be encouraging users to turn images off, unless we encourage them to do it for all articles it is a gross violation of NPOV. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well the point I was making was the opposite-- our javascript will make it very very easy to "reveal all images" instantly. Merely turning off image loading in the browser would make it much harder to restore the images-- it won't allow for 1-click-to-reveal. --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am against any image-toggle in the left hand toolbar. I am in favor of the proposal of individually configuring the browser not to display pictures (prevents any alteration to wikipedia interface or any article).
This "image toggle" or "toolbox" or whatever that you're proposing is utterly redundant and gives undue weight to the controversial side of argument spectrum because a permanent image-toggle in the left-hand toolbar as an option to hide images, will unavoidably reflect a specific point of view and can will be seen as an impetus towards self-censorship from Wikipedia itself. That is not helpful.
"To people suggesting that this be done by turning off images in the browser-- we could do that, but it wouldn't allow for 1-click-to-reveal-all-images instantly." — So what, Hector? You think some users' immense laziness is worth a modification on Wikipedia? Well, guess what, I don't.
"We really shouldn't be encouraging users to turn images off, unless we encourage them to do it for all articles" —
If it's about image toggle, then I agree Wikipedia shouldn't encourage its users to hide images that way.
But otherwise (if it's against the idea of personally eschewing images by configuring browser), It's an abject fallacy (diminished responsibility of the reader). It's also a misrepresentation of the original suggestion. Nobody has so far suggested that wikipedia should encourage its readers to hide images. All that was said is down below for anyone to read. We also need to take into consideration somethings like "Wikipedia policies" (WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:PROFA, WP:NDA, WP:IRELEV, etc) which are not sitting there for nothing.

1. Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers ...
2. Any rules that forbid members of a given ... religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations.

I acknowledge that "hiding" images is not literally the same as "removing" images, but to me the spirit of the policy is clear: the onus of avoiding/hiding (purportedly) offensive content/images based on religious precepts, does not fall on the editors or policy-makers of Wikipedia, the onus of taking necessary steps to avoid those images is on the individual who is reading Wikipedia.

You cannot ask wikipedia to adapt to your sensitivities, it's the other way around. Brendon is here 09:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My thought is that if someone knows that they will be potentially offended by something or an associated image, the internet isn't the best place to search for that. I'm against clutter on Wikipedia, and in addition it seems like adding any kind of protection to articles like this in an effort to be unoffensive doesn't make the most sense given our goals here. Sermadison (talk) 9:08, 20 March 2012
I'm also surprised by people citing NOTCENSORED over 1b. Browsing with images off is NOT censorship-- if it's censorship, then "Wikipedia has always been censored", which is absurd. --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How so? Censorship is stopping other people seeing (etc) things; choosing not to see them yourself is not censorship. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
putting a facility in a prominent position for this one particular picture is labeling it as possible offensive, and that is very close to censorship. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So put it somewhere less prominent. Toolbox, in the Userinterface above the title, etc. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • These "slippery slope" arguments are even weaker than usual. Wikipedia has a lot of hat notes on lot of articles, already. Users can ignore them or not, editors can use them or not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The crux of a slippery slope argument is that you are afraid of sliding to a worse place. Image Toggle on all pages would be a better place for us to be, regardless of how we get there. Whether we slide there incrementally or whether we jump straight there as Zen proposes-- it's a useful feature. HectorMoffet (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't look at "Image Toggle" as feature "for" extremists. You & Tarc are right-- there are extremists out there who really do want true censorship, and they will never ever get it from us. This feature isn't for them, this feature won't make them happy, this feature won't make them go quiet.
"Image Toggle" is NOT made for extremists, it's made for Wikipedians. We have NSFW pages and we often browse from work-- everyone could use Image Toggle. Most of all, it's for those of us who defend NOTCENSORED every day-- we would hold a firm moral highground if it were trivial for all users to browse every page without images, regardless of their native language or computer skill. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds fair enough to me, but I think enabling self-censorship of any page is a different issue. ~ Kimelea (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Q: Shouldn't this be implemented via browser settings rather than javascripting?
This is the right answer from a IT/CS point of view. But experience has shown readers and browsers aren't up to this job. Over telephone-- try talking someone over the age of 85 through the process of turning off images in their browser-- it doesn't work. Now imagine if there were language and literacy barriers too. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For anyone else who found this here and was confused by it, it was moved by Niteshift36 from its original position in Oppose 1b. ~ Kimelea (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would anyone be confused by it. It is the same editor, talking about why he thinks a hatnote is the way to go. It was placed with his comments about that very thing. My edit summary in moving it here makes the reasoning clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because where you have put it sets it up as if it replies to my comment about whether enabling self-censorship addresses the blasphemy complaints. The comment you moved is a direct reply to a comment that users are already capable of self-censorship - a completely different point. You have taken it out of its context and therefore removed its meaning. People are not going to go back and read all the edit summaries to find out why the comment was moved (or even that it was moved). ~ Kimelea (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Check again sport. I made the move BEFORE you replied. It was YOU that inserted your comment in between the ones from Hector. Look at the edit history.[5] Don't try to blame your errors on others. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excuse me, I'm doing nothing of the sort. I inserted my reply where it belonged - after Hector's reply to my comment. My reply doesn't change a thing. The fact is that the place you put Hector's second comment makes it look as if it is a second reply to me, which it's not. Perhaps you thought that his second comment worked logically as a continuation of the argument he made in his reply to me? It doesn't - it begins with "This is the right answer from an IT/CS point of view". What is the right answer? Without its context, we don't know what job readers and browsers aren't up to, because it has nothing to do with what I said. It was a direct response to a comment by someone else, a link which is now lost. ~ Kimelea (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The history shows what I said is correct. Nothing you say will change it. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I might interrupt this Penis Fencing for a moment, I have a suggestion. If a comment has 0% content discussing Muhammad images and 100% content discussing some other user, perhaps you should post the comment on that user's talk page. That way, those of us who wish to discuss Wikipedia's policies on Muhammad images don't have to wade through a large amount of unrelated material. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then instead of adding to what you consider to be a problem, consider keeping your interest in dicks to yourself.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this conversation is done. Anyone reading this thread will be advised that a comment was moved and I think we can leave it at that. OSborn arfcontribs. 20:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding my voices to the above, I support an image-hiding functionality only if it is in the sidebar/toolbox or user settings, and is universal. It can not be applied to one page alone. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 05:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With all the fuss over and complexity of the image filter (q.v.), it's amazing that we never got round to something as basic as a button at the top of every article "turn off images on this page". It could be discreet (top right somewhere), the button could be turned off in user preferences, and users could have images off by default if they want (so the button turns images on). Easy-peasy: just more power to users. And for those who for some reason are really bothered by the idea that someone who for some reason, in at least some situations, does not want to see every image available on Wikipedia gets the ability to do so - well let those think about how this ability would benefit users on slower connections trying to read Wikipedia. Probably not an issue for most editors, spoiled by DSL and cable, but for some developing country readers, and/or users on mobile devices, an option to turn off images may be useful. Rd232 talk 23:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Users of WikiReader already see a Wikipedia without images, and some of them report that there are pages that make no sense at all without images. This is something that Wikipedia must, by law, avoid - the Disabilities Act specifically says that blind people should be able to use a page (a good description of the image in the alt text is the usual method). Having a no images button on every page would lead to many of those "requires images" pages being fixed. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As global toolbox element, not article-specific hatnote

So far, I've heard a few arguments against the functional image toggle. Some are easy for me to dismiss. The slippery slope argument fundamentally misunderstand the proposal. A ski slope is intentionally slippery. Would we prefer a non-slippery slope--i.e. where only one article had such a hatnote?

Less easy to dismiss are the NOTCENSORED opposition. I feel like NOTCENSORED is being cited less as a direct policy guidance, but rather as a sort of "fundamental value" of our community that is at play here. So even though disabling images isn't "direct censorship" as I envision it, the people citing NOTCENSORED are still saying something very important and their voices matter.

The strongest objection I see, and the one I feel is most definitive, are concerns about neutrality. There is notable unease about dividing our articles into two categories: "ones people have objected to" and "ones people haven't objected to". Providing readers with this meta-data isn't a per se violation of NPOV, since the meta-data isn't part of the article, but I understand the palpable unease at the thought of there being "two classes" of articles, divided based on readers' purely emotional, irrational responses to them.

Based on all the feedback, it now seems highly preferable to just implement this feature in the sidebar toolbox shown for all articles. --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. We are going way off-topic. I don't think this is the right page to discuss about a Global toolbox element to hide images. A discussion about universal toggle for hiding images is not even related to the article about Muhammad, and is verily out of topic here.

    Others who are not interested in "Muhammad" but might have taken interest in the new proposal about universal toggle for images, will miss out on an opportunity to comment on this issue.

    This should be discussed in a separate RfC. This is not the right place.

  2. Anyway, I disagree. This step would be antithetical to the spirit of Undue weight and WP:NPOV (will implicitly reflect a particular POV). Unjustified, irrational demands predicated on religious precepts, is not worth any modification on Wikipedia which will eventually seem like a reinforcement of self-censorship. That cannot be the goal of Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not encourage censorship in anyway.

    Moreover, I understand that some Muslims may be offended by these images of Muhammad just as some Jews maybe offended by images of swastika or an article about holocaust denial, Some may find the pertinent images in cunnilingus to be unnecessary.

    Again, we should also consider those who might find an "image toggle" to be disruptive or unnecessary.

    The right question is should there be any negotiation about the clearly stated policies of wikipedia? (More on this here)

    And if somebody is sincerely offended by seeing those images, then I should say there are ways to solve this issue, without this universal "image toggle" or any further (probably disruptive) modifications on wikipedia.

    The undeniable fact is, the onus of avoiding/hiding (purportedly) offensive content/images based on religious tenets, does not fall on the editors or policy-makers of Wikipedia, the onus of taking all necessary steps to avoid those images is on the individual who is reading Wikipedia.

    Thus an "image toggle" is potentially disruptive and also utterly redundant.

    And this "image toggle" will inevitably draw undue weight to the controversial side of arguments because a permanent image-toggle in the left-hand toolbar as an option to hide images, will unavoidably reflect a specific point of view and can be seen as impetus for self-censorship from Wikipedia itself. That will not be helpful. Brendon is here 13:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. While the Muhammad article is the one that presents the most problems and urgently needs a solution, there are other articles containing images that some may find objectionable. Rather than putting hatnotes on individual articles, I'm coming round to the view that all articles should have a button saying 'click here to view this article without images'. That would be perfectly neutral, and I can't see how anyone could reasonable consider it 'censorship'. Banning the use of certain images would be censorship. Simply allowing readers the option of not seeing them is not. Robofish (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but giving readers the option to not see images should not interrupt (or even be visible to) users who don't want or care about such a feature. The slippery slope argument is primarily what this discussion is about. If we cave to the demands on one religion, then we'll need to add a hatnote on every article that might have content which is offensive to any other sufficiently large group of people. See my demonstrative (and somewhat sarcastic) proposal below. I would support a gadget which could be selectively enabled to hide images, or even hide only images that have been categorized as "potentially offensive", as this is a tool that is invisible to those who are not interested in it (i.e. most readers). A hatnote is visible to everyone, and only draws unnecessary attention to the "controversy" by catering to the demands of a minority of readers. I think the NOTCENSORED argument also applies to how easy we make it for users to self-censor and how intrusive the self-censoring interface is for regular readers who don't want to self-censor. This is one reason why so many editors (including myself) are invoking NOTCENSORED as a relevant policy. —SW— yak 22:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Yes, but giving readers the option to not see images should not interrupt (or even be visible to) users who don't want or care about such a feature." - right, I concur. But that option already exists. Click here. Brendon is here 19:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, and in fact suggested this solution independently above. I think it would work best if it allowed the user to toggle between an "images shown mode" and "no images mode" that would be remembered using cookies whether or not they're logged in. This would be useful for conserving bandwidth as well as dealing with visual sensitivities, and would avert discussions over which articles deserve such a notice. However, I don't think it's particularly pertinent to this discussion since I don't think Muslims are offended by viewing the content but rather by our publication of it. Dcoetzee 03:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. This seems to be an eminently sensible neutral solution and adds additional convenience. It should apply to all articles until further notice (or possibly till the end of the session or cookie expiry for non-logged-in users), Preferably, there would be suppression of future downloads as well as immediate suppression of display, which would save bandwidth and improve response times as well as having the potential to avoid triggering external filtering mechanisms that implement real censorship. It could also serve as a "panic button" for people viewing images that might be inappropriate for passers-by (children, religious fundamentalists, secret police, etc.). Developers should possibly also consider using a tab (like the watch/unwatch tab); it could even be a drop-down "quick preferences" or "temporary preferences" element with show/hide toggles for various features such as images, ToC, categories, links to other languages, etc., but feature creep is a valid concern. --Boson (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now that I think about it, I actually = Oppose a global image toggle for images on the toolbox. It places undue weight on the idea that images should be toggled on and off, while not providing a similar toggle for anything else. By providing such a toggle to "hide all images," while at the same time not providing such a toggle to "hide all text," we are implying that there needs to be more to be hidden for images than text. That is a bias against images, violating NPOV.--New questions? 19:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think WP:NPOV applies to features like images, provided the feature applies to all images. We can and must have an opinion on which features we support. Similarly, it would not be an NPOV issue if we were to support suppression of animated images that could cause epileptic fits in some individals. Whether a user's perceived need for a feature results from a religious belief, a brain malfunction, or other disability should probably not concern us if we can implement a feature without unduly affecting other people.--Boson (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. WP:CENSORED or WP:NOTCENSORED as the Basis for Argument: The existence of a barrier, no matter how small is in fact censorship, it cannot be argued that the hatnote is not a form of censorship. However, it is equally indisputable that the censorship of the hatnote actually prevents access to the content. In deciding how to present WP content, because WP is accessible worldwide, holding onto rules as being absolute would likely hurt rather than help the cause of WP as risk of being exposed unexpectedly to certain content, here the image of Muhammad, may deter entire cultures and religions from making contributions. It is immaterial if the images qualify as works of art, while that is certainly grounds for inclusion, it bears no relevance to the issue of implementing a hatnote. The issue of the hatnote being a form a censorship stands alone with respect to whether it is too restrictive.

HOWEVER - The risk of deterring large classes of people from using and contributing to WP when weighed against the minor inconvenience of clicking a mouse, or perhaps a dedicated key, is overwhelming. The hatnote in fact has a powerful potential to REDUCE CENSORSHIP simply by presenting the content in a way that ALL POTENTIAL USERS would feel comfortable accessing and contributing. Indeed, posting an image of Muhammad may make an individual feel he or she is part of a sacrilegious action (for participating in the display of his image) in order to contribute to the page. It logically follows that no one who strictly follows the religion is likely to contribute to the page. If we make the reasonable assumption that religious experts are also often devout followers of the religion, then it should be obvious that by clinging to a superficial definition of censorship regarding the image, we are hypocritically turning a blind eye to the deeper meaning of censorship. The effect of the image on the class of people who bind themselves strictly to their religion is a censorship to their editing participation and access to the written contents, leaving the responsibility of knowledgeable editing in the hands of those who do not hold the same values.

I believe that the hatnote itself serves as important knowledge to readers. Curious researchers would see it and immediately know that the content therein has particular significance, a fact that is often difficult to describe with words alone. In this particular case, it would educate and remind the readers of the seriousness of the content. The knowledge conveyed by the symbolic act of asking the reader to confirm he or she wants to see the content has only recently been made available when research could be done on the computer; it is a new way of communicating knowledge which is encyclopedic appropriate information.

As an aside, I would even suggest that this be used for nude images as a mere mouse click or tap of a dedicated key is likely to encourage parents to allow their children to access WP without risk of any accidental exposure to nudity.

A key point that bears repeating throughout the entirety of this proposition is that NO ENCYCLOPEDIC IS BEING BARRED FROM INCLUSION OR ACCESS

2. Slippery Slope and Wiki Policy: This crossed my mind as well, however, I have not read nor have I been able to come up with how this can be escalated to any level of reasonable concern. The furthest point imaginable, when also considering that WP is a world wide effort, would be if WP expanded the policy to include content that is globally recognized as worthy of a confirmation click. I don't believe that this could even go as far as an age verification because those are completely ineffective deterrents and would be a meaningless inconvenience. The hatnote is nothing more than a confirmation that the reader intends to view the content. Objections to this hatnote are (imo) as silly as objections to the question "are you sure?" And finally, there is little to suggest that this offends the policy of WP policy as no additional restrictions are being placed on the content that can be added. The closer monitoring and better defining of what is appropriate to post is most appropriately viewed as ensuring that only genuine facts that are verifiable and important to subject are included. This is in fact the intent for ALL articles, the accepted proposals make no compromises to WP policy, they are governed by the same rules, but explained specifically as it applies to this issue. I am optimistic that this/these article(s) will set an example of an ideal WP entry.

TLDR Version

1. Displaying Muhammad's image will prevent devout followers from reading and contributing their knowledge to the article. There is no censorship of content, the hatnote is just a mouse click. The value of having more knowledgeable people contribute + the value of open access to all >>>>>>> clicking a mouse. Also, the actual amount of censorship effectuated when there is no option to view without the image >>>>>>> censorship by a confirmation mouse click.
2. Slippery Slope does not apply because there is no where to go. The adopted proposals are not new, just worded to apply specifically to this issue, WP policy has not changed. AwayEnter (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question 2: What image should appear in the infobox?

The infobox for the Wikipedia article Muhammad (top at right) could feature: a depiction of Muhammad without a veil (for example only, a cropped version of this image); a depiction of a veiled Muhammad (for example only, a cropped version of this image); an image of Muhammad's name in Arabic calligraphy, as currently (for example only, this image); an image of a location associated with Muhammad (for example only, this image); no image.



Q: Which class of image is best suited to the infobox and why?

(place answers under the lettered subsection below; do not only express what you oppose, but also support your favorite option) .

a) Unveiled

Did you mean to say "unacceptable"? Do you support an unveiled image or not? — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 09:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, my bad. Fixed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re: "Anything other than this is unacceptable per WP:CENSORED". This argument doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that WP:CENSORED is a good reason to always use the most offensive images? Should we always pick the least-censored images? And who defines what is least censored? I could just as well argue that you are trying to censor the calligraphic or flame representations by replacing them with something else. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Before you refute it further, you should consider taking it to a discussion field and not here in the middle of the !voting. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

b) Veiled

c) Calligraphy

Only here on Wikipedia... in Muslim communities it is how it's done. Which are you more likely to recognize, a picture of Mohamed of the Calligraphy for him? I would recognize the Calligraphy before an image.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 14:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia is not a Muslim community. —SW— express 22:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But Mohamed is a Muslim figure and most representations of him come from Muslim communities. The point is that other religions have standard tropes around which their characters are identified. We can recognize St Francis of Assissi, even if we've never seen the image, because there are standard conventions surrounding his presentation. We can recognize different historical figures because the art which is used to depict them uses standard conventions to do so. With Mohamed, this isn't the case. With Mohamed, the standard depiction used isn't a figure, it's calligraphic. To use an image that isn't indicative of the community or the norm in the historical profile is not NPOV, but rather UNDUE weighting. It is using our Western biases to select a fringe/minority presentation because we want it (and we want to prove that we aren't censored.) But it does not mirror the historical reality and it does distort the historical record.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 18:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that WP:ASTONISH is nothing more or less than an opinion essay and is not a consensus-determined guideline or policy of English-Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Response Most the reader don't even have a visual representation of Muhammad either, but more think of Muhammad from the Calligraphy than the picture The Determinator p t c 03:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article." This is quote from WP:Images I would say your conventional reader who knows about Muhammad knows him by calligraphy rather than a picture. The Determinator p t c 03:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

d) Image of a location

e) No image

Additional discussion of question 2

The notion that "calligraphic representations" of Muhammad (assuming that concept makes sense in the first place) are more common than pictures of him is not supported by evidence. I've tried hard to find images from the history of Islamic art comparable to what we currently have in the infobox, but was only able to find three. On the other hand, I was able to find many many pictures of Muhammad. If they are so common, why have we needed to create a mock-up for the infobox? FormerIP (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's true that we actually have few good historic calligraphic images, and we should avoid nasty modern computer-assisted ones, which is what nearly all of the Commons category consists of. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see this as being a question in the history of Islamic art per se, since that's a vague term (though unquestionably Islamic calligraphy is an extremely significant form of art in traditional Islam, far more so than, say, in Western art), but rather of the hard fact of what is used to depict Muhammad. However for specific evidence I can only recall Schimmel's analysis in "And Muhammad is His Messenger" from the books I have to hand. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If anyone wants to argue that the "most common image" is calligraphy, or veiled, or, anything - the counter should easily be that the most published image, globally, seen by millions, was that from South Park. I don't think thats what anyone wants. Maybe we should have a frame grab of Santa Claus. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
There is at least anecdotal evidence. While we all have heard of incidents where Christians flock to an apparition of Jesus or Mary, we never hear of Muslims flocking to an apparition of Muhammad. In the Muslim world, it is rather the appearance of an Arabic inscription reading „Muhammad“ that draws the throngs. Ankimai (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternate proposal Why not have a montage (a la a whole bunch of ethnic people group pages, such as Lebanese Americans) that has a handful of depictions and says something in the caption like "Depictions of Muhammad vary widely across centuries and throughout societies"? This seems the most useful instead of choosing a canonical form of Muhammad. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. My mistake. I'm not sure how that changes anything. Are you trying to say that other articles on prophets generally don't include depictions at the top of the article? Why is this distinction relevant to the discussion? —SW— converse 16:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question 3: Where should the first figurative-art depiction of Muhammad occur?

Apart from the infobox, where in the article itself do you think the first use of a figurative depiction of Muhammad should occur (please choose one only) and state why?

(place answers under your chosen lettered subsection below)

a) Within the lead

b) Within the first section of the body, "Names and appellations in the Quran"

c) Within the second section of the body, "Sources for Muhammad's life"

d) Within the third section of the body: "Pre-Islamic Arabia"

e) Within the fourth section of the body: "Life" - as currently

f) In the "Depictions of Muhammad" section

Well, there is the traditional story about how Muhammad personally saved the icons of Jesus and Mary from the smashing of the idols at the Kaaba but I think I get you general point. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion of f)

I ask that the purpose of section f) be elucidated and made clear to all readers what they are voting on, which it currently is not, as evidenced by the current votes, and a clarification be sent to those users who have voted. Is it about segregating all images of Muhammad in to a section of their own? Or, what is it about? St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 02:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be nervous about changing wording during the course of an RfC, but maybe "(i.e. segregating the images)" could be added. FormerIP (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, Although any interested user could probably start a new option re segregation (choice f)(2)). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

g) Where an appropriate depiction illustrates an event in the text

h) Within the first screen (for typical displays)

i) Within the second screen

j) Within the third screen

k) Within the fourth screen

l) Lower down than the options given

m) Anywhere but the top

n) The article should contain no such image

o) This RFC should not be used to decide this matter

Alternate wording upon request: to clarify the above, we do not believe that all figurative depictions of Muhammad should be sequestered in to a specific section of the article. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 01:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support my nomination. Such micro-management of editorial decisions is surely censorship, even more than a Muhammad-exclusive POV-fork hat-note. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 01:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I strongly concur with User:JohnChrysostom. Any limitation on the use of images of Muhammad is plain censorship. WP:NOTCENSORED :) Brendon is here 07:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support It is important to recognise that the articles in which one or more depictions of Muhammad may make sense as illustrations will be re-organised over time. As such, it makes no sense to me to try to form consensus among editors upon which sections of these articles such illustrations should first appear in. zazpot (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Additional discussion of question 3

Agree with the point about calligraphy, but did you mean to type "L and N"? FormerIP (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did. Comment now amended. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why? Why does the second image have to be any specific thing? Again, this proposal is in the vein of "we have to prove wikipedia is not censored" and that is not a valid rationale. If it makes sense to have the second image calligraphy, then by all means use it. Don't base our rationale for using/not using an image on the premise that we have to prove to everybody that we won't be silenced by Muslims. That is a poor, intollerant rationale. Use what makes sense. Calligraphy in the lead makes sense both from an editorial/respect position... the second image is what the second image is... without dictates. To dictate that it HAS to be a specific type of image is guess what---censorship!---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Each image has to be a specific thing. Trust me, I've tried layout options using images of no specific thing and I just can't get it to work. I also tried seeing what an image would do if I just sat back and didn't dictate to it, but that was no use either. It turns out that any given image really does have to be of something and there does have to be some form of decision as to what that is going to be. FormerIP (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds like you have an editorial reasoning... to which I'm open to. If there is an editorial rational reason, I'm more than willing to support... and based on what you said, I think you might have one. I just don't want the reasoning to be to oppose censorship or something along those lines.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 17:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point really is that it is impossible to get talk page consensus about these questions, which is the point of the RfC. If RfC participants just keep saying "do whatever is best", that's not really very helpful - it's basically just pushing editors back into the ring for another bout. It's supposed to be a binding RfC so, while there's some sense to "do whatever is best", it's not really a very practical stance to take.
If you want a rationale, I 'd say that actually it is about showing that we are not censored. We do this not by any special anti-censorship gesture, but just by not being censored. In any other bio article, we have a picture of the subject (if one is available) right at the top. If we are not going to do that here (I'm not saying we should, and I haven't voted for that), then the question becomes by how much do we compromise? My answer would be: by as much as is necessary to achieve an objective and no more. It isn't necessary to do any more than keep the image out of the first screen. FormerIP (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"showing that we are not censored" IMO is about the worst argument one can make. Wikipedia IS censored---BLP, N, RS, UNDUE, etc are all forms of censorship. You can't add every rumor to ever public figure that comes along because we have editorial standards. THAT is what should be guiding this discussion. When we say we arent censored, that is in reference to the US Government/WMF/or some outside entity. We have plenty of rules that limit what we can/cannot say in articles and on talk pages. Editorially what is the best option/decision? If there is a legitimate reason to editorially dictate a certain image, I'm all ears. But to make a POINT or prove something? No, that is the same thing as censorship---when we HAVE to do something else the otherside wins or thinks something, then that is censorship. It's in a different direction, but it boils down to the same thing. I suspect that an editorial argument could be made here; but to prove that we are not censored is not a compelling reason to cement this stance in stone.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 18:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"If you want a rationale, I'd say that actually it is about showing that we are not censored." — I couldn't agree more. And Biography of Living people, Notability, Reliable Source, UNDUE WEIGHT, etc are not forms of censorship [censorship as in bowdlerizing an article by expurgating relevant information even though it is supported by reliable source(s)]. They are there for other reasons like enhancing the reliability and quality of information provided, but not "censorship" based on people's sensitivities. Many detest seeing the picture of XYZ, now go hide it. If we open this pandora's box, then no pictorial information will ever be secure. And any preferential treatment to Muhammad's image or any other Image of religious significance, will intrinsically reek of downright inequality.

Besides, Wikipedia is not an Islamic proselytising website. It is an encyclopaedia whose job is to relay/transmit information with as much impartiality and intactness as possible (if needed, with vivid and descriptive images) sans prejudicial censorship or distortion.

In an encyclopaedia sensitivity of the reader doesn't matter. What matters is verifiability. Wikipedia is not censored. :) Brendon is here 07:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: "If we open this pandora's box, then no pictorial information will ever be secure"; this is an example of the slippery slope fallacy. Either you trust that the editors of Wikipedia will, through consensus, make wise decisions or you don't. If you do, then the pictorial information in other articles will be secure no matter what we decide here. If you don't, then you logically should also not trust them to follow any decision we make here. Either way, logic dictates that we make the decision based upon what is best for the Mohammed page, not on assumed stupidity by future editors editing other articles.
Re: Telling the editors of the Mohammed page to "do whatever you think is is best", there is no agreed upon "best." Multiple people who are smart, editing in good faith, and who want what is best for Wikipedia have failed to come to an agreement, which is why we are having a binding RfC. Somebody is going to have to accept that the RfC went against them and stop pushing for what they still believe is the right content. Somebody else is going to have to be gracious in victory and not gloat. And a bunch of somebodies are going to have to accept that the RfC gave them part of what they wanted but not all. These decisions need to be made here and now, so we can settle this content dispute and move on. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ Macon. "If you do, then the pictorial information in other articles will be secure no matter what we decide here." Macon, you're likely not considering the probable ripples of the ultimate decision on this topic. The decision on this issue will may be cited in other discussions of similar kind. Please don't mistake my enthusiasm or ardency for hate-ridden aggression. (I don't hate Muslims or anything. But at the same time I'm fed up with the demands for special treatments and concession)

"Re: "If we open this pandora's box, then no pictorial information will ever be secure"; this is an example of the slippery slope fallacy."

I humbly differ with Guy macon. I was apprehensive that somebody will figure out a way to take issue with some minutiae of the phraseology I used. (Pardon my assertiveness above! It was meant to catch attention.)

Please forgive me for not clarifying. I was being rhetorical. What I meant was pretty simple. if we treat Muhammad's pictures any differently from others, then there will not be any concrete rationale for displaying any other picture which some may object to. Except for the reason that Islam deserves a special treatment. I am not the only one to think in those lines (Note:I'm not trying to commit argumentum ad numerum. I'm simply implying that my thinking is not so unique as it seems. I merely summed up what others have said in different places.). Along with numerous others who've cited WP:NOTCENSORED and/or wrote something like "illogical/unnecessary exception", User:JohnChrysostom wrote - "None of our other articles are WP:CENSORED: the most notable and recognizable depictions go first. We don't censor Swastika, Holocaust (or Holocaust denial), Cunnilingus, Fisting, or Fellatio. Wikipedia caters to no other point of view, religious or not. It is not Wikipedia's job to censor images (as per the WP:DISCLAIMER) or anything else, to reinforce any form of bias or superstition. What's next, remove pictures of the cross because Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons object, remove descriptions of sex acts as immoral?",

someone else above wrote, "what's next? This article contains medical images, if you want to hide them please click here? This articles depicts the Kashmir border according to the current political situation. If you want to see the border according to the official position of India, please click here?" and another editor wrote, "I propose that we remove all photographic images from Wikipedia, because Native Americans and Australian aboriginals believe that photographs steal your soul and disrespect the spiritual world." [albeit, people who I've quoted, may not share my exact opinion]

Also, There are people who don't like seeing pictures of naked men and women and consider them obscene. Should we go and hide them too? There are many who hate seeing pics of XYZ, Jesus, Rama or Disputed International Borders. Should we request removal of those pics too? We should not, because they are also part of the articles and transmit at least some kind of Information. "Either you trust that the editors of Wikipedia will, through consensus, make wise decisions or you don't." - I have not seen the future, so I don't trust anything right now (I'm a sceptic by nature or you may indeed call me a pessimist). I can only hope that the final decision will be just. :) Brendon is here 18:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question 4: Narrative Images

The article contains a section on the subject's life. The depictions used show events in Muhammad's life. In this section, where relevant, may Wikipedia use narrative art and/or figurative art images of the subject's life? (See generally, the current article and various mockups, and the images on Wikimedia Commons at [7])

(place answers under the chosen subsection below)

Yes (for the following reasons):

No (for the following reasons):

Additional discussion of question 4

It is very important that narrative images be properly described. If an image is veiled, replaced by a flame etc., is it an image of Muhammad, or does it represent the role or mark the position of Muhammad in a story? Some careful research might pay off here; find out what the original authors said about these things. There is no sense for Wikipedia to "take the rap" for displaying Muhammad images if the artists never intended them to be taken that way. Wnt (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question 5: Figurative-art depictions vs. calligraphy

Q: As well as containing figurative depictions of Muhammad, the article could contain images of the name "Muhammad" in Arabic calligraphy. Which do you think should be given greater prominence? You may wish to comment in terms of both quantity and placement. Please choose one option only.

(place answers under the chosen subsection below)

Depictions

Calligraphy

Oppose as per the last sentence of my comment in support of depictions. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 02:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About the same for each

Mu

Additional discussion of question 5

This question strikes me as pointless - and as with the others, too direct in mico-managing images in the article. I would prefer to see community support for some general statement like; "Depictions of Muhammad are considered offensive in some Islamic traditions. No direct restriction exists on the quantity and placement of such images (per NOTCENSORED) editors should use extra care when inserting depictions - for example by avoiding purely illustrative images" Or something. --Errant (chat!) 10:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, this is pointless. In some Muslim countries like Iran, depictions of Muhammad are common. The Persian Wikipedia uses several of them too. I see no purpose in deciding that calligraphic versus non-calligraphic images need to conform to some arbitrary ratio based on perceptions about what Muslims find acceptable. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In point of fact, I oppose this entire section. It's just too arbitrary, no matter which way the discussion is decided. I agree completely with Amatulic. Sleddog116 (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On that basis, though, shouldn't you be voting "depictions" rather than objecting to the question? Is it really micromanaging to say that depictions should not be outnumbered by placeholders knocked up in InDesign?
I think the best way to deal with IDHT is with HT!, rather than IDTC (I decline to comment).FormerIP (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question 6: Principle of least astonishment

In 2011, the Wikimedia Foundation passed a resolution regarding controversial content which said in part, "Wikimedia projects are not censored. Some kinds of content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature, may be offensive to some viewers; and some viewers may feel such content is disrespectful or inappropriate for themselves, their families or their students, while others may find it acceptable. "Controversial content" includes all of these categories. We recognize that we serve a global and diverse (in age, background and values) audience, and we support access to information for all," but also "We 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.". The resolution was based on the recommendations of the Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content, which included images of Muhammad as an example of controversial content. The Foundation urged continuing discussion and deployment of technological ways for the reader to hide various images.

The principle has been used as an argument both for figurative images, in that readers expect to see the best available representations of the subject of a biography, and against them in that readers know Islam discourages images of Muhammad and won't expect to see them here.

Q: How should the English Wikipedia community interpret the WMF's Principle of Least Astonishment, in regards to issues of images of Muhammad in the Muhammad article?

Discussion of question 6

Really?!?! If we depart from practice in the best and most reputable source, then we astonish the reader. That's completely pulled from space, made up on the spot. Nowhere else at Wikipedia is there any such mandate to ape "the best and most reputable source" — which would be, I note, a form of copyright violation. Moreover, WP:ASTONISH is nothing but an opinion essay, not a policy or guideline of English Wikpedia, and Wikimedia Foundation Resolutions have no governing effect here. So this is essentially a whole-cloth creation of an original argument to defend a non-existent policy... Carrite (talk)
Readers of the article don't expect Wikipedia to be taking such a strong deliberate stance to offend so many readers. I have no problems with images of (I keep having trouble spelling Mr M's name) his image, but it's too far across the line that Wikipedia in general is trying to be deliberately offensive if the images are on the front door article. Just how incredibly large does a petition need to be before we recognize our own demographics are excluding Wikipedias expansion ? It's simple, a large encyclopedia, or a smaller blog ?
We are a bunch of beachgoing teenagers in bikinis who are stumbling into church and not knowing what is the problem. Penyulap ☏ 15:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are not a bunch of bikini-clad teenagers in church. "They" are a bunch of conservative church-goers who've gone to the beach in a typical western country and been outraged that people are wearing bikinis instead of neck-to-knee costumes. We might tell visitors to our (generic western culture) country that we are fairly liberal about such things, but don't put signs up at every beach warning people that they might see a bit of skin. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question 7: Image use in sources

Some editors argue that most comparable sources such as encyclopedias and other (illustrated) academic works tend not to use figurative images of Muhammad, and that Wikipedia should follow this practice, since our goal is to reflect the consensus of mainstream scholarship, so emphasizing images may be giving undue weight to the depictions. Other editors argue that print sources are not as heavily illustrated as Wikipedia - some do contain depictions of Muhammad and some don't, but there is no clear pattern that Wikipedia can usefully follow. Further, other sources do not follow Wikipedia policies or format, may have commercial pressures limiting images, or may have been influenced by fear of giving offence, so their choices may not be determinative when choosing the array of images for Wikipedia's Muhammad article.



Q: In what ways, if any, should image use in the Wikipedia article attempt to reflect prevalent usage in reliable sources about Muhammad?

Discussion of question 7

This is incorrect. Due weight is determined by summarizing in writing, written reliable sources, and citing written reliable sources directly for the propositions asserted, according to our verifiability principals. But, there is no such thing as summarizing a picture, it either is or isn't (at least in common sense, in less than 1000 words, and even then not very effectively), and no reliable source has tried, so Wikipedia cannot. So, while NPOV would militate against irrelevant images that is not the case here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Old sources have included Mr M (you know I want to call him Dr.M., more a rapper sort of feel to it), some old sources include pics for the same reason editors here want to include them, simply because we can. If you can have a picture, of course you do. If it sucks, but you don't have a better one, you still go with it. The old writers are the same. In the end there are no accurate images, just OR. Anyhow, people will no doubt fail to see this clearly, as they are over-impressed with anything old. The best sources are people close to the subject, and as those rs's were not into images, and they are also the absolute rs's, it's fair to go with no images. Same as other 'straight to the point' scholars have done and avoid the 'tabloid magazine' mentality that uses pics to sell issues which a few scholars have used. Penyulap ☏ 16:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question 8: Number of figurative images

Q: How many figurative images of Muhammad would it be appropriate to use in the Muhammad article? You should both give a number and explain your reasoning.

(question should be rephrased to be clear, are we talking about pictures of Mr 'mo, or calligraphy ? one is deeply offensive to our new readers/editors, the other is just a fancy font which they don't care about afaik Penyulap ☏ 16:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC))Reply[reply]

"Figurative" = "not calligraphy etc". FormerIP (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. If you read the background up top, this RfC distinguishes figurative (images of the man) from calligraphy (images of his name). Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Numbers

Interesting, since figurative, narrative images, in general, existed long before Western culture existed, and exist in multiple non-western cultures. There is also, I gather a fundmental disagreement over whether narrative, figurative images can illuminate text, but that disagreement seems far outside a cultural construct and leans more toward a universal theory of education (where I take it either they do or they don't). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, short of settling on a universal theory of education — a task at least slightly beyond the scope of this discussion — I think you'll allow that we cannot assert that the use of figurative, narrative images is universally valued. Suppose, then, that we turn to the norms of the culture or ideology we are documenting. In Buddhism, the Buddha was represented figuratively as an ideal of male beauty, or else as an archetype of e.g. asceticism or contentment or some other concept. These images don't have any representational authority but they can tell us something about Buddhism if presented in context. In Islam, as I understand, the name "Muhammad" in calligraphy is symbolic, and I admit the same could be said of images that represent Muhammad as a flame, or as a human figure with a flaming halo. But the act of figuratively representing a prophet also, and more typically, constitutes a sin and a form of idolatry in most Islamic contexts. (This goes right up the nose of many typical Wikipedians, who find concepts like "sin" to be offensive, to the extent that we can't even write about it as a foreign or historical subject.)
So my concern is that, rather than improving the encyclopedia's coverage of Islamic topics through judicious use of images, we are scouring the fringes of Islamic tradition in order to find images that can be deployed to gratify our own idea of what images are supposed to be used for. When challenged, we get chesty about our liberty and rights. It's not the most elevating spectacle I've ever seen. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 19:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That argument would have more purchase, if we were discussing the illustrations for the Muhammad in Islam article, which is an article arguably intended for "documenting culture or ideology." The article under discussion is primarily meant to document the biography of a man, who it is believed by history, lived some 1400 years ago, and had very eventful life, we are told. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alan, we are using Islamic illustrations, and within the pool of Islamic representations available to us, we are going out of our way to make prominent use of fringe images rather than covering the bases of mainstream, culturally relevant imagery. That is something we don't do in other articles. --JN466 10:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, we are choosing the most suitable medieval and early modern images from the small pool of elite manuscript images available, and avoiding later images from the time of printed books. This is exactly what we do for Western medieval political figures as well, and what we should do. Fortunately there is a much wider choice for Muhammad than for most medieval kings - look at the articles. Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suitable according to what criterion? Presumably, as you stress the narrative nature of these images, you mean suitability for providing a pictorial narrative of Muhammad's life. And that is exactly the point where you graft a Western mindset on Muhammad, because, unlike Jesus, such pictorial life stories are not at all representative of how Muhammad has been received. If you don't trust me, trust Gruber. I know you have a high regard for her work. (Not that it matters much what you and I or Gruber think, in this overall Facebook-like avalanche of mostly uninformed opinion.) JN466 12:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the contrary, biographical accounts of Muhammad's life following normal historical principles, illustrated or not, are a very important and regular feature of medieval Islamic (and later) literature, in total contrast to Jesus, where medieval accounts of this type don't exist at all, and notoriously only a selection of incidents are normally described or pictured in the Middle Ages, not including most of the events recounted in the Gospels (see Life of Jesus). The case is exactly the opposite of what you say. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do you square that with the info from Christiane, below, which seems to say the exact opposite of what you say? JN466 23:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional discussion of question 8

The question erroneously assumes that there is a "magic number." The number of images is a function of article length, image size, and complexity of layout, which is variable. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's true and a fair critique. But perhaps if editors expanded a bit on "no quota" it could provide the closers with better information. "No quota" could mean "any number is acceptable, please carry on arguing about it until the subject of the article returns to give you a definitive answer". FormerIP (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There has to be an actual number, magic or not, for any particular version of the article. Indeed the article may change, but answers relating to the current (and actually rather stable) version were what were sought. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exept that it's not just contingent on the article itself but also on the availability, quality, variety, etc. of images. Let me offer a non-contentious example: given the images we currently have on Wikipedia and Commons, the appropriate number of images for Ypsilanti Heritage Festival is 2, and that is what we have on the article. If/when more images are found or created, the article as it currently stands could easily fit 4 or 5 images. It would be wrong to set a quota of 5 images for that article, because it might result in editors adding lower-relevance or lower-quality images (and by the time we have 5 suitable images, the article may well be quite different), and it would be wrong to set a quota of 2 images, because that would suggest that there is no need for more images of good quality. cmadler (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would it be wrong also if I were to draw your attention to this page and its subpages, and suggest that Ypsilanti Heritage Festival doesn't offer a good comparison? FormerIP (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly - to spell it out, we currently have some 70? figurative images of Muhammad in the Commons category, of which we use 6. These include many high quality images we are not using. Choice is not the problem, though space is a constraint. Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
what kind of images, the question is not clear, there is as far as I know, a huge difference in the kind of image. Penyulap ☏ 16:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thoughout this Rfc, "figurative" is used to mean images showing a human body, so is the opposite of calligraphy. Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question 9: Is an image quota useful?

Q: Should the number of images that people decide upon in the previous question be enforced, or should it be freely overridden by the normal consensus of editors during article development?

(place answers under the chosen subsection below)

There should be a set number of images for the article

I made the edit splitting 8 and 9 - note question 8 is meant to elicit some number; the responses opposing the existence of a quota really belong in question 9 (as do comments supporting sticking to a quota). Question 8 was originally written with the answers under several headings indicating various ranges of numbers; someone removed those later. Sorry for the confusion. Wnt (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The question needs to be rephrased to include or exclude calligraphy and such. It's a separate issue to the images of Mo'. Penyulap ☏ 16:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There should be no artificial quota on images

As always, rules should be dynamic to the needs of making the article encyclopedic. Peter Deer (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Saying they need to meet a higher standard is censorship. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have news for you, Wikipedia IS censored. BLP, N, RS, UNDUE, etc... those are all censorship guidelines. When the project says that it isn't censored, it means by the WMF/government/outside bodies. But we should have the highest standards for including materials.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 05:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, thanks for the news, however unresponsive it may be. I am not clear we actually disagree in practice (since it appears our !votes above are mostly in line), although I disagree with your formulation. As long as you are not arguing that these particular images have to meet a higher standard than any other of our thousands of images illustrating articles. Then but only then is it not censorship. Not censored actually does eliminate certain considerations. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The images themself? Nah, they still have to meet our normal criteria. But there needs to be a sound editorial reason for inclusion. On high profile articles (wether the president of the US, the Pope, or Mohamed) we have to have a higher threshold for inclusion. This is a general principle that is effectively in place throughout wikipedia. Many photos of President Obama would not be appropriate for his page---and we have to ensure that not every photo is added "just because". The same is true here. We don't want to wontonly add images, there needs to be a REASON for it and the REASON needs to go beyond "NOT CENSORED." When many people cite that mantra, they are really saying, "screw you." It is a poor rationale for inclusion of material, Not Censored should always be followed with "And here is why this image/position is better." If it isn't thne it is just a platatude and meaningless.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 14:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional discussion of question 9

Why do we need a quota?--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 07:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another answer is that Arbcom have, maybe, asked the community to come up with one in this Rfc. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images#Community_asked_to_decide_issue_of_Muhammad_images: "The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly...." Johnbod (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed they did, but the will of the community could be to look at the article in its current state and say "looks fine just as it is now" . IMO that is how this RfC is shaping up. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not arguing with that! Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alt Question 10: How should an image quota be treated?

The result of this RfC is intended to be binding for three years. During that time, should the result to question 8 be considered as:

(place answers under the chosen subsection below)

an absolutely binding quota for the images it covers

a quota which may be overridden in the case of overwhelming consensus

a rule-of-thumb guide from which there may be deviation if there is consensus and the extent of the deviation is not significant

Additional discussion of question 10

The question presupposes that there will be a quota. It should not even exist in this RFC until a consensus about a quota has been established. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think you might miss the point of the question. Several of the questions are in the alternative. If the particpants come up with a decent "number" reccomendation (although I agree there will and should be no quota) the editors can use that to solve part of the debate and won't have to debate it any further. Because Arbcom has asked that this article be "locked down," so to speak. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. The participants in question 8 are not going to come up with a number of images, nor should they. Questions 9 and 10 are moot. Dcoetzee 04:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General discussion

Why should we be considerate for their feelings just because they are the most vocal group about this type of censorship? Many other religious or cultural views prohibit or discourage things such as this, but are effectively ignored because there are less numbers or less vocals complainers. I doubt certain Christians are very happy about Christian mythology, evolution or creation myth, or that Holocaust deniers are happy about Holocaust, but their feelings toward the matter are not considered, nor should they be. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 11:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being considerate against other people's sincere feelings and believes also is an element of tolerance. The point is that we have to find a threshold, a line of demarcation. This can only be found in a deliberative approach, in a discussion. My point of view is that we live in one world, but this a platform of enlightenment, so it must be possible after all to show depictions of Mohammed at all, just as we do show depictions of Jesus Christ or indeed any other prophet or religious reader in an encyclopaedia. The current solution for the infobox as a prominent point if interest in an article seems to be a good idea. Everyone gives in a bit, no one prevails abolutely, and the character of an encyclopaedia is preserved.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to add that perhaps your point of view is mainly influenced by the rigid discussion that has taken place in th U.S. on matters of Christian fundamentalism lately. We don't have this problem in Germany, or indeed in Europe, as we are quite liberal in this country. Denying the Holocaust is a crime in this country, and we hardly have any religious fundamentalists in prominent places.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does seem crazy that people would get upset about this but are fine with articles on Fisting, Mammary intercourse, facials, cum shots: discussing and picturing every aspect of pornography is fine but a picture of a bloke is not. Span (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People accept that pornography articles are 'sinful' by nature. They do not believe that 'fisting' is their God's chosen prophet. There's really no comparison between religion and pornography (at least not one I'll risk making here!). Ocaasi t | c 12:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like FoxCE said, I don't think it is an issue specifically of comparing religion and pornography, it is an issue of how we respond to those who are offended by parts of them. Why should one group who is offended by something (a depiction of Muhammad) be allowed to have sway over how this Wikipedia is operated and not another group (when I say group it is rather loosely defined, but those who protest images of genitalia, naked bodies, etc)? You could make the religion argument: Muhammad is believed by Muslims to be God's chosen prophet and so his article should be treated with respect to that religions wishes, but you could easily bring up how offensive naked bodies and images of those engaged in sex acts are in religions as well. I see both as really being the same thing: offensive because of religious reasons, and as such if one isn't prohibited in the English Wikipedia, neither should the other. HMman (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Be fair, give them the same degree of consideration they accord to opposing philosophies. When they accept that the rest of the world has the right to think, act and publish differently to their beliefs, then the rest of the world can respect their choice to differ. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They want the pictures not to exist anywhere, and Wikipedia is just one part of that. It's hard to understand how we could effectively compromise with the attitude that knowledge must be destroyed - David Gerard (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, 80% of Wikipedia's readers are outside the US. The subcontinent has as many English speakers as the US and UK combined. North America, Europe and Australia have sizable English-speaking Muslim populations. Your implication that we are writing only for Western non-Muslims is wrong in a toxic and pernicious kind of way. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The entire Muhammad article looks entirely fine to me as is, and this whole argument seems like extraordinarily much ado about nothing, when more sensitive issues are largely overlooked. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images of Muhammad exist all over the internet. I am not at all clear how Wikipedia different from the rest of the web? Taking them down from here doesn't make them go away. Flickr and Wikicommons have many, Google images and Google books have any number. Maybe they don't like the idea of an internet and an international publishing industry, but there you are. Span (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Principle of neutrality, censorship vs. Muslim-appeasement

It gravely hurts me to even realise that I need to reiterate these utterly simple things.

When distinguishing between black and white seems hard enough, be cautious because it's likely that you are going blind.
Muhammad's pictures should not be treated any differently than any other picture. The argument is not about effectiveness or the contribution of the pictures but the principle behind wikipedia policy not-censored(as you read on, you'll likely find out that arguments based on the effectiveness of the pictures are actually immaterial to the present discussion).
  1. No amount of chicanery should be sufficient to obscure this distinction.
  2. As editors, we shouldn't waste too much of our time thinking whether an image is adequately contributing to the article (because usually they do and if one picture doesn't other editors are there to replace it with a better picture), all we should have to make sure is that the picture doesn't vitiate the quality of the article or in other words, the picture should be related to the topic (hence, an article pertaining to Muhammad should contain images of Muhammad).
  3. Legitimacy of Prohibition on depictions of Muhammad is questioned by Muslims themselves and is claimed to be not founded in Islamic law. Wikipedia need not lend credence to this demand which is itself unsettled/illegitimate within Islam.
  4. If one finds even the otherwise decent depictions of Muhammad to be unavoidably offensive, it is possible to configure the browser to not display them. That way, the undisturbed or unconcerned readers get to keep their freedom of accessing information and any sensitive reader who finds it disturbing will also be able to keep his/her sentiments intact without affecting others. (click here for further discussion about this)
  5. And we should spend even lesser time figuring out whether the provided information is going to hurt somebody's sentiments.
  6. People must learn how to adapt to sanity and the reality (i.e. information supported by reliable sources) as opposed to making whimsical demands. The reality shouldn't need to adapt to the wishes and sentiments of people.
  7. Also, pictures do sometimes say a thousand words.
  8. It's about providing editors with the freedom to explicate or enhance or even adorn an article by images they deem fit.
  9. To say that, “it's not adequately contributing to the article” is not a credible rationale, it's an evasion, an excuse, an inane equivocation at best. "Adequate" is a relative term.
  10. 'It's either generically allowed or generically prohibited. There should be no special treatment for any religion (be it Islam or anything else).' We also serve audiences who are not muslims. But this is not a perfect place for discussion about a GENERIC change in Wikipedia interface.
  11. Like I've been reiterating everywhere, Wikipedia is not an Islamic proselytizing website nor is it affiliated with any particular Islamic organization (as far as I know). Wikipedia doesn't admit of expurgation of reliable information (pictorial or otherwise).
  12. There should not be a ban from the policy-makers or ArbComm on this issue as it will intrinsically undermine the principle of neutral and equal treatment of relevant information regardless of what creed they are related to.
:) Brendon is here 14:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC) [last edited by Brendon is here 15:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)]Reply[reply]
Thank you, Brendon. Your sermonette has helped me understand how the motivating concern for many participants in this discussion comes from the need to nurture a sense of embattled collective identity. As you plant your "No pandering to Islam" flag on the soil of Wikipedia, your real quarrel is with WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 18:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Four different-sized fonts, italics, bold script, and a multicoloured signature are no substitute for a good argument. Additionally, you’re operating on a false pretext if you believe that all editors who are against the inclusion of images of Muhammad, or are seeking as a minimum to provide a respectful hatnote, are Muslims. Finally, the fact that others don’t share your opinion doesn’t make them blind panderers, nor does it imply that they haven’t understood you. There is no need to reiterate. Some of us simply don’t agree with you. An RfC is an instrument for ALL editors to voice their views. Thanks for yours. Veritycheck (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"Your sermonette has helped me understand how the motivating concern for many participants in this discussion comes from the need to nurture a sense of embattled collective identity." — Firstly, I am only speaking on MY behalf. I don't represent anybody other than myself.

However, I'm sorry because I don't find a place where I've claimed,

  • "that all editors who are against the inclusion of images of Muhammad, or are seeking as a minimum to provide a respectful hatnote, are Muslims." or
  • "that others [who] don’t share [my] opinion [are] blind panderers" (all I said was "NO special treatment for any religion. No pandering to Islam.") or
  • "four different-sized fonts, italics, bold script, and a multicoloured signature [are indeed] substitute for a good argument.".

Why don't editors, for the time being, just concentrate on what I've written, as opposed to how I've written them? I say this because I don't see how any attack on my personality or style of writing, is going to be very conducive for anybody here. Anyways, if my eye-catching writing-style or my signature has offended anybody then I present my sincere apologies.

By the way, "respectful hatnote" isn't really respectful to the principle of "equal treatment to everybody irrespective of class, colour or creed". Hence, it's not so altruistic as you are trying to make it seem. Special treatment or concession to any group of people is not "respectful" since that so-called "respectful" act necessitates unequal treatment of pertinent information based on religion, as well as needless restrictions on editorial freedom.

See, I'm not looking for friction here.

In the end I'd like to politely request you not to mistake my enthusiasm or ardency for hate-ridden aggression. (I am sure you're familiar with WP:AGF)+(I don't hate Muslims or anything. But at the same time I'm fed up with the demands for special treatments and concession)

User:JohnChrysostom wrote something interesting above - "None of our other articles are WP:CENSORED: the most notable and recognizable depictions go first. We don't censor Swastika, Holocaust (or Holocaust denial), Cunnilingus, Fisting, or Fellatio. Wikipedia caters to no other point of view, religious or not. It is not Wikipedia's job to censor images (as per the WP:DISCLAIMER) or anything else, to reinforce any form of bias or superstition. What's next, remove pictures of the cross because Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons object, remove descriptions of sex acts as immoral?"

@ Macon

"Neither group wants fewer images or a hatnote explaining how to not view the images. They want the images to not exist, anywhere." —I totally concur with this. :) Brendon is here 19:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From the WP:Content Disclaimer:
  1. Articles may contain audio, visual, or written representations of people or events which may be protected by some cultures.
  2. Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, human anatomy, or sexual acts.
It doesn't get any clearer than that. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 13:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC) [last edited by :) Brendon is here 07:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC) used ((quotation))]Reply[reply]
"May" not "must". No compulsion here. Policy doesn't tell us what we have to do here. Neither do mullahs. Or bigoted ratbags. We decide, in a civil discussion among ourselves. The fundamental question is, to what degree should we take account of the feelings of our millions of Muslim readers on this article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Policy doesn't tell us what we have to do here. Neither do mullahs. Or bigoted ratbags."
-No. Policies do give us a clearer idea of what the boundaries are or in other words, what we can or cannot do. Please don't obfuscate this simple issue.

"The fundamental question is..." - You're mildly incorrect again.
To be precise, the question is "to what degree those conflicted, unfounded, gratuitous demands predicated upon sensitivities of readers that are fueled by nothing more than religious tenets, matter with comparison to principle of equality for all, no prejudicial censorship, validity and relevance of Information, that too in an encyclopaedia?"

Proposals for bowdlerizing, otherwise sober and pertinent, information depriving all other readers (majority of whom don't even share the same kind of sensitivity) of the opportunity to smoothly access moderate images just because some few Muslims claim to be emotionally offended(Note:few because most Muslims are moderate and, with good reason, don't expect everybody else to cater to their views), is as appalling as it is disruptive on its face. :) Brendon is here 11:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New proposal

I'm sensing an ironic tone, in which case you might want to strike your response to 3f, which appears to support only using images of M at the bottom of the article. FormerIP (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quite right. I've amended my comments above. Thanks. —SW— chatter 04:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perfect example of why an "image switch-off option" hatnote of any kind must either be implemented wiki-wide or not at all. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 16:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you kidding us, SW? The Taliban, being faithful Muslims, would obviously need to be accommodated first, ahead of your native and aboriginal infidels. And since all music is an offense to them, that would clearly mean the destruction of all sound files from wikipedia, out of sensitivity to their beliefs. Remember, SW, "neutrality" isn't just a word anymore. It's the way we work. You insensitive brute. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amen Reverend Good Father. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 01:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Music is also offensive in Saudi Arabia, at least in public. Neotarf (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not true, at least in the case of indigenous Australians. Some variations of their spirituality forbid the depictions of people who have died. If you're going to be sarcastic and unhelpful then at least get your facts straight.Euchrid (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Striking out my own comment as equally unhelpful, and excusing myself for the rest of the debate.Euchrid (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although that also just covers people of indigenous Australian and Torres Straight Islander origin. Seeing images of dead Australian immigrants is fine. PuppyOnTheRadio talk 07:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main issue here is that in most cases the offence (umbrage) is taken rather than given. I take offence to a lot of things. I take offence to some group of people's surreptitious efforts to undermine my freedom of expression. I even take offence to the incessant and gratuitous claims of offence. So what? I don't want pages removed from wikipedia just because it hurts my sentiments. This is all about Islamic hyper-sensitivity, isn't it? Instead of making ourselves sensitized to every second thing the others do or want, should we not be willing to think rationally?

Frankly speaking, if it were not for Islamic mumbo-jumbo, there wouldn't have been any discussion regarding sober depictions of dead people. The credibility of unfounded claims of umbrage should not be put to a referendum. So what if somebody is upset? What can we do? Nothing.

The apathy towards people's sensitivity is absolutely fundamental to the existence of any encyclopaedia. People must learn how to adapt themselves to claims verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not an Islamic proselytising website and so the existence of depictions of Muhammad shouldn't offend anyone. Wikipedia clearly states its policies. So, it shouldn't be a shock either. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favouring their removal.

The onus of validating the demands doesn't fall on us, those who are offended should first justify their claims as to why it is so terribly offensive. FYI, “Because Quran/Muhammad said so” is not a credible rationale. I repeat, wikipedia, as a website, doesn't necessarily give credence to the tenets of Islam. Thank you. :) Brendon is here 12:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"This is all about Islamic hyper-sensitivity, isn't it?" No, it isn't. What it is about is that an encyclopedia should convey knowledge rather than perpetuate ignorance. So if we are using Islamic images, we should show the typical ones, the ones that have widespread cultural significance. Figurative images of Muhammad do not generally speaking have that widespread cultural significance. They are exceptions. Many people don't know that, and don't care. But it's not the job of an encyclopedia to enable people to remain ignorant, or to present a minority viewpoint as though it were the mainstream viewpoint. --JN466 10:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JN466, while I concur with some of what you have written, I don't see any necessity to notify me that "an encyclopedia should convey knowledge rather than perpetuate ignorance." because I've myself cogently asserted that in various parts of this page. "Figurative images of Muhammad do not generally speaking have that widespread cultural significance. They are exceptions." — this statement is not really relevant since we don't modify or restrict information based on cultural significance. Besides, if we had to count cultural significance of every bit of information we publish here on wikipedia, we won't have had any wikipedia. Thus, I think I'll have to just repeat myself and write, "The main issue here is that in most cases the offence (umbrage) is taken rather than given. [Since offence, in this case, is in the eye of the beholder] I take offence to a lot of things. I take offence to [..] the incessant and gratuitous claims of offence. So what? I don't want pages removed from wikipedia just because it hurts my sentiments. This is all about Islamic hyper-sensitivity, isn't it?" (I'm now even more convinced that it is.) :) Brendon is here 19:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WBrendon111, please don't use overly large bolded text in discussions. It's quite distracting, and gives others the impression that you think your opinions are more important than theirs. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@willey
"It's quite distracting" - I would say "eye-catching" (that was the purpose, I admit).
"gives others the impression that you think your opinions are more important than theirs." - That's your opinion. It was meant to seem more important than the other parts of my own comment. Please assume good faith and don't make it seem something which it is not. I personally thought they were pretty important, yes, but not more important than most other comments. I'm sorry if it had offended you in anyway. ;) Brendon is here 10:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No offense at all. It's really not a big deal to me, and I hope my comment didn't make it seem that way. In my mind using large bold letters falls somewhere along the lines of WP:SHOUT, which again, isn't a big deal, but can be annoying to some. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I must tell you that sometimes shouting is indeed an impolite thing to do.(hopefully, I won't shout from now on) But then there are times when shouting is absolutely necessary or a good thing to do, albeit that must be done without hurting anyone's ears :) Brendon is here 12:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another new proposal

Alternate proposal

Don't worry about "quotas". Just confine all the Muhammad images to this sub-article and take them out of the main article. Then strict believers in the no-images can read that article without fear of violating their beliefs, and if they take the "see also" to this "Images" article then they've done it by choice and they can't gripe that it's being thrown in their faces. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. I don't think censoring the article by moving all images to confine them elsewhere (like a contagion?) is in accord with the policies on image relevance and not censored. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(I think?) he's being sarcastic. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 11:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not being sarcastic. Whose interests are we serving, our own or the readers? And moving them elsewhere is not "censorship". Removing them altogether? That's censorship. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are removing them altogether from an article in which they are relevant. And why? Because there is religious objection? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec) The problem with this, and all such suggestions is that they misunderstand the objection, which is not simply an objection to images of Muhammed in the Wikipedia article, "Muhammed", but the the existence anywhere of any depiction of Muhammed. Muslims have protested against the inclusion of Muhammed in a freize of historic "law-givers" at the US Supreme Court, and against the display of historical depications of Muhammed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (which pulled all such works from display in 2010). What is sought is not the removal from one article, but the outright removal of all such images from Wikipedia (and, I am sure, Commons also). cmadler (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am opposing this for the same reasons that have been mentioned throughout the whole discussion (without bludgeoning WP:CENSOR). As someone expertly pointed out earlier, we can apply the same principle here that we've applied to the sex-related articles (as far as interpreting "least astonishment" is concerned): in the article about Masturbation, a reasonable person can expect to see images. Similarly, a reasonable person (Muslim or not) can expect to see images (or at least artistic depictions) of Muhammed in an article about Muhammed (and I believe many - if not a majority of - Muslims who participate in the project would agree with me). And I should say that the "problem Muslims" (I don't want to stereotype because not all - in fact, relatively few - Muslims are the cause of the problem) haven't exactly shown good faith towards Wikipedia - to clarify, if you look at the homepage of MuslimWiki, the main page has, in a very prominent place, "Why Use MuslimWiki and Not Wikipedia". I'll assume good faith all day long (and I haven't actually watched the video yet - I'm at work on a computer with no sound), but that, to me, doesn't really speak much to their willingness to be tolerant in the project. The fact that several of them have come in like angry mastodons (Not asking but expecting, Shouting in all caps) only reinforces that. The other problem I have is that we wouldn't do this for any other article I can think of - In fact, I doubt we'd even be discussing it for any other article. It's time to stop walking on eggshells and apply the same standards to this article as we'd apply to anything else on the project. Sleddog116 (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've said it before but I'll repeat it here - do you know how silly it sounds for you to tell people that you can't respect their opinion because they type in all capital letters, especially when you're asking people to respect our article on Muhammad despite our use of images. The only thing those posters are doing wrong is expecting us to censor our article for them, and that is true of a whole lot of posters from a whole lot of viewpoints on a whole lot of issues. Wnt (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Addition to my previous comments): And for the record, while we're talking about trying not to "offend people" - I am grievously offended by the fact that it has even come to this. Does no one remember what happened with Scientology? Sleddog116 (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mmmm. Have you read any of the above? All that's being called for here is respect; not censorship but discretion and discernment. No one's making us do this. I don't advocate the sparing use of depictions of Muhammad because I'm afraid of Al Kaida or ranting fools who type in caps on Talk:Muhammad. I want to show respect (not deference, respect - Tarc seems to think they're the same thing) to the millions of moderate Muslims who will come to this page, by not gratuitously adding more Muhammad images than we need. I'm not talking about images in the section Muhammad#Islamic depictions of Muhammad, where they exemplify the topic, but in earlier sections, where they are artists' impressions of mythical and historical events. How do you justify their inclusion when they add nothing to the readers' understanding of the text they illustrate? You and others seem to be arguing "Fuck you" to all Muslims because some extremist fools behave badly. Get over yourself and learn some manners. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"All that's being called for here is respect; not censorship but discretion and discernment." Did you see me disagree with that? I even said "without bludgeoning WP:CENSOR". "I want to show respect (not deference, respect - Tarc seems to think they're the same thing) to the millions of moderate Muslims who will come to this page, by not gratuitously adding more Muhammad images than we need." Again, I agree - I didn't say we should add more images necessarily - I said we should treat images on Muhammed the same way we treat anything else on WP: consensus. "How do you justify their inclusion when they add nothing to the readers' understanding of the text they illustrate?" I don't - but deciding whether they do add to understanding is something that should be seriously discussed and subject to the same consensus processes as anything else, not by some arbitrary decision. "You and others seem to be arguing "Fuck you" to all Muslims because some extremist fools behave badly. Get over yourself and learn some manners." I will not dignify such a personal attack with a response except to recommend that it be stricken. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC) *I struck the first sentence in this quote because, while I disagree, this can't be called a personal attack. The part left, however, is - address edits, not editors. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Addition: Perhaps you missed this, too: "I don't want to stereotype because not all - in fact, relatively few - Muslims are the cause of the problem". Please point out to me, if I need to "learn some manners," where I said anything rude here? Sleddog116 (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look, it comes down to how we want to treat offensive images. Depictions of Muhammad are offensive to many of our readers. Just as naked genitalia are to some. We don't shrink from illustrating Vagina, Human penis or Depictions of Muhammad with accurate images of the topic. The same for Muhammad#Islamic depictions of Muhammad. What we don't do is illustrate Human skin with pictures of vaginas and penises. We could, but we don't because the same educational value can be achieved by using an inoffensive option. We choose to exercise discretion. I'm just asking that we do the same for offensive religious imagery. "Treat this article the same as we treat other articles" has been code during this debate for "Ignore the offensive nature of these images. Nobody complains about pictures of Jesus at Jesus, so we should use images here like we do at Jesus." That's what I read you as saying. If you in fact mean we should deal with these offensive images in the same way we deal with images of vaginas, then good. Consider yourself well-mannered and over yourself. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure how useful it is to suggest that pictures of Muhammad should be grouped with pictures of vaginas as opposed to pictures of Jesus. I don't think even Saudi clerics would go that far. FormerIP (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh? Try to imagine that someone, not you but a moderate Muslim, may feel the same degree of offense in response to a figurative depiction of Muhammad as a moderate Christian would feel in response to a picture of a vagina. Imagine that for a bit. That's what's required here. An understanding of the meaning of offense, and a willingness to believe that others may feel it in response to a stimulus that doesn't offend you or your culture. It's a stretch. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"If you in fact mean we should deal with these offensive images in the same way we deal with images of vaginas, then good." That's basically what I meant, but in very broad terms. In point of fact, both of your comparisons (the one about Jesus) are wrong. My point is that we should decide each image on Muhammed the same way we'd decide images on Jesus or Vagina: by bold edits, discussion, and consensus. What I'm saying is that you're drawing parallels where none exist: a lot of people are saying "we can't remove images from Muhammed for the same reason we can't remove them from vagina" and "we should keep the images at Muhammed because we keep them at Jesus" - Both viewpoints, in my humble opinion, are wrong. The reason we should keep the images at Muhammed is because the community has decided to keep them, not because we've imposed some arbitrary decision on the article. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Bold edits, discussion and consensus" wasn't working so the arbitration committee has instructed the wider community to decide on a consensus version and lock it down for three (I think) years. This RfC is the community deciding what to keep, which seems to be what you're advocating. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, the RfC is in place so this issue cannot be dredged up again...and again and again...this is the "for once and for all" time. Tarc (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well... a few years, anyway. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, now I'm confused. Are we going to start adding images of vaginas to the Muhammed article? PuppyOnTheRadio talk
I'm not sure. Maybe it's Muhammads to the vagina article. FormerIP (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back to the original point of this alternative proposal, because there is a wikilinked article on depictions of Muhammad, it could be argued that there isn't even a need for Muhammad portraits throughout the main article. I don't feel they add that much to the article and removing them certainly wouldn't negatively impact the content of the article. It's not censorship as much as it is appropriate placement and it certainly makes moot the discussion of the silly hatnote idea. Grika Ⓣ 21:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That position is difficult to understand. Are you saying images of his life are not relevant to his biography (but they're relevant in another article not about his life), so we aren't censoring? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Alan. The first two images of Muhammed (the narrative images) are directly relevant to the segments of the article they illustrate (the black stone and the receiving of the Koran from Gabriel). No, perhaps we don't need to illustrate these events, but if that's the case, what's the point of providing narrative illustrations for any of Wikipedia's articles? Sleddog116 (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point is that there are images that pertain to his life that do not necessarily include a representation of his likeness, and the article would be less enriching without them (this is actually my biggest objection to the hatnote idea, because the "button" is indiscriminate when it is simply actual depictions of Muhammad that are contentious). And by having an article that is all about his likeness, repete with representative images, then the censorship point is moot as Wikipedia is still making them available for anyone that wants to further research the topic. That, in fact, is the purpose of having "main article" links atop sections. Grika Ⓣ 02:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are not "enriching" because there is religious precept against them? Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm talking about the non-portraiture images; the article would be less enriching without any graphics. But again, the article is not substantially improved by the portraiture images. Grika Ⓣ 17:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alan, you're just about right. That's the basic issue here. It has always been so. Muslims and Muslim-sympathizers (no offence please) will always come with some more sophistry for these gratuitous demands. and Grika, non-portraiture images don't add substantially more than the portraits either. Why this bias then? I'm just going to quote alan and write, "the ancient people who used these images (portraits) to illustrate biographies of the prophet found them educational. So, the idea that they "add nothing" is refuted by the material itself."

Regarding hatnotes, I'll say, it would be (at least) mildly disruptive over controversial articles and bring undue weight to the controversial side of the topic. Which adds nothing positive to the article either.  :) Brendon is here 10:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Including images of marginal value in an article knowing that their presence prevents people with one point of view from contributing to that article is a form of censorship, and a particularly invidious one. In this case, including the images insures that this article's content will mainly come from secular editors and I think that diminishes the value of Wikipedia to its readers.--agr (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Five Pillars

How ironic, if not karmic, that this RfC begins with the Mission item: "Five Pillars"! I urge any editor who is unaware that the original Five Pillars are the foundation of Islam itself, to read said article. At the least, you will be enlightened and at best not remain ignorant of the significance of this Jungian “coincidence”. Veritycheck (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many of us are fully aware of the coincidence; most of us out of that many, I suspect, deem the coincidence totally and utterly irrelevant, like most purported "Jungian coincidences" alleged to occur. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I very much doubt it's a coincidence, but it's still irrelevant. (Though can you imagine the size of Wikimania if.....) Wnt (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I doubt it was a coincidence and I was elated to see it at first (I was still a Muslim when I began to edit here in 2007), and then it irked me, and now I've learned to live with it. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 05:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone read Farsi or Turkish?

I've just found that File:Muhammad 13.jpg, a depiction of Muhammad as an infant (vaguely similar to Madonna and Child paintings in Christianity), is in use in the Muhammad Wikipedia article in two different languages whose speakers are mostly Muslims: fa:محمد and tr:Muhammed bin Abdullah. If you can read either of these languages, it would be helpful if you'd check the article histories and see how their editors have dealt with this type of controversy. Note that ar:محمد does not have any images of him. Nyttend (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's long been noted that the Farsi articles has 6 figurative images of Muhammad, same as the English (the man on the Kaaba is not Muhammad). There doesn't seem to be any controversy there, which I think Farsi-speakers have confirmed in the past. The remarkably short Turkish article only has one (veiled) image. Most other largely-Muslim-speaker languages don't have any, but the very short Kurdish article has 4/5 of its images of Muhammad - ku:Mihemed Pêxembe, 2 veiled, 2 not (inc the same Western one we have). Apparently the majority of Kurds are Sunni, of the very mainsteam Shafi'i, with quite a bit of Sufism. Probably they can't read Anthonyhcole's comments. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a man who studied to become a faqih of the Shafi'i madhhab (as an Egyptian, not a Kurd; Egypt is unusual in having some of every school, Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali, without one being extremely dominant: note that I never completed my training, as I left Islam first [although one may suppose that I was ejected for idiocy]) I would state that the official position of the school, as far is there is one (that being in the opinion of Imam ash-Shafi'i and his commentators Nawawi, Suyuti and Juwayni, not to mention Ibn Kathir or Tabari) is that all depictions of all living creatures are impermissible (haram), although we were not as strict about it as Hanbalis (or the ahadith). I believe a few scholars hold them to be extremely disliked but not mortally sinful (makruh). I believe this can be confirmed in al-Misri's Umdat as-Salik, published in English translation by Noah Keller as Reliance of the Traveler, which is a short compendium of the usul of the usul al-fiqh of Shafi'i jurisprudence. I note with sinful and off-topic pride that all collectors of the sahih ahadith were Shafi'i, as was al-Ghazali who set the path of Islam unto the present day. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 06:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And, about the languages: I can't read Farsi or Turkish, but I can read Arabic (although I'm long rusty and it's not a native tongue). What about the Arabic Wikipedia? St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 06:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No figurative images - nor in Urdu. Whether they have any in other articles I don't know. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the other hand, the breadth of the use of these images in many languages (in wikipedia) is, perhaps, instructive. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't read Turkish or Farsi, but I do a mean Google translate. Turkish Wikipedians seem to have spent most of their energies arguing about what Muhammad's name is. There doesn't seem to be any discussion about how they should use images. There is discussion about the "stop the blasphemy" petition against en.wp, with some being for it and some against (on the basis that what en.wp does is en.wp's business).FormerIP (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On fa.wp, there is some discussion of images from 2007/8. The consensus view seems to be that the images are culturally and historically important and should stay. FormerIP (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm a native Persian speaker and I was formerly active on Persian Wikipedia under another username. I checked the history of the article in fa.wp, (and as I rememeber) there was no discussion on this topic on fa.wp. Nevertheless there was an edit war on this topic between a Bahai and a Muslim user for some days. Baha'is do not use depictions of Baha'u'llah or the Bab as this is considered disrespectful. Currently Mohammad's article on fa.wp which contains images of the prophet of Islam is a featured article. Please also read the comment of JN466 below.Farhikht (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm pretty sure there is discussion, Karhikht. See here. It's possible I may be mistaken about the contents, though, so it would be great if you could have a look. FormerIP (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just reread the archive of the article. There was a discussion between Muslim and Baha'i users on those famous pictures. As I said there is the same prohibition in the Bahai faith, and in fact a Baha'i user says that they must take away the photos of both articles (of Mahoemt and Bahaullah). That's why he started an edit war. In short, and finally, three Shiite Muslims have said in the last discussion that they have no problem with the photos, and they believe that we can find these kinds of pictures in every Iranian families, and it is kind of Islamic art then we can keep them.Farhikht (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Difference between present-day Shias and Sunnis

Just to repeat points made earlier: Iran (Persia, where Farsi is spoken) is a Shia country very open to images of Muhammad. They can be purchased in the street, as postcards, and they're not unheard of in neighbouring countries like Turkey either, which has a Shia minority. But matters are very different in the majority Sunni world -- countries like Morocco, Algeria, Tunesia, Egypt, Saudi-Arabia, or Pakistan. There, Muhammad images are practically unknown.

And it should be remembered that book miniatures, even in their day, were a courtly rather than popular tradition. This is quite different from images of Jesus, which have always been public church art that became part of the public consciousness. Mosques have never contained images of Muhammad. There is a good one-page summary here. --JN466 13:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is covered in the background above. If we're going into it, it should also be pointed out that historically Sunnis in Persia, Turkey and elsewhere produced images, including some of those we use in the article. Our "Ottoman" images are from the workshop of the Sunni Caliph, and it is misleading to imply Turkish images are explained by the Shia minority (mostly in the east of the country). According to Arnold, in the Middle Ages the Shia clergy were more strongly against them than the Sunni. Illustrated manuscript biographies would of course always be very expensive indeed, but single Mi'raj images spread well beyond the court to manuscripts produced for the better off classes, and when printing finally arrived images began to be printed pretty quickly, obviously much more cheaply and reaching wider audiences. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't say depictions of Jesus have "always been public church art". My own denomination has a tradition of not using them in the sanctuary (graven images, maybe) also portraying the empty cross rather than the crucifixion, although images in a Bible, depicting life of Christ etc. are not a problem. I also seem to remember a tradition in film-making that Jesus was not to be depicted, at least not the face. Didn't "The Robe" break some ground there by showing His sleeve from the back? Neotarf (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Calligraphy is very important today, but it wasn't always that way. This is borne out by searching for historical depictions of Muhammad as a man, versus historical calligraphy. Calligraphy is also overdone, especially for en-wp, as I've pointed out above, because it is merely repeating the title of the article in a different script (not even a different language, they're pronounced the same way, except English speakers tend to pronounce the Latinate "u" like "ah"). In my decent breadth of experience, I've never seen really unique Sunni Muhammad calligraphy like the Ismailis have either. The closest one comes are the geometric patterns that have Muhammad's name, the Shahadah, etc. in them all together. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 01:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but I have to wonder how much of this "consideration" argument is really fear.Thelmadatter (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't speak for everyone who has voted, but as for myself - there is a fear of insulting people needlessly, but as for fear of what this will do to me as an individual or Wikipedia as a whole, to be completely frank, the thought never even crossed my mind. And even that fear of needlessly insulting could be classed as a mark of respect. In editing elsewhere, I have supported the use of Muhammed images where appropriate, and I would argue against removing them from this article, but I will support people having an option to hide the images if that's what they wish. As far as I can see nobody has suggested removing the images from the wiki (definite article, hence referring to Wikipedia), or from Creative Commons as a whole. If it was a fear motivator, wouldn't that be what was requested? PuppyOnTheRadio talk
Or "passing the buck". Muslims don't care that they see Muhammad images. They care that they exist, and that anyone sees them at all. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 02:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that's the case; I think many accept that they exist, and have for a long time, and aren't especially concerned about museum-type images, but feel a spasm of distaste when they are personally exposed to them. That's why I think it's a great pity the blanking options seem to be clear losers here, & the infobox hangs in the balance. The arbcom case and this Rfc were launched by people who wanted to reduce the use of figurative images & it has backfired badly on them. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with JN466 on the point that Iranians are very open to depiction of Muhammad.Farhikht (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. --JN466 09:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was always clear to me that it was likely to do that, the moment arbcom said this would go to an RfC. Personally, I wanted neither the arbcom case nor this RfC, which is to a substantial degree just drive-by opinion from editors who think of limericks when they hear the expression "light verse". --JN466 09:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be fair comment had editors with better breeding been able to come up with a constructive solution to the dispute. FormerIP (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I recall that you were instrumental in preventing that. --JN466 20:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. We were at an agreed version (that looked pretty much like the present version), largely brokered by User:Resolute, until FormerIP turned up rejecting that very hard-won consensus and insisting the proposal be put by way of an RfC. [10] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To the comment: "Muslims don't care that they see Muhammad images. They care that they exist, and that anyone sees them at all."
This is a dramatic oversimplification. No doubt there are people who oppose the mere existence of such images, but they are fringe minority in the online world.
The complaint under actual consideration is more subtle-- people who get embarrassed or upset by viewing images they didn't expect to see (often while viewing in public places). Right now, we know people have such negative experiences while viewing WP, but currently we offer no solution to this narrow need. That's the focus. Here, among us, "Delete all images of Muhammad" is something of a strawman. --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you need to spend some time researching the Talk:Muhammad archives, where the overwhelming tone of the demands from WP:SPAs and IPs that invariably geolocate to the Middle East is indeed "remove all", not a request for a "shield thine eyes" coding solution. Anyways, the consensus in question 6 is by my rough count running at about 5 to 1 against the notion that it would ever be astonishing to see a depiction of Muhammad in an article on Muhammad. Tarc (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know the extremists are the most vocal-- but I don't think they're representative of their populations or of wikipedians in the muslim world . --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I pull my non-existent qualifications out again, and state that Shafi'is (which are not extremists) are opposed to the existence of such pictures (more, they are opposed to the creation of them, as several ahadith state "Whoever draws a picture of a living thing, he shall be sent to the hellfire"...."Whoever hangs a picture of a living thing in his house, or owns a dog, angels will not enter" - it's not about images of Muhammad, but about all images of living things, although, this is invariably amplified when it comes to Muhammad, who is highly venerated). I believe Hanafis have the same view, Hanbalis and Salafis are what you think of when you say "extremist" (bi la kaifa, unquestioning adherence to the sahih ahadith), and I don't know about Malikis. As has been pointed out, I assume correctly, Shi'i have no issue with it. Those who are offended by their existence on Wikipedia don't want an option to not see them (as once they've seen them, the damage is done, at the very least), they want them eradicated. I will reiterate above comments that "Wikipedia should be a vehicle for enlightenment", as it was for me. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 03:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, I am not Muslim. Personally, I think for some Muslims who visit wikipedia, the contents of the article Muhammad (including Criticism of Muhammad for ex) is more offensive than these kinds of pictures. If some of us think that we must go in this discourse then I think we should add a warning at the top of the page saying that the content of this article may be disturbing for some people. To me wikipedia is an encyclopedia like any other encyclopedia. There are lots of other online encylopedie containing articles on the life of Muhammed, including Iranica. I understand that we must respect Muslims, and at the same time I believe that a Muslim who visits wikipedia knows that he visits an encyclopedia, a real encyclopedia. He knows that Wikipedia's article on Judaisme may be offensif for jews, the article on homosexuality is offensif for all religions etc. He knows that Wikipedia, like any other encyclopedia, explains the sides fairly and without bias. So for me, to not censoring wikipedia is a sign of respect, a sign of trust in people.Farhikht (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Muhammad is the image of perfection of man: what he did is with Allah's approval and guidance, and is the prototype for all behavior, perfectly representing fitrah" is a pretty standard part of a semi-creedal Muslim statement. I'm sure the same are opposed to criticism even having been thought of, but it's less of a rallying-cry, and, honestly, would this have ever gone as far as it did if the proposition was, "remove everything unflattering about the Prophet, sall'Allahu alayhi wa Salam, from Wikipedia"? St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 03:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some further comments from Christiane

I've exchanged e-mails with Christiane Gruber again, the acknowledged academic expert on Muhammad images, who vetted the above background information for us. I'll reproduce the salient parts below, for those who may be interested (my questions are in italics, her answers in normal font – bold emphases are all mine):

> A number of authors, like Omid Safi, state that the book miniature tradition was essentially a private, courtly tradition for ruling elites, and that this imagery was not generally accessible to the common people. In other words, they say it was never public art, the way Christian iconography became a part of the public consciousness.

Omid is correct in his assertion. Images of Muhammad by far and large are to be found within illustrated manuscripts. These kinds of handwritten texts with images were luxury items-- typically of royal or sub-royal (elite/vizieral) patronage. These were essentially uniquely produced items accessible only to a restricted audience in the highest echelons of a cultured social/political group. Images of Muhammad never formed part of a public iconographic program, as in the case of Christian art, where tempera-painted icons, canvas paintings, stained glass windows, figural textiles, etc. put the prime on the image over the text (for a largely illiterate pre-modern public audience). In Islamic traditions, public art was largely architectural-- centered around mosques and tombs-- and comprised of decorative programs that were calligraphic, vegetal, and geometric. This is one of the key problems with publicly discussing images of Muhammad in Islam: they never comprised a public art, they were never to be seen beyond a small group of viewers. This said, there are some exceptions to this general rule: I have found a number of instances in which images of Muhammad were used in public settings. Such images include large-scale paintings used in public storytelling, and of course during and after the 19th century, there are plenty of printed images as well. Which leads us to the next issue:

> I understand from one of your books that this changed to some extent in 19th-century Iran, when mi'raj books began to be printed in large numbers. However, my understanding is that this was a local (and Shia) phenomenon, and that illustrated mi'raj books never became similarly popular in Sunni countries like Indonesia, Malyasia, Pakistan, Tunesia, Morocco or Saudi-Arabia. Is that correct?

Illustrated printed books were a distinct phenomenon in Qajar (19th century) Iran, and these texts and images certainly forwarded a Shii worldview. It is extremely rare to find modern images of Muhammad in Arab-Sunni countries, such as the ones you've listed. However, in Syria and Pakistan, posters were produced, representing Muhammad's calligraphic name, his genealogical tree, his relics, and Buraq. On these posters, see Centlivres-Demont, "Imageries Populaires en Islam." I've attached three sample posters herewith. You'll notice that there are no figural images of Muhammad in these materials; they are either abstract (Muhammad as a calligraphic rose on Buraq) or else metaphorical and/or synecdochal. So there are images produced in Sunni spheres; however, these are very rare and, when they exist, they tend to use the non-figural mode of visual expression.

> More generally put, how far did figurative images of Muhammad ever penetrate the public Islamic consciousness in various parts of the Islamic world, given that they were generally absent from mosques and Quran editions?

They've not really penetrated public Islamic consciousness, given the fact that: 1) images of Muhammad were overwhelmingly restricted to a small elite audience; 2) Islamic public art has always tended towards the abstract (calligraphic, vegetal, geometric); and 3) speaking of figural images today, after the Danish cartoon controversy, makes the endeavor even more challenging in the face of divisive politics and recalcitrant public opinion.

> I myself have suggested that we should use figurative images sparingly in the article on Muhammad itself, ideally only in the Depictions section, but the Wikipedia community is generally quite gung-ho and anti-censorship about such things. I am okay with that too ... although I wince sometimes at the insensitivity on display.

I agree with you; visuals should be used only sparingly and only after having been properly vetted. I've noticed that it's not unusual for the image to be improperly identified, its attendant text incorrectly identified, the dates all off, and so on. So I would veer on the Spartan side in the entries that don't tackle depictions. As for the depictions entry: the visuals' captions should be carefully checked. Also, a anti-censorship stance need not be bombastic; it can be nuanced and respectful, nicht wahr?

--JN466 20:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With all due respect, if Associate Professor Gruber would like to participate in the RfC, she is welcome to create a Wikipedia account and comment herself. And even so, her comments would be her own, just as with other Wikipedia editors. I'm confident we have other informed Wikipedians already participating in this RfC, too, so I would be uncomfortable giving one off-wiki academic any more of a voice in this discussion than any other, even if I agree with her views. Have you invited her, though? --Elonka 20:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's the harm, unless the emails were meant as a private communication; it's just fact-checking secondary sources, not presenting original research. Neotarf (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed welcome to participate...this topic is covered in "Question 7: Image use in sources" above...but her voice will be on par with that of everyone else. Tarc (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Jayen, but why not put out all the e-mails in full, and is the bolding, in the original or did you add that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant to add that, thanks. Emphases are mine. I will let her know of course that she can jump right in if she wants to, but I think she knows that, and I for one wouldn't particularly advise it. She is a source here (three of her works are cited in the depictions section of the article) and not an editor. Note that I initiated the contact, not vice versa. I mailed Omid Safi for advice a while back (as I mentioned during arbitration), and he suggested I write to her as the most knowledgeable academic on this particular subtopic. JN466 00:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most people commenting here have taken very little interest in these sorts of issues - which in a way is a good thing, as we know from the talk page how bogged down such questions become. I'm not sure it really matters anyway, except for the infobox. Exactly the same could be said of all the Western miniatures from chronicles and histories that our medieval biographies rightly use in great quantity where we have them. We never normally apply that sort of test to images in fact. What is the case is that images of Muhammad feature prominently in accounts and displays of Islamic art history, but less so than 30-40 years ago, when the Mi'raj image we all like used to be on display in London, with I think another Muhammad image, in a fairly small display of Islamic miniatures. Now they aren't, and the Metropolitan in NY I believe now has a policy of not displaying its Muhammad images. As with commercial publishers, you can be pretty sure this change is due to (choose your option) displaying cultural sensitivity/concern for security/censorship, and it is very clear from this page how our community feel about applying that to Wikipedia. I have throughout tried to explain and emphasize the difference between the nature and usefulness of narrative images used as such, and small details from them used as a "portrait" in the infobox, but this has been equally ignored. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand the differentiation between narrative and portrait images. But again there is a difference between Christianity and Islam here in that these narrative motifs were public art and commonly known to everyone in Christianity (as well as featured in elite manuscripts) while they played no such role in Islam. That's simply a difference. --JN466 00:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may do, but most commenting here seem not to. I referred to "chronicles and histories" and "medieval biographies". Unlike Jesus or the Buddha, Muhammad was a highly significant medieval political figure, and while comparisons to articles on and images of the other religious leaders have very often been made in these discussions, comparisons with those of other medieval political leaders (whose images were typically not public art either) are just as relevant but are ignored. In medieval China you had to be a very high-ranking civil servant to be allowed to see (once a year) the gallery with the imperial ancestor portraits, virtually the only portraits existing of the Imperial dynasty - a far tighter restriction than ever applied to Persian miniatures. Yet where we have them we naturally use such images. Johnbod (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We use such images because we presume they are actual paintings of the rulers' faces, don't we? This is not the same situation as here at all. If there were thousands of other, more iconic images of these ancestors, images that are widely distributed and generally known, and which have the same informational content (or the same lack of misleading content), we would use these culturally significant images first. --JN466 10:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No we don't! We have as little idea of the actual apppearance of most Early Medieval rulers (saints etc even less) as of Muhammad's. Just as in Muhammad's case, later medieval artists used conventional features they thought appropriate. It is exactly the same. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've proposed the same on another project yesterday were quotes from this e-mail have been posted too. As long it is not clear and documented that this e-mail is in fact meant for publishing on Wikipedia talk, it should be quickly deleted or revision deleted, --Rosenkohl (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christiane is aware I have posted this material in Wikipedia, and she has the link to this page and section. In addition, I cc'ed Elonka on our most recent communication. JN466 00:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, but that you may have informed Gruber in another e-mail where her e-mail has been quoted on Wikipedia talk does not necessarily mean that she agrees with it. I don't know what the term "to cc someone on something" means. Thus I don't understand how Elonka being "cc'ed" results in Gruber to agree on quoting from her e-mail here, --Rosenkohl (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since Gruber still has not clearly confirmed here that she agrees in having the E-Mail posted, I have now commented out the e-mail for the time being, --Rosenkohl (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely bizarre. Christiane has seen this posting and says she prefers to contribute like this, in a consultative role, rather than becoming an editor herself. What exactly is the problem? JN466 01:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attempt to introduce a Muslim perspective

There are two things that strike me about the debate over Muhammad images. One is that Muslim Wikipedians have tended to steer well clear. They undoubtedly have their reasons, but its a problem because it allows all sorts of claims to be made on their behalf. The second is that some editors who are against images seem to take this position on the basis that they are representing the interests of Muslims who, it is supposed, are dealt serious injury by the presence of images in the article. I find this extremely patronising. It's literally beyond infantilization, because Wikipedia doesn't take an special measures around content considered unsuitable for children.

In an attempt to redress the balance, I have Googled to see if mainstream Muslim media commentators have said anything that might shed some light upon what Muslims might think about this issue. This is just for general background reading.

FormerIP (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm someone who definitely fits the bill of "some editors who are against images seem to take this position on the basis that they are representing the interests of Muslims who, it is supposed, are dealt serious injury by the presence of images in the article." So let me complicate this.
Most Muslims in most nations are going to be fine with actually seeing the images-- American muslims, for example, "get" the concept of NOTCENSORED as much as non-muslim Americans. So, the majority of the Muslim world isn't going to be directly upset by unexpectedly seeing images here. This is reflected in the fact that you can find many many Muslims defending, essentially, NOTCENSORED as a value.
So, when you imagine people getting upset over unexpectedly seeing images of Muhammad, don't imagine it occurring in Turkey or Egypt. You have imagine it happening in "small town Afghanistan" among a population for whom the internet provides the first direct experiences with the global culture.
Wikipedia is a global institution that will play a big role in First Contact between wired- and not-yet-wired populations.
When I've talked about grave trauma that could result from this page, I don't mean that literally the image will permanent traumatize readers. Rather, I worry that the apparent lack of respect we show them will be a contributing factor to a sense of being "oppressed".
I don't expect a reader to be "scarred for life" by including images. What I'm afraid of is that we contribute to a pre-existing belief that "the global community doesn't care about the feelings of the Muslim world". That belief exists, it's widely held in many places, and it's very dangerous. That belief leads,in rare cases, to violence.
So, it's not that we are the one single thing that will cause permanent harm. Rather, we are like a butterfly flapping its wings, knowing that what we do can affect the the formation of tornadoes.
Just because the stakes are high doesn't mean we abandon our values. But, for a Wikipedia decision, the stakes are almost terrifyingly high. This isn't a debate about a spoiler alert on a battlestar galactica episode summary, this is a "real world" decision with "real world" effects, some of which could include death.
When it comes to living people, we recognize that 'rigid, cold logic' must be tempered with a real-world considerations of compassion. Provided we remain true to our core values, this would be a very good place to also turn to the "better angels of our nature", just as we do with BLP. It's not 'just another' RFC, it's very important that we get this page right. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was a point of view expressed by Ludwigs2 during many months of discussion of this topic, but he found very little agreement with others on the matter. We really need to be cautious here, as insinuating that the Wikipedia would be liable for external effects "some of which could include death" is going to sour the conversation here very quickly. Please reconsider your words going forward. We're having a robust and healthy discussion above regarding temperance vs. openness, and both "sides", if you will, must be prepared to accept an outcome of this RfC that they may fundamentally disagree with. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much in here that bears repeating. My hope was to offer people a glimpse into why this issue is 'such a big deal', one that keeps coming up endlessly. Your hope, which I share, is that we won't actually get so swept up in the emotion that we abandon all our values and our rationality. The RFC is a legitimate venue to decide this question, and nobody should think about abandoning the consensus that emerges from it. --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seconded. But I worry that the close may be too fudgy. A lot of editors seem to me to be basically saying "we should just put the images in the best places for them". Which sounds reasonable, but if it gets translated in some aspect into a compromise-consensus, it will be a bit like telling two children arguing over a toy that the one who deserves it most should have it. FormerIP (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal that all arguments based solely on WP:NOTCENSORED should be ignored

Semi-facetious, but there's a serious point here. A large number of the commenters here seem to be misunderstanding what 'NOTCENSORED' means. As Davidjamesbeck puts it above: Censorship is something that is externally imposed, with the implication that is it done against the will or interests of the affected parties, whereas here the discussion is within the community, seeking consensus about steps we can take to address concerns expressed by members of that community. If the US government or the Wikimedia Foundation or Jimbo Wales or ArbCom handed down a decree ruling that 'No figurative depictions of Muhammad may be included!', then yes, that would be censorship. But the discussion among the community of whether and to what extent particular images should be used is not. If we as a community decide not to use certain images on certain articles, that's not censorship, it's simply editorial judgment. (As Balloonman put it above, in this way it can be said that Wikipedia IS censored - by its own editors.) This RFC is an attempt to make that judgment. As such, arguments based solely on NOTCENSORED are circular - they're begging the question, simply saying 'we shouldn't exclude these images because we shouldn't exclude these images!'. To be sure, there is a plausible argument to be made that the informative and illustrative value of the images outweighs their potential offence, and they should be included for that reason. But I wish people would actually make that argument, rather than resorting to emotive scaremongering about the phantom menace of 'censorship'.Robofish (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think this makes sense, Robofish. If censorship can only be due to external forces, that would seem to imply that the community itself is incapable of censorship. But that surely can't be taken seriously as an idea. If it is, what's the purpose of having a policy about it in the first place? What the policy means is that our editorial judgement must take into account (and is, in fact confined by - it's a policy) the principle that we do not censor.
Of course, there may be some valid debate as to what does and doesn't constitute censorship. But, in that context, editors are certainly entitled to cite the policy in support of their position. FormerIP (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is in colloquial English the long-established concept of "self-censorship"; I think that most folks invoking NOTCENSORED are advocating that self-censorship is no less harmful than any other kind, if not in fact more invidious because it implies consent (as opposed to coercion and intimidation). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Robofish, I kind of wish you hadn't put this here... it misses the point on NOT CENSORED and the problems therein. I also fear that you are going to get a lot of knee jerk reactions which will cause your point to be lost. I was actually thinking about making a proposal about the NOT CENSORED !votes, because they are pretty much meaningless and contradictory. This RfC isn't about CENSORSHIP, although that does play a role in it. It is about what is best for this article and the project. Consideration of the points of view and perspectives of the Islamic community IS a valid editorial decision---it has to be. Good writing requires that the authors consider who is going to read the article and why. Good writing requires consideration of all the facts and requires that editorial decisions be made. Those who spout "NOT CENSORED" are not cosidering different perspectives as having any value and are actually engaging in a form of censorship!

The problem with citing "NOT CENSORED" is that it provides a rationale not to omit controversial material, but it DOES NOT provide a rationale for inclusion of said material. Basically, those who cite it are not considering what is best for the various articles in question, but want impose their view on others. They want to include material not because it is necessarily the best or most appropriate, but rather to "prove" something. They take the stance, that if we use anything other than the most controversial image or the one being questioned, then the article is somehow lessened and that we've given in on our principles---but that is not the purpose of NOT CENSORED. NOT CENSORED is not intended to force Wikipedians to do anything, it is intended to ensure that Wikipedians are free to do what is best for the article and the project.

Unfortunately, a lot of people are chanting the mantra, in an effort to force a specific position---without giving a rationale as to why that position makes more sense from an editorial perspective. By doing so, these same people who are declaring that we have to use a specific image "per not censored" are engaged in censorship. They are telling the community and the project that we have to use a specific image to prove that we are not censored, without giving a valid rationale as to why that image/stance is actually better. It is entirely possible that the less controversial image may in fact be better image, so while the discussion might orginate from the call for censorship, the call might actually lead to improving the article. Blind adherence to "NOT CENSORED", however, precludes that possibility.

OK Wikipedia is not censored, I fully support that. We don't exclude images/materials because some outside source says we can't. But by not being censored, it does not mean that we default to the controversial images. It means that we freely make the best selection possible using the a well rounded approach which takes into consideration ALL perspectives---including Not censored, POLA, reader sensibilities, educational value, etc. It means evaluating the educational and content value in the same way that BLP, N, RS, UNDUE require us---each of which is a form of censorship. Those principles require us to make intelligent decisions based upon what is best for Wikipedia and the project. That is what we should be guaging here---what makes the most sense editorially for this article.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 16:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I read some of that ;). I think you're right that the issue of what our "default" should be is central to all this. We might, in the first instance, assume it to be something like what we would normally do in a biographical article on a significant religious/historical figure (noting that Mohammed is fairly unique in the extent to which he crosses these two categories - but that doesn't mean we can't make comparisons to other articles). Most such articles are well-illustrated with depictions featuring the subject, relative to the overall size of an article and the number of relevant illustrations available. It seems hard to understand how a radical shift from this norm can be considered anything other than censorship, and I think its down to those who propose such a shift to explain how.
Compared to articles such as Jesus, Averroes, Alexander the Great or Saladin (among other comparable examples that could be used), what is it that makes the Muhammad article such a unique case, if not the fact that some people would rather we didn't put pictures of the subject in there? FormerIP (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now, that is a valid editorial decision/argument. It is worth debating. But the calls for "NOT CENSOR" when the goal is simply to discount/discard another position, that is censorship. Holding to a position simply to spite a person/group who opposes the position, is not any more a valid stance than forcing a position to be changed because a person/group wants it. NOT CENSORED is being abused.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 18:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see that that's the case. If we assume that our default is that the article be like comparable articles, then arguments that it should have fewer depictions of the subject certainly look like censorship, and so it is perfectly reasonable (not necessarily right or wrong, but reasonable) to describe them that way. Of course, it is also perfectly reasonable for those accused of censorship to argue back. "You must allow censorship or else you are oppressing me"? All I can say is that this isn't consistent with our current policy. FormerIP (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, that is an assumption and a discussion worth having. Another argument could be made that the depictions of Jesus/Washington/etc are the ones that most commonly depict the figure. Consider this. We know that Jesus was almost undoubtably not a white man of European Descent... but the images of him are generally not of him as an African or even Middle Eastern descent. We use images of Jesus that depict common conventions and motifs. Images which people recognize as being Jesus because of the iconography that surrounds him. This doesn't exists to the same degree with Mohamed. With Mohamed there isn't the same degree of proper conventions towards the depiction of Mohamed as there are with Jesus---in fact, by using an image, you actually go contrary to the more common portrayals. Those who cite "NOT CENSORED" disregard that fact, currenlty by saying "NOT CENSORED" people are merely saying, "I don't want to hear the other position, we can't make that consideration." Think of it tihs way, the use of an image for Mohamed is parallel to the use of a black man to depict Jesus in the lead. Such images exist and are probably more historically accurate, but they are less common and recognized. If somebody tried to make that change, would we be crying "NO CENSORSHIP?" The argument to change to calligraphy, thus could be seen as defaulting to the most common depiction---which ALSO happens to be the most respectful of Muslim views and the most educational of the western reader. But the people whose sole argument that Wikipedia is "not censored" fail to address the issue from an editorial position, but a dogmatic one which is no better than the religious fanatatic who wants to purge the article of offensive images.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 20:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose: NOTCENSORED is not a word. It is a policy, which reads, inter alia:

However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content.
Wikipedia will not remove content because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations.

So, !votes that make no sense within the policy (and don't make a credible case regarding that) can arguably be ignored (upon the closers responsibility), but votes that go along with the policy cannot. Not censored (the policy) actually does eliminate certain considerations. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is one of the most misused and abused policies. When it is used to silence a minority or a position, without regards to the merits, then it is censorship.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 18:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In your opinion misused, others do not appear to share that point of view. I also reject the claim that people citing censorship are doing to just to spite those who may be offended. I had hoped that this RfC would be a way to move the community forward on this thorny subject, not reopen past arguments. Tarc (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Balloonman, I sort of get what you're saying. But it's a bit of a funny position. Objecting to censorship is itself censorship of the proposed censorship (?). FormerIP (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the extent to the argument is "NOT CENSORED" then yes. Not censored is a valid argument if somebody's sole rationale is to remove material ia "I'm offended or that is a secret of the Masonic Lodge and we shouldn't share their secrets." But if there is a rationale argument which supports a specific view, then you have to address that editorial distinction. To simply cry "NOT CENSORSHIP" in an effort to silence or rebut a rationale stance, is nothing more than censorship. It then becomes a violation of the policy to which people appeal to! It also becomes contrary to the best interests of Wikipedia and the project. Too many people are giving knee jerk reactions without contemplating what/why the changes are being proposed. I want to hear valid editorial reasons for the stance. It goes back to our discussion above where you wanted to ensure that if calligraphy is in the info box, then a figurative image has to be the next image. When I asked for a rationale, your argument was "to prove we aren't censored." That is not a valid rationale for cementing this into place. (I suspect that a rationale argument can be made---but when the crux of an argument is "prove we aren't censored" that becomes a dogmatic stance not an editorial one.) Give an editorial reason and address the opposition---not simply discard valid rationale because you don't like it or you feel threatened by it. That is what the appeal to NOT CENSORED is, a discarding of another perspective without presenting a valid rebuttal.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 20:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NOT CENSORED can be read in a multitude of ways. Assuming good faith, a yes/no vote + only a reference to a policy should be interpreted as a yes/no vote with the argument being the spirit of the mentioned policy. Thus I interpret NOT CENSORED votes as a claim that the definition of objectionable content is inherently personal, and can not accounted in when choosing what to include in a article. To decide what is objectionable content is is to define who the reader is and what feelings he should about the subject. To do so, would be neither verifiable or neutral. Belorn (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any decent well-troden editor will tell that in some areas you can't move on Wikipedia for children squealing "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED!!" like spoilt little brats with toy axes to grind. They have no sense of value (the inner human quality), weight (naturally the most abused policy of all), or degree (which should be the main prerequisite for contributing to this godless place). For heaven's sake get rid of it. Where else even asks the question? It's inclusive insanity, and one of the main reasons I can't edit here any more - this mindnumbing piece of so-called 'policy'. You'll never convince people that WP isn't just a deliberately-divisive information cattle market with nonsense like this sitting around like rubber frying pans to picked up by any ne're-do-well wearing pizza boxes for shoes. If you have something to say about Wikipedia's usage, spell it out properly and succinctly - not via rolls of endlessly-abusable policy sections quotable always as 'WP:THISPROVESIAMRIGHT'.

WP:HEY KIDS? SOCIETY EQUALS REGULATION! And it also equals welfare and taxation. It always has in some form and to some degree, and it always will. It's why it's called 'society', or "the scary place outside" as some of you probably know of it. Without those crucial elements there is nothing but chaos, rape, theft and death. If you don't like it, go into the woods and fend for yourselves and we'll see you around supper time for your milk and cookies.

If Wikipedia refuses to be part of society it should be shut down immediately. It's far too unregulated and powerful as it is. It's a giant tool for human abuse (I put hidden but self-aware anti-Islamic/religious sentiment here at about 50%) - whether it can theoretically be 'over-censored' is the very last of people's worries for crying out loud. This isn't some kind of post-apocalyptic utopia for god's sake. It's not 'Man's Last Chance' to get it right. I sometimes wonder if people here believe they are gracing some kind of Super Special Society that is vastly superior to the world lying beneath it. You don't and you aren't. Most of the time Wikipedia isn't even any good, even by its own decidedly mean standards. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Graphic content? The wikipedias in Persian and Arabic have MORE images of Muhammad than the English one does. The opinion on images in Islam is also not universal by any standard: it is limited to a specific set of Sunnis. I'd like to add that I'm a Muslima at this point just to underline the issue. Ogress smash! 01:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A visit to Muhammad محمد at the Arabic Wiki does not show more images of the prophet than the English site. There is, in fact, only one; he is veiled. Fallacious statements do not help here or anywhere.Veritycheck (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think he may have meant to say Kurdish, rather than Arabic. The Kurdish page doesn't actually have more M images than the English one but, given that it is shorter, it is much less conservative. It also has images above the fold. FormerIP (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Used as an exception, hatnotes are useful and effective. The NOT CENSORED policy does not address exceptions, nor does it address WP:IAR. Used en-masse over other controversial articles, hatnotes would be disruptive and likely bring undue weight onto the controversial nature of the topics, and in that light NOT CENSORED would bring valued note of warnings. Thus, objections with WP:NOTCENSORED for introducing hatnotes should be view as a cautioning warning: We would not like to see hatnotes used commonly when there is content that a portion of the readers find objectionable. Belorn (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I rather wish now the two hatnote questions were the last two, then people would grapple with the substantive material first. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, if we had to it over again, we'd probably choose a different order for the questions. I think we did a pretty good job on wording though! I'm glad that we had the process that we did, with different viewpoints represented, as the RfC seems to have come out pretty well drafted as a result. --Elonka 15:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's pretty clear that users are equating "removal of images" with "removal of content". Neotarf (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I notice that the article on Latter Day Saint movement does not contain a single picture of a temple garment. That must be obvious censorship so let's stuff the article with pictures of underwear. // Liftarn (talk)

Like I've been reiterating for many days, labeling an Image as "sacrilegious material" or "offensive material" is NOT a sufficient ground for removing or veiling any picture. WP:PROFA states,

Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. Wikipedia is not censored.

Editors should only make sure that those images are treated in a proper encyclopaedic manner.

Besides, Inclusion of depictions/portraits of Muhammad is not considered to be a vulgar or obscene or an uncivil act by wikipedia standards. Wikipedia serves a broader range of audience than just Muslims and many of whom don't consider depictions of Muhammad to be a vulgarity.

Hence, in this case, the offense is indeed in the eye of the beholder. Wikipedia editors do not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. If one doesn't want to see an image which may seem offensive to you because of something as religion, then you should check out the page Wikipedia:NOSEE.

You cannot ask for removal or bowdlerization of content just because it hurts your religious sentiments. :) Brendon is here 10:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The relevance of WP:NOTCENSORED depends on the question being discussed. Using "offensiveness" as perceived by a particular theological interpretation as a factor in selecting which images to include, WP:NOTCENSORED is relevant to the discussion. But if we're discussing the hatnote proposals informing individual readers how they themselves can avoid images, then invoking WP:NOTCENSORED is a big stretch. With regard to the hatnote, those who WP:NOTCENSORED are making very good arguments that aren't being convincingly rebutted. A movie theater analogy is helpful. If you're in a movie theater, censorship is a person barring another from viewing content. Editing out scenes the theater owner views objectionable is censorship. Sticking your hand in front of another patron's eyes against their will so they can't see the screen is censorship. But placing a hatnote as describing in 1a or 1b is akin to advising the person sitting next to you that they can cover their own eyes if they find a scene disturbing. That's not censorship. It does impose restrictions on another. Rather, it reminds another that they can choose what to consume. But while I don't think censorship is a good anti-hatnote argument, there are other anti-hatnote arguments. The hatnote (like advising some that they can cover their own eyes) arguably could be stigmatization. It's a really a disclaimer issue rather than a censorship issue. Is it right to highlight certain content as things that readers might find objectionable. I don't find the facile citation of WP:NOTCENSORED to be terribly convincing the in hatnote debate. A debate about whether a hatnote improperly imposes a disclaimer/stigma is much more relevant. --JamesAM (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many users - myself included - have cited WP:NOTCENSORED as a reason not to have hatnotes warning the reader that the article contains pictures of Muhammad and/or hatnotes instructing how not to see them. Many other users have said that WP:NOTCENSORED is not relevant because a warning is not censorship. In response to a post by Guy Macon, I elaborated (2012-03-27, 22:04 (UTC+8)) as to exactly why I thought NOTCENSORED was relevant, including invoking the "spirit" or intent of the policy, which, I admit, is harder to quantify than the letter. However, I wonder whether I (and others citing NOTCENSORED) should have placed more emphasis on WP:DISCLAIM. I still strongly believe that the spirit/intent of NOTCENSORED clearly implies that we need not and should not have such hatnotes, but WP:DISCLAIM codifies that spirit unambiguously, stating that we should not have per-article disclaimers, and explaining why not (including, but not limited to "Wikipedia is not censored"). As with all guidelines, and indeed with rules, DISCLAIM allows for exceptions, but personally I do not think an exception is justified for Muhammad. As I previously mentioned, I believe that the issue is not about censorship, it is about whether editors should decide what might offend some people. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
James AM statement cogently identifies the issues, including the weakness in the censorship claim with respect to the proposals. As the proposed hatnotes do not contain commentary or opinion, only facts and options they do not fall afoul of the anti-disclaimer guideline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The hatnote text does not contain opinion, but the existence of the hatnote is an opinion (that this article contains "offensive" material). As to "hatnotes ... do not fall afoul of the anti-disclaimer guideline", of course hatnotes "fall afoul" of WP:NODISCLAIMERS, which is unambiguous: "... additional disclaimers into an article ... the consensus is that they should not be used". Mitch Ames (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Hatnotes are used all over the pedia; as they do not disclaim (like these proposals do not disclaim), they do not run afoul of the disclaimer guideline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question is, is this kind of hatnote all over the pedia? Do we have any other main space page with a hatnote that specifies how to view the article without images? If we are to use this kind of hatnote, then we ought to use it consistently, and not single out this page as a special case.--New questions? 02:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alanscottwalker, please let us know why we're considering putting a hatnote (advising how not to view images of Muhammad) if it's not to avoid offending some people. The proposed hatnote might not mention "offence" (or variations thereof) but I've yet to see any other reason for its existence. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Immaterial, we need not assume, and we don't, why readers do what they do with information. They could have 1001 rational and irrational reasons or no reasons, at all. It's their life. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we're not making any assumptions about our readers, why are we even discussing putting a hatnote on this particular article at all? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm prepared to admit that I have used 'censorship' in my contributions on this page without being as specific as I should have been. I don't think I'm alone either. Upon reflection, I was thinking of a form of over-conscious self-censorship, not external censorship. However I think that WP:CENSOR is drafted broadly enough to encompass both of these forms of censorship. Whether or not I was being sufficiently clear about whether I meant external censorship, or a kind of over-active self-censorship, should not have a huge bearing on the validity of my comments. Of course we have many internal discussions about whether a piece of content is appropriate, or valid. The question is whether these questions are judged on purely encyclopedic criteria, or in accordance to some wider set of values. I argue that the criteria should be restricted to the former (plus legal issues that pose an existential challenge). I suspect that this distinction is in fact at the heart of the debate. Thom2002 (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I agree entire with Balloonman's eloquent arguments. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Censorship is not merely the "suppression of information" but also applies to any kind of indication of selectivity that can aid in the suppression of information―for example, by applying a rating to it, or saying "this page is more suited towards adults" at the top of the page. Having a hatnote on this page without having it on every other page is almost the same thing as applying a "rating" to the page, a distinction that could be seen as censorship in one sense.--New questions? 06:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it’s not. Censorship is suppression as per the Wikipedia article on censorship and the dictionary.com entry on the word censor. One cannot make people apply their views on what should to be done regarding to censorship to things that are not censorship simply be declaring the non-censorship to be “censorship”. You have to deal with the merits of the case. Logically analysis can’t be cut off by incorrectly declaring the hatnote to be censorship. One could still argue that a hatnote imposes a stigma that should not be permitted, but that’s different then going to a censorship analysis. Another issue is whether a hatnote on a Muhammad article would be an unprecedented situation. Turns out there’s an least one situation where more is done than the hatnote proposal. In the John F. Kennedy autopsy article, the most detailed photographic depiction of the head wound (and the only color photo) is not viewable in the default setting. A reader has to click on “show” to view the photo. In contrast, the hatnote proposal here would keep all images available in the default setting. Readers would have to take an affirmative action to hide the Muhammad images from their view. For those who believe that a blanket, end-of-discussion WP:NOTCENSORED situation applies to a Muhammad article hatnote, logical consistency requires one to take the view that the Kennedy photo should be shown without any caveats. The only way one who is aware of both situations can oppose the Muhammad hatnote proposal but support the more restrictive Kennedy photo practice is if one rejects a blanket view and favors a detail analysis regarding injuries, religious offense, etc. --JamesAM (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you saying that applying ratings to certain articles is not the same thing as censorship?--New questions? 20:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undue weight

Having a calligraphy of Muhammad instead of an unveiled image in the infobox is giving undue weight to the Islamic theories. The calligraphy is in no way descriptive of the prophet Muhammad, and as it is in Arabic it is incomprehensible to most English Wikipedia readers. Wikipedia must not conform with any religion, and using a calligraphy instead of an unveiled image will make us acheive nothing but being politically correct. Wiki-Taka (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See, I have much more respect for this argument than I do in simply saying "NOT CENSORED" ;-) It is a response that takes the issue seriously and can be discussed which is part of the core of Wikipedia.
But I disagree. Images of historical figures are governed by conventions and varioius iconographic merits. When artist/historians look at anceint art, and the subject is unknown, they will look at certain conventions in order to identify the subject. In the western world, we can do this with common subjects. Even if you don't believe in Christianity, you can often identify Jesus based upon the conventions governing the imagery surrounding him. Julius Ceasare has certain conventions in art related to him. This is true for all ages and places. Look at the art of India/China and there are conventions governing the anceint heroes and various deities. When presenting art on Wikipedia, we use the images that fill those standard depictions. When I look at a picture of Norse God, I may recognize it, but only if my understanding of conventions covering the way Norse Gods are depicted is sufficeint to do so.
In Islam, the same holds true. The difference is that the imagery associated with Mohamed is not figurative art of Mohamed directly, but rather calligraphic. That is how he is typically presented. The UNDUE weight would thus be the figurative art which is the less common form of depiction. It's not based upon the religious morales of Islam or Islamic theories---but a reality that calligraphic representation is the dominant manner in which he was presented. Using figurative art gives the impression that it is more common than it really is.
Consider using one of the images from this page as the lead for Jesus? Some of them work because they continue to carry the common conventions through... but others would not because they are not norm. They could still be used in the article, but not in the lead.
While we in the West are more familiar with "figurative art" to use that type of art to depict a person who is most often depicted in another manner would be the UNDUE weighting. It would be our imposing our bias upon a subset of artistic depictations because we want the image; not because the image is representative of the art.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 16:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1. What I was saying for weeks. And ArbCom did direct us to take NPOV (which includes UNDUE) into account. --JN466 23:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are there sources that that shows that calligraphic representation is in majority use outside books and texts (like paintings, movies, theater)? Belorn (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not convinced by that line of argument, though I support calligraphy in the infobox as the most appropriate single image, and as a matter of tact, and because none of the crops from the narrative images are helpful as portraits, a distinction that no one else seems much concerned about. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would argue the other way around: Most Muslims don't use images of Muhammed. They are created and used by a minority of Muslims. Overemphasizing them by including too many images or making them too prominent is casting undue weight on a minority opinion within the Muslim community. There are Christians who depict Jesus as a woman, but we would be doing our readers a disservice to include even one of those in our Jesus article, because that is not the standard portrayal, but a minority one, and we would be giving this minority portrayal too much weight. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, this article is not about Muslim Iconography, nor is it about Muhammad in Islam, those are different topics. This article about Muhammad's life. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it is about Mohamed, not his life.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 08:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, by focusing on his life. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Saying that it's not about Muslim iconography is no excuse for putting undue weight on a minority viewpoint from Muslim iconography. In my analogy, if you used an image of female Jesus to illustrate the Jesus article, you could equally well argue that the Jesus article isn't about Christian iconography. But even though it's not about Christian iconography, it's not supposed to mischaracterize Christian iconography in the process of giving us information about something else. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What makes you think much of it, in this article, is iconography? That characterization is unsourced and from what we do know untrue. It does happen to fall within the category Islamic Art that illustrates biography but not iconography. Moreover, nothing in the article represents any of it as iconography (Muslim or otherwise) in fact the opposite is true. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not about iconography, and neither is my objection, really, I just used that word in replying to you.
The idea that Muhammed may be depicted by images is a minority opinion among Muslims. By presenting a lot of Muhammed images created by Muslims, the article puts undue weight upon this minority opinion. The opinion doesn't have to be the subject of the article in order for its portrayal to be undue weight.
If the Jesus article showed five pictures of female Jesus (or even one, without labeling it as unusual), would you claim that that's okay because the article's not about iconography? Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The obvious difference there is that there are few, if any, extant historical examples of Jesus depicted as a woman, whereas there are many examples of Mohammed depicted as a man.
Also, I don't think that you can appeal to what the majority of 21st century Muslims feel is permitted as the basis for an NPOV argument, because the idea that we should style the article as a majority of Muslims would style it breaches NPOV in the first place. FormerIP (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are not many examples of Mohammed depicted. There are few. You're trying to count absolute numbers instead of considering proportionality.
And I can apply the same argument to female Jesus. "If we style the article as a majority of Christians would prefer, we are breaching NPOV." Your reasoning would completely negate undue weight, since any attempt to avoid undue weight could be argued as expressing a POV that favors the side given the most weight. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing in the article, or how the images are used misrepresents them, so the claim that they do is not based on NPOV, it is based on an interpretation of religious prohibition, not based in the article. The images in the Life section are not even noted, in the article as Islamic art, because that information is not pertinent to how they are actually used. They are also not represented as "common." The objection to them is therefore based on prejudice against them, by not even looking at them in context. Wikipedia does not discriminate based on the identity of the artist. It is not censored by religious prohibition. Every image is unique. Every image is correctly and pertinently identified. Every image is relevant. Wikipedia regularly uses such images in historic biography, in fact it is a point in their favor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History of images

Comment: There is supposed to be an early description of Mohammed of unknown accuracy; perhaps he had a space between his front teeth. If someone has a copy of the Maxime Rodinson biography to hand, I think he is the one who mentions it. Neotarf (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Referring to the Battle of Uhud, Maxime Rodinson: Muhammad. Prophet of Islam, 2002, page 181 writes: >>A stone split his lip and broke on of his teeth. Another smashed into the cheekpiece of his helmet. There was blood on his face. A Qurayshite dealt him a great blow which sent him reeling backwards into a hole. They hauled him to his feet but he was so badly shaken that he had to lean on two of his Companions. Someone cried out that he was dead, adding to the panic. At last, he and the little group about him reached safety on the slopes of Mount Uhud.<< Perhaps the scare on his left cheek on File:Muhammad 8.jpg is a picture of the supposed result of this injury --Rosenkohl (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Background #1 is wrong: >>In at least once instance, we are told how onlookers were brought to tears when gazing upon a "light" image of the Prophet. The anecdote describes how a number of the Prophet's companions visited the Byzantine emperor Heraclius (r. 610-41), who brought in a box, called "box of witnessing" (şandük al-shahâda). This box included a number of drawers or compartments containing pieces of silk with painted images of the prophets Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Muhammad. We are told that when the Prophet's portrait (şürat) was taken out, it was as luminous as the sun and better than any beautiful form<<, Christiane Gruber: Representations of the Prophet Muhammad in Islamic Painting, in Gülru Necipoğlu (ed.): Muqarnas, Brill, 2009, p. 252. So in fact, there are depictions known to exist from his lifetime. In addition, Depictions of Muhammad#Figurative visual depictions says that "recent scholarship has noted that, although surviving early examples are now uncommon, generally human figurative art was a continuous tradition in Islamic lands", so it is unlikely that there were no pictures of Muhammad in the centuries after his death, --Rosenkohl (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair point, but #1 is still correct, in that it is referring to the current existence of images. There are no images known to exist in the modern day, which date to Muhammad's lifetime or centuries thereafter. The oldest existing images were created about 500 years after his death. --Elonka 19:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd be very surprised if there was 'anything' that old -- calligraphy, Koranic scraps, whatever. Isn't the oldest Koran from 200 or 300 years later? Neotarf (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This should really all be on the Muhammad images talk page, but while we're talking about it the Byzantine Emperor's portait is a later legend, analysed in an article somewhere by Oleg Grabar - as I'm sure Christiane Gruber points out. There are indeed continuous figurative images in Islamuic art, most surviving ones being on pottery, but there are no known authentic (from the life) or early (within ~500 years) images of Muhammad, and indeed very few images that can be regarded as portraits of anyone until later than that. Johnbod (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it was Johnbod who moved this section to here, afaik. I originally posted my edits above higher to the top of the project page, because they perhaps had a higher chance to be read there, and actually they are intended not as comments on the article "Muhammad images" but on the "Background" notes of this project. I'm not sure if you want to say that Heraclius' image of Muhammad did not exist. A story being a legend doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong, and I don't see that Gruber claims that the image did not exist. However, we still have verbal description of Muhammad's physical appearance, which are ascribed to his contemporaries, --Rosenkohl (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A couple of scholars hold that Muhammad is depicted on some early Umayyad coins (see, e.g., Robert Hoyland, Writing the Biography of the Prophet Muhammad: Problems and Solutions, in: History Compass 5/2 (2007), pp. 581 – 602) - Ankimai (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sensationalising vs. Informing

If Wikipedia seeks to be informative, how absolutely bizarre that it would publish images in an article that’s purpose is to enlighten which are expressly forbidden to the followers of the subject matter. How incredibly misleading to those who seek knowledge about Muhammad to include such material. Truly, what purpose do such images play in this article but to appease those people who are unhappy that a religion chooses not to depict its prophets? It brings sensationalism to Wikipedia and nothing more.

Moreover, it offends a fifth of the world’s population. That’s no small minority. Such images certainly do not give the reader coming to the article a better understanding of the man himself, nor do they even provide an accurate likeness of him. What they do do is create an oxymoron of epic proportions. Thank you for visiting our encyclopaedic article on Muhammad, look at the pictures! Yes they are forbidden, yes they don’t bare any resemblance to him, yes they are an anathema to his believers and a slap in their face, certainly they are not informative - but hey, what do we care? It was a democratic decision by the lowest common denominator of Wikipedia editors.

Excuse the glibness to make the point but does this article really need such images to inform? What is the real basis for their inclusion? Shouldn’t informing be our sole goal? Veritycheck (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now this is a case where "NOT CENSORED" would be applicable.
The rationale above is essentially that we should censor ourselves because others do, which is not a valid rationale. But even so, simply citing NOT CENSORED is not an appropriate response without further explanation. While 1/5 of the population is Muslim and Muslims may be offended; it doesn't change the fact that there are and have been historical portrayal of Mohamed. Those portrayals are valid for inclusion in an encyclopedic article.
That being said, enabling 1/5 of the worlds population to read the article could be achieved if we enabled a hatrick to block potentially offensive images. This would not be CENSORSHIP as it would enable more people to read an article and it listens to the community in a respectful manner.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 20:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly that a hatnote is the best solution. It would enable a significant number of people from being potentially grievously offended. It would also allow those who wish to satisfy their curiosity for such images to be placated. Censorship would not be an issue. Veritycheck (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Such arguments presuppose that all (i.e. the 1/5th number bandied about) Muslims are angered by depictions of Muhammad. As others have noted several times in this very RfC, that is an incorrect assertion. Tarc (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which would matter if this were purely a discussion about CENSORSHIP, but there are other merits to the discussion than that.
Even so, ok 80% of the Muslim community finds it offensive... that is still a significant portion of our readership which we are excluding because we refuse to be consolodating... because we want to rally around a policy rather than consider the possibility that there might be a better win-win option.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 01:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I call shenanigans to this entire line of argument, honestly. Break it down between Muslims who came to en.wiki, came across the Muhammad article and were offended vs. those who have no connection to the project or would not have visited otherwise but came just to protest. The latter is unequivocally irrelevant to this discussion, while the former is so vanishingly small as to be insignificant. Again, we're at a decision point of temperance vs. openness. Sometimes there is enough of a population here where temperance is the clear choice (e.g. nudity in the intro of pregnancy), but here? I'm sorry, but it isn't even close. We don't get to make vague waves at people whom some think may possibly object to depictions of Muhammad. Tarc (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re: ..."people whom some think may possibly object to depictions of Muhammad"; Large numbers of people objecting to depictions of Muhammad is an established fact, and their existence is more than just being relevant to this discussion - they are the reason we are having this discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Objection" doesn't mean "a demand for removal", though, somewhere above there was a user that provided several sources either penned by Muslims or about Muslims where they offer an opinion of "I find it personally objectionable, but do not expect everyone else in the world to cater to my view". It seems like you overestimate and oversimplify the world's Muslim population and treat them like one monolithic Jyllands-Postern mob protest. It isn't like that at all. And honestly, even if it was, we have 4/5ths of the world left that do not believe in these same religious precepts. I'm comfy with a 5:1 margin here. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
5:1 is enough to pass RfA with flying colors! When one counts Muslims who are, dare I say it, enlightened enough to expect to see a neutral article instead of a hagiography on Muhammad when they look in an encyclopedia (just as Christians must with Jesus, or Jews with the Exodus, Moses, or Hasidim with the Lubavitcher Rebbe), I imagine the margin is great enough to pass RfB! St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 15:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no doubt about how this RfC will close, that doesn't mean that it will close in the proper manner---it is just proof that most people don't understand or care about what NOT CENSOR means. They use it as a blugeon to silence views they disagree with. And rather than finding a solution that is a win-win solution---we are going to cower behind a platatude to "prove that we aren't censored." (And yes, we have had people say that we have to prove it.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 00:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't have to prove it, we just have to be it. FormerIP (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want a rationale, I 'd say that actually it is about showing that we are not censored. FormerIP (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 16:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I seldom edit Wikipedia, so I hope I may bring a fresh perspective to this discussion. To me, the issue seems remarkably simple, and it boils down to the question of what Wikipedia considers itself to be. I see two possibilities:

Types of representation

Hilye in the shape of a pink rose with the Shahadah (18th century). The rose is a common metaphor for Muhammad in Islam.

Background note #5 claims that "calligraphic renderings are also the only type of representation of Muhammad to appear in mosques, and in editions of the Quran."

So Background note #5 claims that "depictions" on the one hand side and "calligraphic renderings" on the one hand are two different "types of representation" of Muhammad.

A figural depiction of a real person or a thing can be an artistic interprertation of a story, but at the same time, it represents the actual human, or thing by showing the image of a body. So a figural picture is also connecting to the physical theory of reality, and only this way it can educate about what the artist knew about the represented.

As User:JohnChrysostom pointed out above, a calligraphy is "a stylized representation of his name in a different script, essentially the article title repeated in a different language". A written name of a person or a thing is representing nothing else but the thing which is represented by this name. The written name just repeats the abstract concept, but it doesn't represent the real material aspect of what is represented, and therefore it can have no additional explanational value.

It seems that note #5, and the other background notes too, fail to explain that calligraphy, or names in general on the one hand side, and actual depictions on the other hand side are not only two different types of representing something, but that they also result in representations of different educational quality, --Rosenkohl (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A painting created 600 or 1000 years after the subject's death only tells us something about that particular tradition of art (and note comments above). It tells us nothing about the subject. However, Muhammad is for example frequently depicted symbolically as a rose (see example), and such rose depictions are sometimes found at the end of the Quran. Same with different types of calligraphy. That is the mainstream part of his visual reception. --JN466 09:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. That's not true they educate about events in his life. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assume you are talking about specific paintings about the specific subject of Muhammads life. In the generic form, we have all from Cave paintings to Egyptian hieroglyphs, both include incredible amount of knowledge beyond simply tradition of art. On some historical people, the only information we have is the preserved images of that time. The tradition of art can sometime hide what parts are relevant, and which one is not, but the information is there for those that can see through it. Belorn (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To both of you: fanciful paintings created 600–1200 years after the death of the person they are depicting are educational about themselves, but not about the subject they purport to be depicting, or events in his life. They are educational about an aspect of the subject's reception – and in this case, it must be said, very much a fringe aspect of that reception. JN466 12:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not only do I disagree with you but the medieval historians who put them in writings about the subject's life disagree with you too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No more so than fanciful figurative art created 600-1200 years after the death of the person they are depicting---especially when we lack a solid conventions on how we should depict him. Images of Jesus are meaningful because we have a strong artistic tradition that illuminates how he is portrayed. I can look at a piece of art that I've never seen, and often identify the character because of those conventions. Islam didn't develope those conventions. Except for in the form of metaphorical imagery.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 00:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Using an convention is not art, and conventions are not educational. Art means to invent something new, hitherto unseen. An artist may use an convention due to a certain personal habit, belonging to a certain traditional school, or having to comply to the expectations of his audience, perhaps even without knowing that she or he is using the convention. So using a convention means just to repeat a learned technique. Conventions may be used in certain genres of religious art, however Wikipedia is not a religious community or enterprise. Apart from articles about a specific genre, Wikipedia ist never using an image because of the convention to which it complys, but because of the individual ideas which the artist has expressed in the design of form and content of the image, or because of the object itself which has been depcited.
Of course there are informations about how Muhammad supposedly has looked alike. For example there are verbal description on Hilyas, some of which are allegedly going back to his contemporarys.
After all, the older artists are, the more likely they know a fact about how Muhammad looked like, which may have been lost till today - except in the image they painted. Acknowledging the artwork of our ancestors is not only respectfull, but also scientifically necessary, --Rosenkohl (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Representation of Muhammad in visual arts

If one look in areas where one would normally see the use of an image (paintings, movies, theater), do we find calligraphy representation, a figural picture, or simply nothing at all? Belorn (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The subject of Muhammad is NOT ‘an area where one would normally see’ an image of him at all. Your argument is like comparing apples and oranges. That is, no doubt, the reason why this RfC was needed.Veritycheck (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you mean that paintings, films and theater avoid the subject of Muhammad? The List of films about Muhammad article do hints that movies made in the middle east do not use plots with Muhammad as a character (true, false?). Is this same for theater in that region? (true, false?) Christian theatre has a long history of using religions themes, but the section History_of_theatre#Medieval_Islamic_theatre do not mentioning it. Instead of dismissing the question, could you try explain if paintings, movies and theater either do a) avoid Muhammad as a subject overall, b) use calligraphy representation when ever there is a need to mention Muhammad, or c) use a figural representation. It should not be too complicated to give a plain answer to. Belorn (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. Muhammad is "in" films, but tricks are always used to keep from actually showing him (many are shot from Muhammad's point of view, such as the animate "The Last Prophet" and the famous "The Message"). Hardliners say any depiction of living creatures is forbidden, although there's still a thriving film industry in the mid-east. Muhammad is oft a subject, but never depicted (except maybe his hands). Theatre is non-existent in any form of Islam I am aware of. I know nothing of Shi'ism that I did not learn on the internet. (Real-life knowledge of Shi'i to the average Sunni: "they're mushrikun and kuffar, of course".) To answer the question, you find nothing shown, but figural representation strongly implied, so the closest still-life shot of Muhammad would probably be "veiled". But, nevertheless, this is not Islamopedia or Christopedia or Conservapedia to cater to religious sensibilities, so how Muslims wish to depict or not depict Muhammad does not matter.St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 13:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're going too far there. Our article on Jesus will show Christian images just because of their number and because of due weight. Same here, we will include Islamic imagery -- except that the weight figurative images of Muhammad have in Islam is very different indeed. --JN466 09:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry but I don't think JohnChrysostom is the one who going too far when he says, "this is not Islamopedia or Christopedia or Conservapedia to cater to religious sensibilities". Try to understand the inner meaning here. Wikipedia has a set of policies for what? Is it so that whenever people demand the policies will be abjectly bent and twisted or outright broken to accommodate the inane demands? :) Brendon is here 11:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the article as a whole, I agree. The fact that we have historical images and that some of them are historically notable, makes the images noteworthy. That being said, having an image in the lead which is contrary to the way that Mohamed is typically portrayed is UNDUE and does misrepresent his portrayal. While I do not believe that the "Muslim" perspective dictates how Wikipedia operates, the lead should set the proper tone mirrored in the historical record. By putting Caligraphy we impart to the reader the fact that images were not the norm.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 00:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Odd, I know of no tradition that says Muhammed ever wore a veil, yet, Moses was said to have worn a veil and I know of no depiction of him shown like that. Neotarf (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no tradition that he actually wore a veil, it is purely an artistic convention, as the background section says at the top. It should not actually be considered as wearing a veil, but as a blanked face. In the same convention there are Islamic images of Jesus and other Prophets in Islam, and members of Muhammad's family, including Ali, also wearing "veils". Johnbod (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about other articles?

This discussion has focused entirely on the Muhammad article, but even if this article were entirely stripped of images of Muhammad, I believe many (even most) aniconist Muslims would still be upset that other articles such as Depictions of Muhammad, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, and Wikimedia Commons (commons:Category:Depictions of Muhammad) continue to publish images of Muhammad. Less people would happen to stumble across our depictions, but those who do find out would be no less offended. Such a tactic amounts to sweeping the issue under the rug and hoping no one notices. Unlike images of sex, graphic violence, or defecation, which often cause the viewer to experience a visceral, physical reaction of disgust or horror, the typical reaction of aniconists to icons is one of anger - they don't wish they hadn't seen it, but rather, the image has alerted them to what they consider to be an ongoing disrespect of Muhammad. The fact that most people happen to make this discovery at this particular article does not mean it is the place to resolve it. Dcoetzee 05:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have to distinguish two groups of complainants.
  1. Pro-censorship: "I'm upset because you are allowed to look at something".
  2. Anti-shock: "I'm upset because my screen displayed an image I didn't expect it to".

Muhammad has truly surprised/"shocked" users. Depictions of Muhammad has only "pro-censorship" users, because the title itself serves as a disclaimer.

The debate here has never really been between WP:NOTCENSORED and [[WP:CENSORED]. The real debate is finding the perfect balance between the principles of WP:Ignore All Rules and the guideline WP:NODISCLAIMERS. --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I respectfully and strongly disagree with Hector above, because WP:IAR doesn't allow for vandalism or censorship of relevant Information as some of the editor might have made it seem. It presently has one line only and that clearly tells the purpose of the policy.

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

As it should be absolutely clear by now "ignore all rules" doesn't mean you can publish whatever you what or hide whatever you want. WPIAR doesn't properly militate against WP:NOTCENSORED or any other pertinent policy.
And then it clarifies the meaning further

Despite its name, "Ignore all rules" does not sabotage the other rules. Its purpose is to keep them from sabotaging what we're doing here: building a free encyclopedia. Rules have zero importance compared with that goal.

So the policy "ignore all rules" is actually against needless (prejudicial?) censorship not for it. :) Brendon is here 07:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Sense of the Consensus

I'm not a closer, but what I see so far is this:

Based on this I predict a future where:

In summary - the existing page is fine; I think this is about right. But even though fewer new comments are coming, the rfc should run its full course. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see neither how the Rfc is about finding "the most iconic" picture, nor a strong consensus that this most iconic picture was calligraphic, --Rosenkohl (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think relative majoritys would constitute a consensus, but the Request is not closed for new comments yet. Also, according to my counting, there is currently a clear majority for an unveiled depiction in the infobox, --Rosenkohl (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see a common thread running between the majority of arguments that seek to include depictions of Mohammad. That namely is the desire for this article to be like all others at Wikipedia. The proponents for this seem to be motivated principally by the wish to protect the article from censorship.

What I haven’t seen is much of a discussion from those very same people as to why they believe such pictures would serve to instruct or enlighten readers on Muhammad. Shouldn’t this be the primary motivating factor to include them? Pictures of Muhammad, which have less than a marginal importance for the subject matter and do not even bare a physical likeness to him, will not expand a reader’s knowledge about him. Almost every fringe picture, which has been uncovered, whether from private collections of an elite few or those drawn by members of other faiths, seems to have found their way to this article. The undue weight that is currently in affect by the addition of such images is misleading to say the least if not suspect. I believe the inclusion of these images say more about the people who wish them to remain in the article than they do, in fact, reveal about Muhammad the man. Veritycheck (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh dear, the words that one has to bite around here...the former me would have risen to this bait in a heartbeat, but that former me also almost got topic-banned from this area. So...I will just say simply that IMO those who wish to retain the images do so because of a sincere belief that they make the article better, and that the removal would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the subject. I'm sorry that you remain unconvinced by that and seek alternative reasons for the calls for retention. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually the discussion has opened up a bit on these points, and was extensive in the arbcom case & on the images talk page. Actually we only use 6 of the 70 images on Commons. That the images do not represent authentic likenesses of the historic figure was made clear in the background section at top. What has been missing from those who oppose the images is any recognition of, or arguments dealing with, the fact that the situation here is exactly the same as for most early medieval biographies, which we invariably illustrate with whatever medieval images are available, usually far fewer than here. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made comments noting that I believe a visual depiction of events in Muhammad's life contribute both to our understanding of those events (reinforcing the text) and of the culture who created the artwork depicting them. I believe the educational value is clear. In fact, if such images did not exist, I would not object to a user uploading their own illustration of events from the life of Muhammad - such a practice is non-existent today on Wikipedia, but illustrated historical works are sold and I believe they promote effective learning. Dcoetzee 00:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not precisely measurable but the relevant educational value of an image clearly varies from instance to instance. In a section on the early life of Muhammad, an image depicting an event described in the text helps the reader to visualise and remember the narrative, but adds nothing relevant to the text. The same image in a section on Islamic depictions of Muhammad would be highly relevant to the text, and such a section should have as many examples as it can comfortably accommodate, because each is worth a thousand words, on the subject of art history. In the earlier situation, where the image serves only to aid memory and beautify, does that benefit outweigh any disaffection we may cause in some of our millions of Muslim readers? I don't think it does. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is crabbed view of visual education. Muhammad was born and came to adulthood in a feuding, clannish, polytheistic land. The image of the clan men in the pre-Islamic, Kaaba educates about that on many levels. He had a claimed revelation, which is the central fact of his life. The image used educates about that on many levels. He went to war. The image used, educates about that on many levels. He united the (formerly feuding divided people) by proclaiming the revelation (launching the entire world into a new stage of history). The image used educates about that on many levels. (As for the religious prohibition, that is discussed extensively elsewhere but for Wikipedia's audience (which in the words of the Foundation report) is aimed at a modern secular society, it is not pertinent.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You [Anthony] have expressed this view many times (complete with helpful examples of "useful" engineering cutaway drawings as I remember). The trouble is that one thing this RFC (which I think you encouraged) has convincingly demonstrated is that few editors agree with you. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Johnbod, Argumentum ad populum is no argument at all. Alan, I didn't follow that. You seem to be saying the narrative images do add something to the reader's understanding of the text they illustrate, but you're not saying what important relevant information they impart. It seems to be begging the question but perhaps I've misread you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, Anthony, I've tried. All I can do now is emulate the ancient prophets: 'for he who has eyes, let him see.' (I do appreciate that you have moved off your more absolutist prior declarations). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right. Denying any value to narrative images, as I have in the past, was hyperbolic and lazy. I often stressed their "adding nothing to the readers' understanding of the topic of the section they're illustrating" but too often didn't bother, because I can't think of an elegant way of saying that, and just went for the simple "they add nothing." It depended on who I was addressing, and how much of their attention I thought I had. But actually, because the value these images add to the sections they illustrate is so minimal compared to the value of a relevant exemplary or diagrammatic image, or compared to the offense they will cause millions of our readers, "they add nothing" is very close to the truth. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with Alan there. The job of images is to illustrate events/information. And those images do that nicely. As for the question of what they actually add, I'd say they provide a vivid description and a better understanding of how the past cultures viewed those events.

    Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal.

    — WP:IMAGE
    And I'd also like to draw attention to the fallacious and careless use of the label "Argumentum ad populum" (Appeal to popularity). Since, this whole page is essentially a sort of referendum, argumentum ad populum is indeed a valid argument here. It's a fallacy, only when argument ad populum is cited as the only basis for truth and not popularity/support for the belief. But here it's about belief and perspective per se, not the truth (don't gloss over this important difference). I guess it's not fallacious to "appeal to people". Among other valid uses of "appeal to popularity" is "democracy". FYI, I think this page itself proves that some people have been victims of fallacies like "Blind loyalty" (to an icon) and "Favoritism". Brendon is here 09:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Object to section. Why do editors do this in the middle of an RfC (two weeks to go!), to repeat thier arguments or say it should go thier way, or make inflamatory statements about how they must be right, and everyone else wrong? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I did it because I wanted to make it clearer on the closer which are issues where "we don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows". I proposed 1b, and the amount of opposition it's gotten makes it clear to me 1b doesn't have consensus in its current form and thus needn't be a major point of contention going forward. (also, I totally forgot we had 2 more weeks left, for some reason thought we were almost done) --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    While I don't like the 30 day rule for most RfC's as they effectively tend to come to an end within about 2 weeks, this is an exception. When we are dealing with an RfC that will be used to determine the policy standard for years to come, we need to let people enter the discussion without a "consensus" being formed.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 01:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is no "30 day rule". The bot removes RfC from the list after 30 days but that's purely housekeeping, not some kind of recommendation on how long an RfC should run. It's entirely OK to have an RfC that runs 5 or 7 days. I don't know how an arbitrary housekeeping bot's timer got turned into something that people think is policy. Gigs (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh I agree... but the number of times that I've seen people go to AN asking for an RfC to be closed only to be shot down because 30 days hasn't passed is ridiculous. All it takes is one person to say, "No it needs to stay open"---even if there is no meaningful discussion. Look at Fae's recent RfC. This RfC, however, because of its nature and unprecendented consequences, needs to be open unfettered for as long as possible.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 16:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I fully agree that no RfC needs to be open for 30 days. In the mediation it was proposed that this one be open for two weeks. (By me, I wanted a time limit to among other things, avoid the when will it close drama). That did not gain consensus (using the bot timing rationale, among others), instead, as the instructions for this RfC above state, it will close on a date certain (but not two weeks). This should definitely not be treated as binding precedent for any other RfC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I fully Oppose this section. I don't think this is the right time to make any sort of predictions or guesses. One week is adequate to sway the pendulum hard enough to shock the present majority. This sections sends out a wrong message with its existence itself. I wholeheartedly concur with user:Alanscottwalker's comment on this.
    • Also I would like other editors to pay heed to User:johnbod's important remarks. :) Brendon is here 06:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I am not a Jew Christian or Muslim but the images do offend some so leave them out HumusTheCowboy (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    This is the "wrong place" but it never hurts to ask. Consensus for this one is planned to be a "three admin close" 3 WP:Administrators, who are "uninvolved" will be asked to volunteer to do a panel close. Where they can find consensus they will declare, if they really can't on some issues, they will explain that too. If more things still need to be decided, another RfC (with different/narrow wording) will be tried or perhaps binding WP:Dispute Resolution for anyone still interested. Cheers. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    "A Sense of consensus..

    "I'm not a closer, but what I see so far is this: There's strong consensus that figurative images of Muhammad are welcome in the article."!

    Where other than Wikipedia do people actually construct, word for word, comments like this in areas like this? I think the problems lie in who "Wikipedians" actually are. I believe that most people who edit Wikipedia do so essentially 'under duress', to rectify the more serious mistakes they see when they cross Wikipedia's path - usually either via Google or those lazy net media hyperlinks. This is clearly one of the reasons why IP editing has always been allowed, despite the various vandalism - because so much misinformation is corrected by IP's, or one-off accounts, in a quickly-made "shall I, shan't I?" decision. Despite all the fund raising hoola, those editors cannot truthfully be called "Wikipedians", and of course they don't attend "consensus building" polls like this. No one can deny that the vast majority of 'specialists' out there actively avoid looking at Wikipedia (if foolishly in many ways I feel - though those who do 'dip their toe in' so-often recoil in a snap) and they are still extremely uncharitable when its name is mentioned - even after all these years. Of course this is why the encyclopedia has nutured its own 'super editors', who take various articles to so-called "featured status". Wikipedia 'on show' is largely created 'in house'. The majority of general Wikipedians are so biased that any 'consensus' amongst them is as reliable as an extremist convention (choose your poison) with the unlikely banner "Policy building - everyone Welcome!" pinned next to the door. Wikipedia in general is simply not a welcoming place for unbiased content creators. It's simply a battleground under the name of "consensus forming" - despite "Battlegrounds" supposedly not being allowed here. All the largely hokey policy does is whitewash these underlying truths, and the ill-advised "Assume Good Faith" does this especially. Why does Wikipedia need these broad and clumsy laws? Shouldn't decent structural and content-focused guidelines alone ensure content is accurate, fairly weighted, appropriately presented, and with properly-sourced and cited information? It all has to go - Consensus (think of the millions of hours of human time wasted, often to administrator's amusement), NOTCENSORED (such an insult to intelligence), AGF (almost a bizarre kind of thought-control). It all needs to be removed and pared-down, but in this Kafkaesque fortress, change is constantly shown to be hardest thing of all. All you can propely rely on here are the administrator's/wannabes book of cynical or mind-free cliches; "it will lead to mob rule", "it will be the start of a slippery slope", "if it ain't broke don't fix it", "it will all blow over", "move along", "we've an encyclopedia to write", "Against, per above" etc, etc. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Matt, frankly speaking (couldn't help it), I guess the right place for you to spew your inane vile against the "dark heart of Wikipedia" which is also like "the purest form of madness" (your own words, right?), is WP:BATTLEGROUND. Not here!

    I'm sorry, I gotta tell you that the way you put your words out and your rhetoric doesn't seem to be very affable or civil. You must know that if you are inherently opposed to the practices/policies of wikipedia (it's quite clearly evident, you are absolutely uninterested in wikipedia), you may peacefully opt out without disruption (albeit, your permanent exit is not a preferable outcome). But, Wikipedia is not compulsory. Brendon is here 13:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Good summary. I can't see any other way to read the consensus here, and it's consistent with both WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:WEIGHT. Perhaps further comments will come in that sway things. But this isn't a section to argue the point. It's to summarize the weight of the discussion, which the initial comment does successfully. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I find your great belief that unbiased content creators exist to bringing a smile to my face. To find an content creator who is unbiased to what he creates, would be like finding a person who is completely unaffected by the social environment around him. This is why concepts like consensus and democracy are tools not only used to make decisions but also to create an objective view of a subject when all who speaks are by definition, being human, biased. Belorn (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


    Purpose of the Discussion in the First Place

    So I'm reading this and I'm seeing folks repeating themselves ad nauseum. I think it's important that it be addressed exactly why there would or would not need to be a quota:

    Obviously, it is clear from Wikipedia policy that there is little justification for no images, and it's clear that people trying to remove images is a constant issue.

    Furthermore, considering the problems with removing images, an excess of images or inappropriate images being inserted into the article is harder to deal with.

    Having a quota established by consensus, neither censoring depictions nor allowing an excess, seems like a reasonable way to address the constant disruption of the page, bearing in mind that consensus can change. So if we assume good faith and assume we're not just out to censor the article and appease the fanatics, what are the downsides to this proposal? Peter Deer (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Downsides are all discussed below. Thank you for your comment. Brendon is here 15:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Proposal:Leave everything as they are (no change is necessary)

    Proposal:

    Leave everything as they are. No "hat-note", No "universal image-toggle", No "article-neutral hatnote" or whatever change that is being proposed is at all necessary (they are all fully redundant and for good reason). Simply direct the offended people to the page WP:NOSEE. Wikipedia Editors need not take lofty steps to appease excessively delicate sentiments.

    Why and if So, what's the solution?

    [Note: Most of us must agree that no human, or cohesive group has the right to dictate rules and regulations that curtail legitimate freedom while unnecessarily affecting others, just to appease their fragile sentiments or to make others bow down to the laws of their religion. That will not be productive for wikipedia community and the longevity of the free-flow of information.]

    Argument about the existence of Wikipedia Images is needless since there are options to individually choose not to display them (by simply tweaking one's browser and/or preferences in wikipedia)?

    Problem:

    Some people get offended by some images and demand their censorship but,

    "Being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content. Wikipedia will not remove content because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations.

    — WP:NOTCENSORED

    As you can see, Wikipedia is not censored, and to remove relevant content solely on grounds of being objectionable to some people, is not how Wikipedia works. (see also WP:NDA to know why a hat-note in Muhammad article, is really going to contravene the idea behind WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED policies and be disruptive)

    Quoting User:Mitch Ames:

    I acknowledge that "hiding" images is not literally the same as "removing" images, but to me the spirit of the policy is clear: Wikipedia will include the information, and the onus is on the reader not to look at, rather than on Wikipedia not to show it.
    More specifically:

    Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers ...

    Yet by providing a hatnote telling people how to hide the images we are in effect trying to guarantee that the article will be acceptable - a direct contravention of WP:NOTCENSORED.

    Any rules that forbid members of a given ... religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations.

    I don't believe it is our business to tell people how to follow their rules (not looking at certain images) when they are not our rules.
    To make it clearer:

    The onus of avoiding/hiding (purportedly) offensive content/images based on religious precepts, does not fall on the editors or policy-makers of Wikipedia, the onus of taking all necessary steps to avoid those images is on the individual who is reading Wikipedia.

    This "image toggle" or "toolbox element" or a "hatnote" whatever that is being proposed is,

    A. utterly redundant,
    B. redolent of unequal treatment of information based on creed and
    C. a symbol of undue weight to the controversial side of argument spectrum because a permanent image-toggle in the left-hand toolbar as an option to hide images, will unavoidably reflect a specific POV and can be seen as an impetus towards self-censorship from Wikipedia itself. That is not helpful.

    The Solution: If you don't want to see any media content especially images you may hide them as "inappropriate for you" (by tweaking your browser we are not talking about "universal hatnote" or "image toggle"). That way, the undisturbed readers get to keep their freedom (of accessing pertinent pictorial information freely without being prompted to hide images, i.e. sans a deleterious stimulus to self-censorship) and any reader who finds it disturbing will also have his/her sentiments intact (without affecting others). Everybody wins. So, what are we actually arguing for and about? I say this especially because display of images is categorically uncompromisable or non-negotiable feature in any encyclopaedia and an inextricable part of Wikipedia also.

    1. People with an account on the Wikipedia website are able to use features of the wiki software to disable the display of specific images or sets of images, such as the "bad image" list.

    2. Once you have an account, you can disable the images on a specific page by changing your personal settings at your CSS page. This allows you to avoid images that offend you without affecting other users.

    3. Here is an example file addressing content preferences with regard to depictions of Muhammad aimed at moderately strict Sunni Muslims. It's an example. Individual content preferences may vary.

    4. You can selectively block content by using a web filter program. Freely available examples include Privoxy, SafeSquid and DansGuardian. Once you have installed such a program, you can exert fine-grained control over what content is received by your web browser.

    Note: You can set up your browser to not see images at all. (Just in case you're unsure about the contents of the next page)

    For more details, all willing people please visit this page and end the discussion saving all of us the time. Thank you! :) Brendon is here 07:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC) [last edited Brendon is here 23:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)]Reply[reply]

    Support for this proposal

    I'd like to make it crystal clear that while a devout Muslim may be offended to see a depiction of Muhammad on Wikipedia, (s)he is likely not going to be surprised or "astonished" for such a so-called "offense".

    Wikipedia's (just like any other encyclopedia's) habit of including depictions of historic figures will only astonish those people who haven't heard of Wikipedia's policies (Wikipedia need not compensate for readers' nonchalance towards Wikipedia's explicitly stated policies), and then suddenly decide to look at Wikipedia's article about Muhammad without having stopped by any other biographical article previously. That is a very improbable scenario, and so unrealistic that even if principle of least astonishment applies here, as few advocate, it is unreasonable to modify Wikipedia practices on such a basis. Thank you! :) Brendon is here 09:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    So in other words, somebody who might be offended won't come here because they know we are intollerant and unflexible?---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 16:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    "Tolerance" (actually, "Intolerance in the name of tolerance") seems to be the idol of the age. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 10:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your interpretation is wrong. It's quite the contrary to what you say, if somebody has configured his/her browser or the preferences to hide specific images (which offend their sentiments) then (s)he won't have any fear of visiting the Wikipedia and thus it would actually expand Wikipedia's audience range. And yes, Wikipedia is inflexible when it comes to their policies. Should it not be, not even for its own policies that are majorly responsible for the flow of information? Does Islamic demands to deprive other non-Muslims of the right to see relevant images in an article reek of tolerance? I don't think so. I don't think Wikipedia has to pander to or pamper the intolerant demands of Islam. :) Brendon is here 18:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Brendon, I think we may have naturally gotten my wires crossed. While we have initially proposed an article-specific hatnote, the feedback from that has suggested that an article-neutral toolbox link is far more popular.
    I understand the confusion, there's been a lot of ideas floating around. At this point, I think image toggle has to be "article neutral" (all articles) and "less intrusive" (toolbox, not hatnote) . --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hector, please read the following carefully. All I'm saying is that the onus of avoiding offensive content/images based on religious precepts, does not fall on the editors or policy-makers of Wikipedia, it's on the individual who is reading Wikipedia.

    And fortunately the readers also have an option for doing just that. Hence this "image toggle" or "toolbox" or whatever that you're proposing is utterly redundant and gives undue weight to this side of the argument spectrum. Brendon is here 12:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Opposition for this proposal

    Uhh, why? —SW— converse 12:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why what? --Rosenkohl (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "It can't be the purpose of an encyclopaedia to help their readers to censor themselves, or to help institutions (Christian Schools, Madrasahs etc.) to hide content for their members." —seriously? That's your reason? I presume you have confused "the natural freedom to choose to not view images" for "universal image-toggle" (which I disagree with).

    I have got some problems with that kind of simplistic thinking.

    1. It's not a "purpose". It's an option.
    2. Just as anybody has the natural option to close/avoid wiki pages or articles as he/she wills, they have another option to exclude images too. Isn't that a good thing? Somebody doesn't have to eschew the whole page/website in order to avoid seeing certain images (which they find unnecessary and/or offensive anyway).
    I'd say it expands Wikipedia's audience range. It does not bar any body from visiting the wikipedia website just because he/she doesn't want to view some specific images. You cannot force any information on to someone. Thus, it presents an alternative. That's the idea behind that option. :) Brendon is here 16:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I can't see any reason why educating users on how to use CSS to customize their viewing preferences is problematic in any way. —SW— speak 18:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The use of CSS ist explained e.g. at Help:Cascading Style Sheets, and particular education on how to exclude images by CSS can be included there, or explained on an own help page. However, the page Help:Options to not see an image on the other hand does not educate on the use of CSS only but gives an overwiew over a wide range of options to hide images, such as configuring the browser over using the mobil edition, applying filter software, using filter proxys, or exclude imgages from the so called MediaWiki:Bad image list. Wikimedia lately even seems to employ their own community Iman, since the page directs its readers to "an example file addressing content preferences with regard to depictions of Muhammad aimed at moderately strict Sunni Muslims", and I'm eager to see the filter lists aimed at e.g. intermediate strict Pastafarians, the neo-liberal Jucheist, post-jihadist Shariaists, or strictly moderate Teetotallers. But seriously, users have many "options", e.g. do a head-stand oder or drink coffee while reading Wikipedia, but it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to help their readers on making head-stands or brewing coffee. Of course you cannot force reading an encyclopaedia on to so someone, but expanding the audience range by showing different encyclopaedias to each group of visitors would put an end to one universal mandatory edition for every reader, --Rosenkohl (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I, for one, totally missed your point. What were you trying to say? Are you trying to say that we should not give the readers any option to choose to hide images as they might deem appropriate? If so, then be notified, it's not really up to wikipedia, that option is naturally available to any and all readers and as an encyclopaedia dedicated to transmitting all kinds of information wikipedia's responsibility is to let others know about this option too. So to wrap it up, are you against individual freedom to ignore images of wikipedia and then in favor of censorship due to some needless and utterly inconsiderate demands based on people's fragile sentiments and religious beliefs, depriving all other readers (most of whom don't mind seeing images) of the opportunity to see the otherwise very decent images? :) Brendon is here 16:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, Wikipedia should not, and can't anyway, give the readers any option which they already have on their own. You are perhaps confusing an encyclopeadia with advice literature, see WP:NOTMANUAL:
    >>Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes.<<
    Wikipedia should not insult the technical intelligence of School directors etc. by even offering them advice on how-to block pictures for their students. Are you for the freedom of religious communitys to ignore images of wikipedia and then in favor of offering help to self-censorship due to some needless and utterly inconsiderate demands based on people's fragile sentiments and religious beliefs, depriving all other readers (most of whom don't mind seeing images) of the opportunity to see the otherwise very decent images? ;-\ --Rosenkohl (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your "What Wikipedia is not" page says:

    While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box.

    Firstly, WP:NOTMANUAL is not relevant in this discussion. You should bring that up on the talk page of WP:NOSEE. Not here.

    Secondly, WP:NOTMANUAL does not say that "Wikipedia should not, and can't anyway, give the readers any option which they already have on their own."

    Thirdly, WP:NOSEE is not an article. The talk page clearly states:

    This page is within the scope of WikiProject Help, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the help system on Wikipedia

    So, everything you said totally went over my head.

    All I'm saying is that the onus of avoiding (purportedly) offensive content/images based on religious precepts, does not fall on the editors or policy-makers of Wikipedia, it's on the individual who is reading Wikipedia.

    And fortunately the readers also have an option for doing just that. You cannot force your unwanted information on to anybody. Furthermore, as an encyclopaedia dedicated to transmitting all kinds of information, it's wikipedia's job to let readers know about this option too. Especially when a group is gratuitously and constantly bellyaching about the existence of relevant and decent images just because some dead self-important guy from 7th century Arabia told them to not depict him and somehow few of his extremist adherents even expect everybody else will cater to their views. ;-D

    Lastly, you must know that "should" is an ambiguous and highly relative term, and that could be misleading. Brendon is here 12:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Exactly, your third point hits the nail on its head: a help page ist not an article: while articles are transmitting information about real objects by describing them, help pages inform on how to write or read these articles. But above you said that "as an encyclopaedia dedicated to transmitting all kinds of information wikipedia's responsibility is to let others know about this option [to hide images of Muhammad etc. on your screen with technical means] too". Now you repeat the same with "responsibility" replaced by "job". That gives me the impression that you believe that "to let others know about this option too" was part of the encyclopaedic mission of transmitting information about real objects by describing them, and is the reason why I guess that you are confusing an encyclopeadia with advice literature. In fact, as far as I understand an encyclopaedia, transmitting information about real objects by describing them is different from giving helping to read or write articles, and in particular giving technical help to willingly ignore or not look at certain facts or information is not part of the encyclopaedic mission.

    As a side note, I'm not aware of a dead guy from 7th century Arabia who in his life time would have told others not to depict him, --Rosenkohl (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    That gives me the impression that you believe that "to let others know about this option too" was part of the encyclopaedic mission of transmitting information about real objects by describing them — but I didn't say that Wikipedia must help its readers by providing unencyclopaedic information in shape of articles also. And please stop picking on the phraseology. A "how-to guide" is what it is.
    As a side note, I'm not aware of a dead guy from 7th century Arabia who in his life time would have told others not to depict him — but is that point in the favor of the proposal of an image toggle in the left-hand toolbar? I think, it's all the more reason against the credibility and for the gratuitous nature of this phenomenally redundant and unfair demand.
    "as far as I understand an encyclopaedia, transmitting information about real objects by describing them is different from giving helping to read or write articles" — rightly said, as far as you understand an encyclopaedia. That's your perspective. Go bring it up in the talk page of WP:NOSEE.

    It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory.

    — WP:5P
    So, I guess you need to be a bit more coherent about your proposal. Brendon is here 09:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, not I did make a proposal, but you did. Actually I fully agree with the part >>The Solution: If you don't want to see any media content especially images you may hide them as "inappropriate for you"<<. What I do disagree with is the page WP:NOSEE in its current form. But if I understand you correctly, having the page WP:NOSEE is an essential part of your proposal. I had tried to explain some days ago somewhere above why the page WP:NOSEE as part of the official "Help:"- or "Wikipedia:"-namespaceis fundamentally unencyclopaedic, --Rosenkohl (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "What I do disagree with is the page WP:NOSEE in its current form." - Bring that up in the talk page of WT:NOSEE. Here, it is irrelevant whether you agree with WP:NOSEE or not.

    "having the page WP:NOSEE is an essential part of your proposal." - No, you didn't understand me correctly. The existence of that page isn't really essential for my proposal to stand firm (i.e. wikipedia permanently hosts that page or not, doesn't matter). What matters to me is the information being purveyed by that page. That page helps me to the extent it reduces my job, that's all. If that page didn't exist I would've had to find another alternative to get that information out. And, it would be hectic. But since that page exists, I don't have to waste my time in tedious work of gathering information about browsers (even if somebody removes info from the page, I can always just cite an older version of that page or just reproduce all the information here).

    BTW, that page has been nominated for deletion in the recent past but the consensus quickly began to rise in favour of preserving it.

    Brendon is here 23:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    "they are not offended at seeing the images, but rather at the fact that the images are being published." — I understand your point (Your username seems a little odd though).
    Like I've been reiterating for many days, labeling an Image as "sacrilegious material" or "offensive material" is NOT a sufficient ground for removing or veiling any picture. WP:PROFA states,

    Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. Wikipedia is not censored.

    Editors should only make sure that those images are treated in a proper encyclopaedic manner.
    Besides, Inclusion of depictions/portraits of Muhammad is not considered to be a vulgar or obscene or an uncivil act by wikipedia standards. Wikipedia serves a broader range of audience than just Muslims and many of whom don't consider depictions of Muhammad to be a vulgarity.
    Hence, in this case, the offense is indeed in the eye of the beholder. Wikipedia editors do not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers.
    That's exactly why this option is all the more relevant for showing that one cannot meddle with Wikipedia policies, if some few people are really offended they are welcome not to see those images. But they, at any moment, cannot demand a special treatment or concession or modification of long-held Wikipedia practices and policies to appease their hyper-sensitivities predicated upon religious tenets.

    If I've learnt anything from the policies of wikipedia it is this that "XYZ are offended" is not a credible rationale for removal of appropriate content. Why don't people get it, already?

    They are offended, so what? I'm fed up with these kind of irrational, unfounded, gratuitous demands from religion and all their rationale revolve around the line "they are offended",
    so what?
    So what?? So what? Brendon is here 09:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Comment

    "We're getting way off the topic of the RfC here." - I couldn't disagree more. It's very very relevant and important to note that the proposals for alteration to Wikipedia interface that are raised in this page are all unneeded since there is an option to personally choose not to see an image (which might not seem so offensive to other readers) as opposed to asking the website to deprive every other reader of that opportunity to see that image. An intelligent man Regular visitors to Wikipedia (be they secular or Christian or Hindu or Buddhists or even Muslims who may find it objectionable to a personal level, but do not expect everyone else in the world to cater to his/her view) will certainly expect (won't find it excruciatingly offensive) to see portraits/depictions of Muhammad in Wikipedia article about Muhammad just like in any other biographic article. For editors, it would be hypocrisy to knowingly exclude such type of pertinent images when they know that these images exist. These images give us an idea of how a culture saw (depicted) that man, Muhammad. It is every bit as relevant as this RfC. :) Brendon is here 09:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I find your all-encompassing blanket statement utterly distasteful. That you propose every 'intelligent man' must agree with your personal opinion of expecting to see depictions of Muhammad in this article is, quite simply, untrue. There are countless intelligent men and women who believe that such images do not serve a place in an article of this nature. I am one of them. Numerous other editors who share my opinion have come here to express theirs. The fact that people disagree with you does in no way make them any less intelligent. Ironically, believing otherwise calls your own intellect into question. Your line of reasoning is not only dangerous and deplorable, but is neither constructive nor conducive for any discussion seeking to elicit differing opinions such as is the case with this RfC. I urge you to let everyone speak their mind without insulting those with whom you do not agree. Veritycheck (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "That you propose every 'intelligent man' must agree with your personal opinion of expecting to see depictions of Muhammad in this article is, quite simply, untrue." - then suggest to me what adjective should I have used? My mistake, I should have written any intelligent or foolish man would expect (at least won't be shocked) to see depictions of xyz in an article about xyz along with other relevant information (be it about Muhammad or Jesus or Moses). What general people would be surprised to see is an exception to that rule of "equal treatment to everybody regardless of class, creed, color". What general people would be shocked or, rather insulted, to find is special concession for Islam due to Muslims' sensitivity. If you find the principle of equality to be distasteful too then I could not care less about what according to you is not distasteful. I think you must be aware of the phrase "soft bigotry of low expectation" (note:I am not saying you or anybody are bigots). People would be shocked to find that here in wikipedia. To expect that wikipedia will cater to or bow down to rules and regulations of Sharia will be shocking. And as a matter of fact, I find your comment mildly distasteful too. So what? I'm not asking anybody to block you, because you didn't break any policy of Wikipedia(I think). Same goes for images in Wikipedia. :) Brendon is here 13:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Update - After giving it a thought, I rephrased that specific line. Sorry if it hurt you! :) Brendon is here 13:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "The solution is to add an image toggle to all articles and call it good." - No that's not the solution, that kind of extra-leniency, sufferance or submissive thinking with regards to the unreasonable, unfounded (and gratuitous?) demands that contravene several valid policies of Wikipedia, is actually the problem. Anything else is a minor issue.

    It's not a crime to call a spade a spade. Nor is it insensitive to exercise our editorial rights. We should not accommodate irrational demands. The thing is if anybody is offended by a picture which doesn't show any nudity or isn't abjectly irrelevant to the topic, then it's his problem. The onus of coping with reliable information that has been transmitted by Wikipedia, falls on the individual reader. If somebody doesn't like what is being published because it simply appears to him as sacrilegious, it's not wikipedia's problem. It's completely acceptable, and to some extent even essential, that an article about someone contains portraits/depictions of him (for the purpose of either making him recognizable or showing how the primitive/medieval culture viewed him). :) Brendon is here 13:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The point is that an image toggle for all articles would have utility outside of this specific dispute. It could be used in any situation where the user is uncomfortable with seeing the images they're looking at, perhaps because someone is shoulder surfing or they're at work, or it could be used to save bandwidth. There are already features like this in most browsers, but they're not very convenient. Dcoetzee 06:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "The point is that an image toggle for all articles would have utility outside of this specific dispute."
    — Are you referring to a "hatnote"? If that's what you are indicating here, then I'm behooved to let you know that it will be superfluously disruptive. And all that for what? Only to appease some religious sentiments! Your proposition arguably defies all policies of wikipedia. Whatever gratuitous umbrage is taken(it's "gratuitous" because people who object to images have done nothing really to logically vindicate their demand's merit or worth for this extremely discriminatory treatment), it must be treated at a personal level, hence a step that will impact on others isn't possibly a solution. :) Brendon is here 11:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have added my support for an image toggle to be in the left-hand toolbar (on Vector skin, I don't know about others), universally, and my strong and adamant opposition to any image- or article-specific image toggles. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 15:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    John, I fully understand where you're coming from (and I see your point) but, I seriously don't think that people's redundant sensitivity is worth an image toggle in the left-hand toolbar. If some few readers cannot adjust themselves with the otherwise innocuous or harmless arrangements and practices of wikipedia because of their religious commandments, then it's not Wikipedia's responsibility to indulge those demands. (They must take necessary steps to avoid seeing those images as opposed to asking wikipedia to take down or hide those images which will eventually be superfluously disruptive)

    I also think that most of us (and some among them wittingly) are committing Argumentum ad populum, Tu quoque fallacies over and over again.

    But you yourself beautifully pointed that out by saying, "We don't censor Swastika, Holocaust (or Holocaust denial), Cunnilingus, Fisting, or Fellatio. Wikipedia caters to no other point of view, religious or not. It is not Wikipedia's job to censor images (as per the WP:DISCLAIMER) or anything else, to reinforce any form of bias or superstition. What's next, remove pictures of the cross because Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons object, remove descriptions of sex acts as immoral?" I fully concur with that view of yours. An image toggle is not going to be conducive. Splitting hairs over inconsiderate, gratuitous demands is going to make matters worse. These actions will reek of wikipedia's extra-indulgent behavior. Brendon is here 15:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I strongly agree with Brendon111. Permitting to eliminate images it's equivalent to introduce "a specific point of view". No to offending images just as to offending words. Every faith has to be respected, but no to every form of religious or political arrogance. Wikipedia is not mandatory. --Pigr8 (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    P.S. I didn't read all the stuff up there, but just the last paragraph, so my agreement doesn't extend to any offensive concept there exposed.
    Actually, I support the universal toggle in the left-hand toolbar, as it would be useful for Reformed Christians in articles on Jesus, teetotallers in articles on alcohol, people with PTSD who read about something that might trigger an episode, nudity or pornography in articles where someone just wants to learn non-visually, etc., as the current image-hiding options are either universal full stop and designed for bandwidth-saving (the ones built in to the browser) or really fucking hard to figure out where they're at or how to activate them; I still don't know how to block specific images or articles of images or classes of images on Wikipedia, and I was a damned information security consultant! So, a universal toggle for images in the left-hand toolbar, under "toolbox", near "expand citations" or "what links here", can do no harm, but can cause benefit. It's not even related to Muhammad; this was just an opportune moment to bring it up. Thus, it should be implemented. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 22:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please read the following carefully, John. You might be stepping on to a deadly trap which will do more harm than good.

    All I'm saying is that the onus of avoiding offensive content/images based on religious precepts, does not fall on the editors or policy-makers of Wikipedia, it's on the individual who is reading Wikipedia.

    And fortunately the readers also have an option for doing just that. Hence this "image toggle" or "toolbox" or whatever that you're proposing is utterly redundant and gives undue weight to the controversial side of argument spectrum because a permanent image-toggle in the left-hand toolbar as an option to hide images, will unavoidably reflect a specific point of view and can be seen as impetus towards self-censorship from Wikipedia itself. That is not helpful. Therefore, the people with PTSD (a tiny minority of the audience which wikipedia serves) should be separately advised to minutely follow the steps on Wikipedia:NOSEE or avoid the pages. Image toggle is fully redundant.

    We should not use this RfC to serve our own personal interest. If we start modifying Wikipedia based on anything but reliability of information, then it will may prove to be fatal (and I guess, it won't be fatuous to assert this change will serve as a slippery slope to numerous other absolutely redundant adjustments which may eventually morph wikipedia into a ludicrously dysfunctional accumulation of Information denuded of much-needed realism but looking to please everybody).

    You cannot please everybody at the same time. And Secondly, Neither Wikipedia nor this RfC is not about PTSD patients; this RfC about Islamic demand to hide Muhammad's images. I don't see many PTSD people trying to take down Wikipedia images.

    Arguments about obscenity, lewdness are completely a separate issue.

    Thank you! (You and I are on the same side here.) Brendon is here 12:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • All the "arrogance" and dysfunctionality is entirely on Wikipedia's side. How many people in this pitiable collection of polls have managed to express their views without using totally unnecessary pejorative language? You know, I actually applaud the people who merely quote the lamentable "NOTCENSORED", as they have at least refrained from sharing their possibly-offensive opinions. Reading this page just shows how dark and hypocritical Wikipedia can be.
    We are talking about a central tenet of someone's faith regarding an image on their central prophet- it's not even a two-sided matter like creationism - ie where language and weight can suffice to explain the two positions - there is an image that many religious people find offensive involved here, and we are deciding whether and how to show it.
    Also, in my experience Wikipedia has always dealt with these kind of issues topic by topic - to claim otherwise, as people have been, is just nonsense. This is anything but a uniform encyclopedia. Anyway, like the usual 99% of sane people, I refuse to vote in this poll - but will say here that I do not find images of Mohammad "welcoming", I find them unnecessary and religiously inflammatory. There are a billion Muslim people in this world (no matter how many would accept the image or not) - it's not just some cult. People (including the complete children who edit Wikipedia) simply have to learn to respect the positions of others. I can see a toggle image ability, along with the images near the main controversy text as at least a compromise (though compromises are rarely good things in my opinion) - but it will be interesting to see if anything will happen out of such a mess. Best of all could be an Images of Mohammed subpage, though no solution will satisfy the controversy-lust and sheer bias of those who demand that it should be the page's avatar imo. I would suggest another simpler poll on the chosen solution - you might get a few more sensible voters that way.
    I just want to add that someone above has talked about introducing Muslims to "uncensored culture". I find it a bit creepy in a strange kind of way. I don't think the world is remotely interested in Wikipedia being a soup containing everything it possible can. It would be a toxic stew riddled with flies. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Matt,

    "I do not find images of Mohammad "welcoming", I find them unnecessary and religiously inflammatory. There are a billion Muslim people in this world (no matter how many would accept the image or not) - it's not just some cult" — it's a logical fallacy to claim that just because there are supposedly millions of Muslims concerned or offended (inflamed?) by the very existence of images, wikipedia should not use those images.
    "I actually applaud the people who merely quote the lamentable "NOTCENSORED", as they have at least refrained from sharing their possibly-offensive opinions." — I couldn't care less if you're offended by my freedom of expression.
    "I don't think the world is remotely interested in Wikipedia being a soup containing everything it possible can. It would be a toxic stew riddled with flies." — Your opinion is, at the end of the day, your opinion.

    But, I think you should read the following:

    It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents; that kind of content should be contributed instead to the Wikimedia sister projects.

    — WP:5P

    Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content. Wikipedia will not remove content because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations.

    — WP:NOTCENSORED

    I hope this helps thank you. Brendon is here 12:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    "Logical fallacy" - give me a break. Quoting a policy (NOTCENSORED) verbatim to prove a point is just ridiculous when it to someone who has not only questioned its value on this issue, but questioned its very worth on Wikipedia. You write, "Supposedly millions of Muslims offended"? I think your condescending choice of language betrays you every time you put finger to key on this matter. By the way, my name's 'Matt' not 'Mark', it appears just above the start of your comment. Maybe you could try looking at your comments before posting them? Hope this helps, Matt Lewis (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Btw, regarding your second policy quote - is it really me who is pushing a bias here? Certainly there is policy somewhere that will always back the likes of you, and this is what I mean when I say that Wikipedia is designed for biased people. It's basically a bottomless pit designed to be emptied into. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment Quoting a relevant policy where it is especially applicable, I would say, is not "ridiculous." Also, we are not a uniform encyclopedia, but neither should be consider treating this Mohammad page as a special exception. Pages should not be considered exceptions simply because they become the focus of vast amounts of external pressure or because external petitions exist. Also, as a reminder, comments that focus more on the issue are more constructive than comments on the commentator.--New questions? 16:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Look, amongst the general silliness, he told me to "read it" when I'd very-clearly given my opinion on it and surrounding it. If you think that is clever I would say that you do not realise how 'disruption' can be judged on Wikipedia - it does actually go a little deeper than simple black and white AGF - or beyond all Wikilawyering in fact. The endless repetition and quoting of policy can wear the readers down - I forget the specific names of them, but there have been plenty of WP:'s written for that kind of 'debate'. I'm not comparing anything to my own comments, I'm just stating a fact - and you in linking arms with him are just doing exactly the same thing: misreading, mis-assessing, and Wikilawyering around the outskirts of someone's point. I've seen it all a million times. It's just one of the things that makes debate on Wikipedia such a headache for almost everyone. There are quality 'Wikipedians', there is just not enough of them to balance this kind of debate. The scales have always been imbalanced. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "I'm not comparing anything to my own comments, I'm just stating a fact" — all I can see is the evidence to the contrary. Why are you so upset, calm down a bit. Your comments don't seem to be conforming to WP:AGF at all. Hence, my suggestion to you would be don't comment until you relax. Brendon is here 10:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Matt, I see here that you tremendously lack good faith. And you wrote,

    Perhaps we are proof that people who have seen the dark heart of Wikipedia can ever completely ignore it. In fact - who can completely ignore it? It's everywhere. I even hear its semi-recycled and half-created truths fill-out the news now, and appear in some of the better papers too. It's like the purest form of madness. Various creeping conveniences will end up destroying us all I think.

    And I find your opinion immensely abominable. So what? Do I want you to get blocked from wikipedia? ;-\ Brendon is here 11:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    One of the genuine improvements in Wikipedia over the years is that admin aren't so quick to block at the demands of such obvious dime-a-dozen wind-up merchants any more. Unfortunately they can't limit the amount of toe-bouncing editors either. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Entering this conversation late, and knowing no Wikipedia rules except that "there are no rules" I would say that pictures of Mohd. are unimportant to the quality of the article about him. To my knowledge, (not extensive) there are no pictures of Mohd, except those done hundreds of years later. We have no idea what Mohd. looked like. So, why not delete in the "Mohammad" article all the artists conceptions of Mohd. in favor of an authentic picture (if one exists) of a 7th century Arab and title it, "A seventh century Arab. The dress and demeanor possibly reflect the appearance of Mohammad." That would make the article about Mohammad himself more authoritative and informative.
    And then, all the artist's conceptions of Mohd. could be moved to the "History of Islam" or "History of Islamic Art" articles. That doesn't exactly solve the problem, but it perhaps moves it to less controversial articles. Smallchief (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "pictures of Mohd. are unimportant to the quality of the article about him." — I don't agree. I don't, as a matter of fact, think that it's a sufficient reason to remove the images, either. God is not consistently depicted the same way throughout history, but we somehow found a picture to use without controversy.

    Don't deceive yourself, this discussion is about censorship and catering to the demands of a religion, not about a survey of depictions used in sources. Trying to state another's offense risks while implicitly patronizing their irrational demands, is not particularly very conducive. Finally, the ancient people who used these images to illustrate biographies of the prophet found them educational. So, the idea that they "add nothing" is refuted by the material itself. :) Brendon is here 10:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Per Smallchief above. Mohammad wasn't depicted at the time, so it's representational on every level. I personally think we can have the Depictions of Muhammad page containing over-image toggles, combined with over-image toggles lower down this article too. I see no need for specific top-page warnings - they are usually vexatious. Using calligraphy at the top of this article rather explains the situation well - anyone remember that philosophy? Extremism aside, the majority of Muslims exercise choice all the time. It's like wearing the hijab where I am in the UK (for example) - those women who wear it do it on a personal level.

    So I think that calligraphy should be used at the top on this article, and the Depictions of Mohammad article and here should utilise over-image toggles. No awkward an OTT warning banners. To facilitate this I think that a Manual of Style guideline on Sensitive Religious Imagery should be created, which should effectively bypass the notorious NOTCENSORED brick wall that appears from time to time. The MOS could simply say that image toggling is strongly recommended as an option when there is evidence of significant and widespread offence. That fact is surely not an issue here, and if it is then it can be debated per article/issue. If we fall to the 'floodgates will open!' argument over a specific MOS we may as well pack our bags and go home.

    On a personal note, I'm a big fan of using specific MOS guidelines. IMO, Wikipedia as an actual encyclopedia (as oppose to an information dump) doesn't make any sense without them. Unfortunately I have found that the more-staunch 'NOTCENSORED' advocates can feel that Wikipedia doesn't need them, so I recommend someone pushing the boat out and following Be Bold in drafting one. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The job of images is to illustrate events/information. And those images do that nicely. As for the question of what they actually add, I'd say they provide a vivid description and a better understanding of how the past cultures viewed those events.

    Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal.

    — WP:IMAGE
    Matt, I would like you(i.e. not mandatory) to read the primary contention of this proposal above. You are missing the whole point behind the policy WP:NOTCENSORED. Thank you! Brendon is here 13:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's enough now Brendon. I've said enough times now that 1) I do not myself agree with NOTCENSORED 2) It's not all encompassing 3) It's abused and misinterpreted anyway. And obviously MOS guidelines will always be more specific - and I am suggesting that the MOS you quote needs expanding. The whole point of all this is to discuss options (not adhere to any "primary contention of the proposal"!) - and not to beat people down with specific text, pretending the people actually discussing them cannot read. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment If you do not agree with NOTCENSORED, you can go to Wikipedia talk:NOT to seek to get it changed. It is all encompassing. All policies are abused and misinterpreted, but that does not invalidate the policies themselves.--New questions? 20:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "That's enough now Brendon." — No, I don't think it is enough, Matt. You need something more. Tone yourself down a notch please. It doesn't seem exactly compliant with WP:AGF policy. Like I've told you earlier, Wikipedia is not mandatory (albeit, I don't want you to leave). If you are inherently opposed to the idea of "no censorship solely based on religious sensitivity" then I think RfC is not an appropriate place for you to meander about and recklessly spray your inapposite, unbecoming and rather impertinent views all over.
  • As User:New questions said, you ought to spit your counter-productive, witless abhorrence regarding WP:NOTCENSORED policy on its talk page, not here. You have to go step by step. Here, it is only disruptive. Brendon is here 13:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Brendan

    Brendon, we are not at the mercy of any policy here. This forum is large and diverse enough, and the issue is unique and focal enough, for us to make decisions based on the good of the encyclopedia's mission, rather than on strict adherence to precedent. If ever there was an IAR situation, this is it. Of course this discussion must be informed by an understanding of policy and guidelines, but not constrained by it. Please lift your eyes up to the higher level of discussion occurring here, to the question of what best promotes the projects' common mission. That is, here, and on this page's talk page, I see your arguments based on a rigid adherence to sometimes contentious and always shifting policies and guidelines.

    Everything you have said here, so far, has been said countless times before in the months of discussion leading up to this RfC. Most of it had been said in this RfC or its discussion page. You may have something unique to add to the debate but I haven't seen it yet. You're just pushing the same old barrow around the same old track.

    For instance, you assert that in an encyclopaedia, sensitivity of the reader doesn't actually matter. This principle seems to underlie most of what you push here. Of course this point has been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere, but I wonder if you can bring a fresh perspective to it by explaining why you think that is the case. I don't see it in any definition of an encyclopedia I've ever read. I can't see the benefit in never taking account of the offensiveness of our content. In earlier discussion there was general agreement that, where an image adds significant educational value to a topic, reader sensibility should be subordinate to educational value, as in Human penis, My Lai Massacre and Depictions of Muhammad, but a large proportion of editors here argue that, where offensive images add little to the readers understanding, their benefit to the project should be weighed against the disaffection they cause in our readers.

    That is, a significant number of your fellow editors disagree with your assertion that sensitivity of the reader doesn't actually matter. Since this is the fundamental question at issue in this dispute, as Tarc has just pointed out on the talk page, if you can offer us an insight into that dilemma (should we weigh the educational value of images of Muhammad against the disaffection they're likely to cause in millions of our readers, and if so what are our criteria, or if not, why not?), that hasn't already been put forward in this RfC, I'd like to read it.

    Also, you confuse censorship with discretion and responsibility. What I and most of the editors from all perspectives here are discussing is how to responsibly use images that offend many readers. No one here is arguing we must conform to (some) Islamic tastes. This is a subtle distinction - censorship imposed vs. responsible, respectful concern.

    If you could avoid chanting policy, like a fundamentalist clings to religious diktats, in your response, that would help things enormously.--Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I respect your approach, Anthony. I really do. However, I don't concur with you that much.
  • "Brendon, we are not at the mercy of any policy here. This forum is large and diverse enough, and the issue is unique and focal enough, for us to make decisions based on the good of the encyclopedia's mission, rather than on strict adherence to precedent. If ever there was an IAR situation, this is it." - I strongly disagree. What are you trying to prove here? Are you saying that we have to make an exception in this case and just take down images in order to avoid offending some sensitivities?
    This is not where we really need to "Ignore all rules". It doesn't necessitate indifference towards all the pertinent Wikipedia-Policies.
  • "the higher level of discussion occurring here, to the question of what best promotes the projects' common mission" - this RfC is not the right place to talk about that. The topic-name is not "Discussion about the probable changes in Mission statement" it is "Discussion about Muhammad images". Others who are not interested in "Muhammad" but could have taken interest in the new discussion, will miss out on an opportunity to comment on this issue.
  • "you assert that in an encyclopaedia, sensitivity of the reader doesn't actually matter. This principle seems to underlie most of what you push here" - Like i said earlier, in an encyclopaedia, not sensitivity but
    1. verifiability,
    2. fidelity to the true nature of information in representation and
    3. the quality of information
    are what count.

    If anything, anything at all, clashes with these pillars (not to mention, which have been majorly responsible for the free-flow of information without much problem) then I think it's better to reject that thing than to reject the policies altogether. What I meant was the pillars of Wikipedia are not at the mercy of people's delicate sentiments in Wikipedia (I mean no offense). The pillars of Wikipedia are undeniably of paramount significance.

  • "Of course this point has been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere, but I wonder if you can bring a fresh perspective to it by explaining why you think that is the case." - fresh perspective? Why do you assume that presently the opinions which are scattered throughout this RfC, are not sufficient?
  • "reader sensibility should be subordinate to educational value" - YES, I agree!
  • "If you could avoid chanting policy, like a fundamentalist clings to religious diktats, in your response, that would help things enormously" - It's your opinion. I don't share your views. I think Wikipedia policies are not to be opportunistically disregarded whenever it seems convenient nor are they negligible. On the contrary, I believe here they are all the more relevant. That's why they are there in the first place. To give editors a good Idea of the mechanism and bounds of Wikipedia. And I also implore you to focus on content rather than picking on minutiae of rhetoric and phraseology.
  • "large proportion of editors here argue that" - Firstly, who knows how large?
    And secondly, simply positing that a large proportion of editors argue in favor of something, doesn't necessarily make it the right thing (Fallacy:Argumentum ad numerum).
    And don't worry, if that "large proportion of editors" form the majority it will reflect here in the RfC. I hope this helps. I am not looking for dispute here. Brendon is here 03:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We ignore all rules to improve the encyclopedia. If improvement cannot be demonstrated, then there is no reason to ignore any rule. The chief assertion here is that it would improve the encyclopedia for being more sensitive to moderately strict Sunni Muslim readers, and that it is of no value on the Mohammad page. Now, I would say that former should be of no issue, and the latter has been thoroughly contested. There are many things that would be sensitive to moderately strict Sunni Muslim readers, but I do not think we need to do those things. It could be argued that this is the most prominent and fundamental among the things that would be sensitive to moderately strict Sunni Muslim readers, and that they are a large portion portion of this population, but the key point is that they are not the entire population, and it would be against NPOV to acquiesce to the demands of any group, even if they are 30% of the world population, and it does not matter if it is just one or a thousand demands. The reason why we should not make an exception here to NOTCENSORED is to uphold NPOV, and NPOV is one of those things that are not negotiable, not subject to any exceptions under ignore all rules. This was made explicit from the very beginning of the encyclopedia here.

    It's worth adding that this is one of the rules that Jimmy Wales and many others on Wikipedia have said--contrary to what Cunctator and mirwin imply above--is non-negotiable, and really is a rule. So I'm not sure why there's a list of proponents and opponents here.
    — User:Larry Sanger

    --New questions? 06:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Are you saying that we have to make an exception in this case and just take down images in order to avoid offending some sensitivities?" Have to? Ummm no. Consider? yes. Again, your response is based on the false axiom, "sensitivity of the reader doesn't actually matter." I invited you to explain that nonsense proposition, not just assume it in your answer.
    • "this RfC is not the right place to talk about that." Don't censor me. "That" is precisely to the point of this RfC.
    • "If anything, anything at all, clashes with these pillars ... then I think it's better to reject that thing" The pillars serve the mission which, inter alia, is about open access to all human knowledge. Unnecessarily putting images on a page that repel a large group of readers works against that aspect of the mission. What's called for here is subtle discernment and discretion; a sensitive and informed balance between access and freedom of expression.
    • "Why do you assume that presently the opinions which are scattered throughout this RfC, are not sufficient?" That's not my point. I'm, to put it bluntly, telling you you have brought nothing new to this discussion, but you have added such a wall of text that you are effectively stimying pertinent discussion. Just my opinion.
    • New questions, thanks for reciting acronyms and policy at me. You cite NPOV and simply assert that heeding the sensibilities of our readers in this case, where it won't impact the educational value of the article, will naturally impact NPOV on the article. Go ahead, assert it. But nobody's going to take you seriously until you can show it's so in this case. The whole point of this RfC is to arrive at a version that respects our mission, partly embodied in WP:NPOV, and our readers' sensibilities. We're all (I think) agreed that, where these two can't be reconciled, the mission trumps reader sensibility.
    You both seem to be blindly (by that I mean without any discernible rationale) advocating that we ignore the offensiveness of our content. You're entitled to do that, but you would help your cause if you could give one good reason. You are both conflating the dubious prescription, "sensitivity of the reader doesn't actually matter," with NPOV. They're not the same. It's perfectly possible to produce encyclopedia articles that don't unnecessarily waggle penises, gore or pictures of Muhammad in our readers' faces. You're confusing an extremist libertarian/autistic stance toward offensive content with our mission to inform, and you're failing to see that the former diametrically, in this instance, opposes the latter.
    Please don't read my withdrawal from this conversation as agreement with anything you may say next. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Correction: moderately strict Sunni Muslim people think that it is offensive. To suppose that it is offensive in the first place is to favor the one POV already. In fact, to suppose that anything is offensive is itself POV.--New questions? 08:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Unnecessarily putting images on a page that repel a large group of readers works against that aspect of the mission." — You think Depictions of Muhammad (drawn by muslims themselves) in an article about Muhammad, is unnecessary? You are kidding, right? And "large group"? Argumentum ad populum again?
    I repeat, this RfC is not the right place to discuss anything that transcends the topic namely, images of Muhammad in article Muhammad.
    "You both seem to be blindly (by that I mean without any discernible rationale) advocating that we ignore the offensiveness of our content." - No, we're neither advocating permanent indifference to offensiveness nor are we pushing to do that blindly. Read my previous comments again. I see you're quite adept at attacking straw men. And BTW, the onus of providing proof (i.e. credible rationale) doesn't fall on those who just want to follow the status quo, it's on those who are gratuitously trying to create an exception to that.

    "you have added such a wall of text that you are effectively stimying pertinent discussion." - You mean according to you I should write less? You did right by clarifying that it's your opinion.

    Lastly, I would request you to pay heed to Belorn's comment below. Brendon is here 14:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    People, remember to focus on content, and not on editors. A subsection dedicated to one editor is not to focus on the content! Really, if you have something to say directly to one editor, use their talk page. I mean, I could jump in here and add my arguments for and against, but the whole subsection feels out of place, and uninviting for discussion. Belorn (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Does the sensitivity of the readers matter?

    This question was made above, so here is an attempt to answer that. There is three potential answer to this.

    1. Majority tyranny. If 49% say something is offensive, and 51% say its not offensive, then the subject is decided as not offensive.
    2. Minority tyranny. If any group claim something to be offensive, it is offensive and need to be removed/fixed.
    3. "Logic" tyranny. Everything is based on objective facts and rationality. "I feel offended", or "I do not feel offended" is in this context irrelevant and should not effect any article or Wikipedia policy.

    In my opinion, the only working model for an international Encyclopedia is to use the logic approach. In that light, the answer is No, the sensitivity of the readers do not matter, only objective truth does. The quality of the Muhammad article should be weighted as if someone with no cultural or personal bias read the article. If an image help that theoretical person, then it should be included, if not, then it should be removed.

    The other two options, to be under either a majority or minority tyranny, has substantial harm to it. Majority rules are too blind and causes splintering in the community. Minority rules locks down the project and prevent it from developing and improving, and also cause rot and degradation. Following a minority rule, we would have to ask every time if anyone might get offended, and always work to reform text and images so to not cause anyone dis-stress.

    Ending question. As there are exceptions, Laws and BLP, should we make a new exception here? Laws and BLP has clear and bright defined lines on when and how those exceptions are made. Religion and culture do not have those clear and bright lines. Religion and culture also differ from country to country in ways that are often contradictory to each other. Even if we tried to follow all that there is to culture and religious morality, we would fail. The solution is better and clearer not to make exceptions for culture, religion, or personal beliefs. Belorn (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I couldn't agree more with Belorn. Very logical. Very, Very logical. I salute your realistic and very intellectual comment. Thank you! :) Brendon is here 20:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't like to see logic abused like this. It seems to me that you have a destination and have drawn out a path to it here - doing that is entirely unscientific. You've concocted a spurious 'logic v's Wikipedia addressing sensitivity' argument that to me is just bunk. And it's just nonsense to give a set of options like that.
    • Wikipedia is supposed to be built on per-article consensus (ie where the interest and - hopefully - expertise is), not all top-level and simplistic Law, like some Orwellian fascist state. Why else are there so many caveats and clauses, inc the ultimate 'break all rules'? Without sounding too 'French', Wikipedia is written in human language - it can perhaps never be 100% objective (and frustratingly hardly ever tries to be linguistically - it's full of the most basic and dodgy 'appropriation = fact' calculations). Wikipedia is about communication and readership - it's about presenting the most accurate and fairly-balanced information, to be read by potentially the broadest possible group of people. For heaven's sake please, nobody tell me that isn't true.
    • To actively prevent any article being read by the most amount of people (as you and some others are effectively doing) can very easily be called censorship itself. To claim that clicking on a picture to see a picture (and potentially people could do just that) is "censorship", is absolute and utter nonsense. To suggest that using some common sense (as happens all over Wikipedia) will open doors to 'mayhem' all over the encyclopedia is insidious bullshit. Guidelines can make things as broad or specific as you can envisage them and make them, and nobody cries foul when they do just that.
    I've suggested this idea/guideline change on talk, and will probably just go ahead with it at some point (not here - it's too long now I feel, but elsewhere), as nobody has expressly objected. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "To claim that clicking on a picture to see a picture (and potentially people could do just that) is "censorship", is absolute and utter nonsense." - No, it is not nonsense. Any act of suppressing relevant information (pictorial or otherwise) amounts to censorship at least to some extent. A "hatnote" in Muhammad article would be nothing short of giving special credence to Islamic tenets; as a matter of fact, "Universal image toggle" reflects a specific POV (namely POV of the offended people) and will be seen as an impetus to self-censorship by Wikipedia itself. None of these is the goal of Wikipedia.

    People's sensitivities matter very very little in comparison to long-standing Wikipedia policies. Brendon is here 21:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Doing my best at keeping good-faith in mind while reading that, but this comment will have to show if it worked. How is it that the basic suggestion; changes to Wikipedia should be based on rational arguments, in any way resulting in Wikiepdia turning to a Orwellian fascist state? It sound crazy, so please, provide some detailed explanation on how one can reach that conclusion. Please use pictures, or if you prefer calligraphy :)
    Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project based on an openly editable mode (Wikipedia:About), so yes, Wikipedia can be described as presenting the most accurate and fairly-balanced information, to be read by potentially the broadest possible group of people. The way it manage this, is by being a web-based free-content encyclopedia. I do not think you actually meant to use the word "potentially", but rather, want Wikipedia to be: A encyclopedia read by the most amount of people as possible. No, this is not the goal. Had this been the goal, Wikipedia would encourage soapboxing, Scandal mongering, Opinion pieces, social networking, and newspaper articles as all those would increase the number of readers. Wikipedia is explicitly NOT out to get as much web "hits" as possible, but rather to be a encyclopedia! I rather have a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project than a non-offensive, image-less and perfect work safe site with all white empty pages with no text, no image, or content! I don't think that is actually what you are suggesting, but the amount of hyperbole being brought around in your comment surely suggest it. (as for show/hide concept, my comments will be made there and not here) Belorn (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Try this for AGF you moron: you just based your entire above argument on me "not really meaning" to use the word "potentially". Jesus. Matt Lewis (talk)
    Moron? "insidious bullshit"? What is this? - (I don't know about Belorn, but I resent your way of talking and find it truly uncivil) Why do you have to be so uncivil and personal, matt? Brendon is here 21:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Note on NOTCENSORED/AGF paradox

    Has anyone noticed how people so keen on Wikipedia NOT BEING CENSORED, and in ignoring people's "sensitivities", can be particularly sensitive over 'AGF' being broken? I'd like to point out the plain hypocrisy there. I think that many of them care less about NOTCENSORED than their own likes and dislikes - the rest is often little more than ammunition given to them by the project. It often seems to me as if everyone armed with a proactive bias are given a billion bullet bonus the moment they sign up. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "Has anyone noticed how people so keen on...ignoring people's "sensitivities".." - Who is keen on (i.e. needlessly in favor of) ignoring people's sensitivities? It is not intentional. If "sensitivities" bar the flow of information then only it can be ignored.
    "can be particularly sensitive over 'AGF' being broken?" - If you are referring to me, then I must say, I'm not "sensitive" about the contravention of WP:AGF. I'm just suggesting you a better approach, that's all. Brendon is here 20:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The question is, whose sensitivity, and who decides what is offensive? Offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder; something is offensive only in someone's point of view. To presuppose that anything is offensive as a basis for any action is to actively favor someone's point of view.--New questions? 18:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, I agree. Right you are! Brendon is here 20:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Don't be so ignorant of basic Wikipedia policy - this is not about 'predisposing' anything. Wikipedia works on reliable sources - which here must show that sufficient offence is taken. The weight given to the sources (and what they actually say) should be decided by various policy and consensus of course if needed.
    Obviously no one is arguing over the amount of Muslims who would rather the image wasn't shoved under their noses! NO reliable sources out there are claiming that the amount Muslims taking offence isn't real, or is 'exaggerated' etc - it is a clear cut fact that a significant number of Muslims do not wish to see an image of Mohammad.
    The only 'opposing' position is entirely the 'POV' of certain Wikipedians - namely, that the offence taken by Muslim people must be actively ignored by Wikipedia, rather than simply worked around with no bother to anyone. They base this rude and encyclopedia-narrowing position on supposed 'principles' extrapolated from NOTCENSORED. All the other arguments they've used to back themselves up are just meaningless waffle (as if misusing NOTCENSORED isn't bad enough - there is no way it was intended for point-making and controversy-creating, all in the face of offending people unnecessarily like this). Matt Lewis (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Matt

    "it is a clear cut fact that a significant number of Muslims do not wish to see an image of Mohammad" - again, argumentum ad populum fallacy. So what, if muslims are offended.

    If that is to be considered then, it is also a clear cut fact that a significant number of non-Muslims (myself included) do wish to see an image of Mohammad in the article Muhammad and will consider censorship based on religious precepts or specific POV to be highly offensive.

    This is why quoting WP:CENSOR becomes relevant and necessary,

    1. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.

    2. "Being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content.

    I think all of us ought to learn what the word "Policy" means. Brendon is here 21:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Brendon - image choice is only "censorship" in from your embittered viewpoint: to most people it is just an extra step to see a 'forbidden' image that causes many people offence (or visa versa if the less preferable approach is taken). It could be said that you are censoring the fact that images can simply be chosen to be seen - by constantly claiming it is censorship to "hide" them. It could be said that you are censoring the entire Mohammad page from those who see the image as forbidden - because clearly you have a problem with them being religious.
    So who is doing the censoring here? Wikipedia pages are intended to be viewed by the broadest possible readership while keeping their value intact. It's perfectly possible to do that in this case, but you just don't want it to happen. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've got some serious reservations about this line of thinking. First you say, "Wikipedia pages are intended to be viewed by the broadest possible readership" then you annex, "while keeping their value intact." - You are wrong again, Matt. You don't even realise that the two criteria are contesting criteria and cannot coexist in some cases (e.g. where offensiveness of a reliable content is cited as a sole argument for the removal of that content).

    Belorn beautifully pointed this out by saying, "No, this is not the goal. Had this been the goal, Wikipedia would encourage soapboxing, Scandal mongering, Opinion pieces, social networking, and newspaper articles as all those would increase the number of readers. Wikipedia is explicitly NOT out to get as much web "hits" as possible, but rather to be a encyclopedia! I rather have a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project than a non-offensive, image-less and perfect work safe site with all white empty pages with no text, no image, or content!"

    New addition: I see you also based your whole point here on the assumption that religious injunctions (I'm not sure if there are any, but for argument's sake) that forbid images to be displayed online, apply to Wikipedia. So, your assumption is in direct contradiction to WP:UNCENSORED. This is how you compel me to partially reproduce a copy of wikipedia policies verbatim. I'm not to blame here if start doing that. Brendon is here 22:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Reply to Matt Lewis: Reliable sources can be a good way of finding out the points of views that certain people hold. However, even if a thousand reliable sources say "group X says that something is offensive," it only shows that it is group X's point of view; it does not prove that it is "absolutely and objectively offensive," if such a phrase means anything at all. By the way, the offense taken by Muslims is not ignored; it is duly noted in the relevant articles. However, to do anything policy-wise on the basis of a point of view is to favor that point of view.--New questions? 20:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The suggested guideline change is on Sensitive religious imagery - ie images that are forbidden to certain people and would stop them reading the article. It's only being suggesting because its an easy remedy that doesn't harm anyone - it's not censorship in any form.
    Offence is always described as being "taken" - who on earth calls it an absolute value? If there is proof that sufficient offence is taken, and we know that it stops people from reading the article, the only question to ask is; can that be rectified without losing the value of the page? It can - easily.
    The fact that the Mohammad articles explain why the images are forbidden to many people simply makes it even worse that those articles also force people to encounter them. It is just so needless, and the articles only do it because it satisfies the POV of people who demand it does so - on at best a misguided principal (a bad reason), and at worse their filthy prejudice. Without guidelines Wikipedia always falls at the edit table. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is also a clear cut fact that a overwhelming majority of Wikipedia readers do not take offense to those images. This is also not the only minority group feeling offended by something. It is a clear cut fact that some do not like nudity. It is also a clear cut fact that some takes offensive to violence, grafically describe in articles like Torture and Riot. And why should only images be effected? Sections like criticism on articles about politicians offends a real large group of people. This also a clear cut fact. Should we not include a HIDE/VIEW with default hidden to sections like that? If the goal is to not offend any verifiable offended group, then there is a long list of places needed to be fixed on Wikipedia. Alternative, we could just "fix" this page and say this one should get an exception because. Belorn (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comparisons are simply odious here. A guideline like the one I propose focuses on forbidden religious imagery, and how it should be chosen to be seen. It doesn't have to go anywhere else - in fact, whether similar guidelines should happen elsewhere or not is totally irrelevant. The idea of floodgates opening is insidious in the extreme. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Since you are making a "suggested guideline change," comparisons are very relevant, although since you narrowed it down to "religious imagery," Belorn's comparisons are a little off the mark. Still, by narrowing it down to "religious imagery," that is a supposition that religious images ought to get special treatment different from other kinds of images. Such special treatment inherently favors one point of view, that religious images are somehow special.--New questions? 21:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Having a guideline on forbidden religious imagery does not somehow treat other images unfairly. Look, any issues surrounding other images are issues with those other images - MOS:images can have as many sections as it needs, as do all MOS guidelines. If you read my proposed text it is an entirely specific and recommended action, and even allows for article-specific consensus. And it's all linked to choice. It's not censorship, it's just standard encyclopedia building. Show me one without extensive compilation guidelines - you won't find one. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Without a good rationale to single out religious imagery other than "it causes offense," it does treat other images unfairly, especially since other images can also be considered offensive just the same way as for religious imagery.--New questions? 23:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes. And who judges what is sensible and what is not. Who judges what is offensive and what is not? Who can so boldly (and fallaciously) claim to speak for the "most"? No one. It's absolutely needless. The proposal above sums it up. Brendon is here 18:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We make judgements about what is offensive all the time. See Wikipedia:GFFENSE. By including images that are merely decorative, but which we know exclude a large number of readers who would otherwise have an interest in the article, we are slanting the article away from those readers' viewpoint, which is an effective form of censorship.--agr (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Indeed. By placing a 'forbidden' image under someone's nose you are essentially making it impossible for them to read the article at all. I do think it's worth having a specific guideline here though, esp as it can refer to per-image toggle graphics (in an 'off' state), which presumably is possible to do. Wikipedia is just too inherently inclusionist to never show things like this at all imo. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    People can view the entire website with images disabled. It is not very difficult to do so, as most standard browsers have such a feature.--New questions? 23:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How kind of you to allow them that. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is correct. People can already view the entire website without images. So no further measures are needed.--New questions? 03:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Which is what the above proposal is all about.
    "By placing a 'forbidden' image under someone's nose you are essentially making it impossible for them to read the article at all." -

    1. Even if some images are offensive in nature (which I don't think matters in an encyclopaedia any more than the font-name) it's a logical fallacy (namely, Camel's nose and/or Foot in the door) to claim that it makes it impossible for any sensitive man to read the article at all. Come on, no healthy person is going to get an heart-attack or something (only then it will make it truly impossible).

    2. I think User talk:New questions above has expressed it finely. No need for me to repeat it again. (see proposal above) Brendon is here 18:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Just going to cite what Wikipedia:GFFENSE say, with my own added markup.
    Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. and: A "typical Wikipedia reader" is defined by the cultural beliefs of the majority of the website readers (not active editors) that are literate in an article's language. Clarifying this viewpoint may require a broad spectrum of input and discussion, as cultural views can differ widely.
    If you can provide verifiable proof that a majority of the readers are offended, and that the solution you are providing a equally suitable alternative, then and only then do Wikipedia:GFFENSE encourage the actions being suggested with Calligraphy and removal of the images. Any form of disclaimers (hat notes are a form of disclaimers) are still explicitly said to not be used. Belorn (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wikipedia:GFFENSE treats images differently. "Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, Wikipedia does not prefer the most offensive options merely to "show off" its ability to include possibly offensive materials. Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship." Here we have multiple options: calligraphy, veiled images and unveiled images. The images most offensive to Muslims are not necessary for this article, they are merely decorative. And there is no requirement for "proof that a majority of the readers are offended" in the text I quoted.--agr (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The "merely decorative" argument has been explicitly and categorically rejected by many who have participated in this RfC. The images are included because most editors over the years feel they are directly related to and supported by the text of the article, and their removal world make the article a poorer work. Tarc (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are no reliable sources that say the images depict what Muhammad actually looked like, quite the opposite; so, yes, they are just decorative. And yes, in general, decorative images are valuable and not including them can make an article poorer. But excluding a large body of potential editors who have a strong interest in the article does much more damage to the article's integrity, in my opinion, than any of the proposals on the table here. Wikipedia:GFFENSE suggests balancing such concerns, not taking the most extreme position. --agr (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The ancient devotees (Muslims themselves) who drew/used these images for illustrating biographies of the prophet, found them educational (as do majority of editors commenting here). So, the idea that they "add nothing" is refuted by the material itself. And it should not come as a terrible shock to see portraits of Muhammad in an article about Muhammad, should it?
    Also, the pictures do show how that one part of Islamic culture viewed or depicted him.

    Besides, the claims of offense aren't floating around because pictures are "decorative"(a quality which is at least essential to an article's quality in your own opinion), are they? The truth is the opposite, you're only devaluing the contributions of the images by derogatorily labeling them as "merely decorative", because of the claims of offense (or is it because you are offended? Just curious).

    And BTW, decorating an article with relevant images is not a "mere" (as in trifling) act, finding appropriate images requires just as much diligence and hard-work as anything else we do in wikipedia.

    In fact, editors are allowed to decorate their articles with pertinent images and all they should make sure is that the images are treated in a proper encyclopaedic manner. Brendon is here 00:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Do you have reliable sources for the claim that Muslims (who were not "ancient" btw) including figurative depictions of Muhammed in manuscripts did so for "educational," reasons? It is safe to assume that they had reasons to add the depictions, but to assume that it was consciously in service of "education" in the sense of what we're trying to do here in a modern encyclopedia is not something you or I can do. So where are your sources? To anyone who knows a lick about Muhammad as a cultural/historical figure it does actually come as a shock to see depictions of him in an article about him. In fact that's the very point of arguing against using these images as educationally distorting. I hate to say this but Brendon your perspective appears to be filtered through a narrow cultural (and historical) imperialism, through which apparently you assume that only your particular Western, modern version of reality is sensible. In fact much of this discussion reeks of the same and it's a down right shame. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Your questions are as irrelevant and as inane as the question "do you have a reliable source (reliability is sometimes subjective also) claiming that Muhammad was even a human?" (Do I need to elaborate more?)
  • Is it not obvious why they drew Muhammad's portraits?
  • And why are we now talking about primitiveness of images anyway, I thought we were talking about the relevance of offensiveness of images. What does it matter if it was 8th century or 9th century when they depicted Muhammad? While depicting any other historical personality we don't ask these questions because they are not pertinent. Regardless of the age of these images they are depictions of Muhammad by Muslims themselves. Muhammad is constantly depicted even today.

    My point is muslim people still draw pictures of Muhammad. And if you want an exact date or more price time-length, then I think you should talk to User:Johnbod. Brendon is here 18:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Narrative images illustrating sections on mythical or historical events add (1) prettiness (2) an aid to visualization and memory and (3) examples of historical styles of depiction - a subject utterly irrelevant to the sections they illustrate. Does that value outweigh the disaffection they cause? I believe it does not. Adding images that are both of little value to the section they're illustrating, and offensive to many readers, works against this project's mission to make knowledge as widely available as possible.
    Brendon asserts that sensitivity of the reader doesn't actually matter, so even miniscule educational value outweighs our non-existent concern for disaffecting our readers. But the notion that sensitivity of the reader doesn't matter is deeply irrational and dysfunctional, so employing it as an editorial guiding principle needs to be thoroughly justified. Can you do that? Can you explain why an encyclopedia should pay no attention to the offensiveness of its content Brendon?
    This RfC was ill-conceived. The root question has always been, Should we take account of offensiveness and, if so, under what circumstances and to what degree? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We should not take account of offensiveness, since offensiveness is always subjective. Unless, of course you can find a way for something to be "objectively" offensive, which I do not quite believe to be possible.--New questions? 13:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "But the notion that sensitivity of the reader doesn't matter is deeply irrational and dysfunctional" - I can sense some abhorrence and undue acerbity in this apparently illogical and overly-simplistic comment.

    "a subject utterly irrelevant to the sections they illustrate" - It's your opinion. Do you really believe (let alone proving it) that a depiction of Muhammad receiving his first revelation from the angel Gabriel (From the manuscript Jami' al-tawarikh by Rashid-al-Din Hamadani) or a depiction of Muhammad where he is prohibiting intercalary months during the Farewell Pilgrimage is not relevant in Muhammad article?

    Well, guess what, I don't hold your view nor I am impressed by your weak attempt to justify censorship. Brendon is here 18:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    That's absurd. By the same logic civility is "subjective" so lets get rid of WP:CIVIL. In fact even "vandalism" is subjective, requiring editors to make a judgement call about how someone's edits are affecting the project and perhaps more importantly making a judgement call that those effects are themselves unwanted, so let's get rid of WP:VANDAL. What we do when we make decisions here is by its nature "subjective." The "that's subjective" argument holds about as much water as the Sahara.Griswaldo (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I think that the civility policy is one of the more problematic ones for being so subjective (and it definitely has caused a ton of trouble in the past due to this subjectivity), but I won't get into that. I think that "vandalism" is often objective enough. In any case, given how subjective policies like civility are often a cause of trouble due to their subjectivity, I think that introducing even more subjectivity is not the best way to resolve problems.--New questions? 14:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You've missed the point entirely. 'All of our policies are subjective and enforcing our policies is also subjective. What we can accomplish, and hopefully do most of the time, are versions of subjectivity that are held by most of the people in the community. Indeed that's the very nature of democratic rule within any community. But common understandings don't make things "objective." So the fact that offensiveness is subjectively experienced and/or has to be subjectively adjudicated is not an argument that in itself has any value. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    @Griswaldo,

    I don't think that all our policies are subjective. Most of acts of vandalism are treated delicately and I'd say there is not much room for subjectivity there. But, even if they are partially subjective, we have a scope to build up consensus for or against that. That's how Wikipedia works.

    But the bigger point is why are we talking about subjectivity? Yes some people are offended that's a fact. But so what? Offensiveness is not a relevant reason in favor of deletion of content. Brendon is here 18:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    "Offensiveness" may or may not be a relevant reason to present a subject matter in one way or another but it has nothing to do with subjectivity. That's my point. So if you are trying to argue against offensiveness as a relevant reason then find a sensible argument. That's all I'm saying. "It's subjective" is nonsensical for the reasons I've outlined already. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think, I'm confused. Are you saying that “"Offensiveness" ... has nothing to do with subjectivity”? One thing may be offensive to you though I do not find it unsavory, that's subjective. I'm quite certain that you're saying something else.

    Oh I see, “"It's subjective" is nonsensical” - No that's not nonsensical and this RfC is itself the proof of it. Now you may say that "subjectivity" alone cannot be cited as a credible argument for or against deletion of pertinent content and I concur with that much. But again, who is the one actually citing "subjective" issues alone as credible argument for or against censorship? Who is doing that? I mean, is it me? Brendon is here 19:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    You are confused but I don't know how many times I can repeat the same thing before you understand. Of course offensiveness has to do with subjectivity but ... here's the important part ... SO DOES EVERYTHING ELSE WE ADJUDICATE HERE. This means all policy is subjective. What I said is not that offensiveness isn't subjective, but that the subjectivity of something is not a logical reason for dismissing it as a basis for policy or more generally for acting in some way or another (which is what you are trying to do). You are the one citing "subjectivity" as a basis for arguing against offensiveness and that is nonsensical. I'm not repeating myself again. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, not everything is subjective. This sort of generalizations are not very conducive. And also, coherence helps.

    Yes, wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia. They are based on mostly experience and opinions (so is science and thus consensus of sane people matters in science). Who has disagreed with that? For the record, something that is subjective is based on personal opinions and feelings rather than on facts. And I am even saying that just because Policies may be modified/ignored, it doesn't mean they need to be modified/ignored. Why are we talking about subjectivity? Can we just stop talking about "subjectivity"?

    The demand of censorship, based on claims of offense, is subjective but that's not only reason why we should not work upon it, another important reason is it stifles the flow of information and unnecessarily curtails editorial freedom which in turn works to the detriment of the mission of any encyclopaedia.

    "I don't know how many times I can repeat the same thing before you understand." cheers! Brendon is here 20:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Permissibility of Images of Muhammad in Islam

    I know there are many conflicting views here but I think the following (source) is worth noting:

    Islamic law does, as far as I know, not distinguish between depictions of Muhammad and depictions of other living beings. It seems wrong to say that „some supplemental hadith explicitly ban the drawing of images of any living creature" and that "[h]ence, most Muslims avoid visual depictions of Muhammad". It is misleading to say that "[t]he permissibility of depictions of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, has long been a concern in the history of Islam“. There are many ways of reading the hadith, and in cases when strict readings gain popularity, scholars rather look for sociopolitical causes (see, e.g., Mika Natif, The Painter’s Breath and Concepts of Idol Anxiety in Islamic Art, in: Josh Ellenbogen and Aaron Tugendhat, Idol Anxiety, Stanford University Press 2011, pp 41-55).

    The permissibility of depictions of Muhammad rarely ever has been a concern in the history of Islam. Strict readings of the hadith rarely ever did gain popularity. Scholarly sources describe Islam as a culture rather indifferent than hostile to images. Silvia Naef, a Swiss scholar who has written a book on the Islamic image ban (Y a-t-il une question de l’image en Islam? (2004) – not yet translated into English, but into German (Bilder und Bilderverbot im Islam, 2007) and Italian (La questione dell'immagine nell'Islam, 2011)), points to the fact that Muslim jurists never have addressed the question of images as a main topic. According to Naef, "there are no tracts on the subject of images." Images are only mentioned in tracts on the subject of ritual purity in general.

    The absence of depictions of Muhammad may over the centuries have turned into a taboo in parts of the Muslim world, but that taboo is not founded in Islamic law (see, e.g., Ron E. Hassner, Blasphemy and Violence, in: International Studies Quarterly (2011) 55, 23–45). Thanks to the Supreme Court frieze controversy we now even have a fatwa stating that “the fundamental rule is one of non-prohibition of images” (Taha Jaber al-Alwani, Fatwa Concerning the United States Supreme Courtroom Frieze, in: Journal of Law and Religion 15 (2000), pp. 1-28). Islamic law does not prohibit depicting Muhammad, although Muslims and non-Muslims alike often believe it does. And the frieze fatwa even expresses gratitude to the creators of the frieze, “who brought, in their own way, the essence of what the Prophet (SAAS) symbolized, namely, law with justice, to the attention of the American people.”
    — User:Ankimai

    Hope this brings new thoughts into the discussion. Brendon is here 19:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Update - Click this to go to the (highly recommended) section containing a set of reliable sources on this Issue (web-links) by User:FormerIP. Brendon is here 17:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Most of what is mention in there is not relevant to the discussion. Interpretations of Islamic law are not the point and they never have been. There are two primary objections to the use or more fairly overuse of figurative images in the entry.
    • The use/overuse of figurative images is WP:UNDUE in the sense that it doesn't accurately represent the Muhammad we know from history because it uses very uncommon ways of representing him. It is also anti-educational because of this, since it presents a distorted picture of Muhammad.
    • The use/overuse of figurative images is offensive to many Muslims who believe that it is against their religion to view such images.
    Neither of these have anything to do with the accuracy of someone's interpretation of hadith. The first argument is based in historical fact and the prominence of one image tradition over the other. The second argument is based on what contemporary Muslims believe. Ankimai can say that their beliefs aren't based in Islamic law as much as he wants but that doesn't change the fact that they are offended.Griswaldo (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Interpretations of Islamic law are not the point and they never have been." - You're trying to misguide people again by muddying the issue.

    It is at the very core of the demand. People wrongly believe it's a valid religious matter. The fact that Islamic law is not even opposed to depictions of Muhammad, in effect, eviscerates the demands of censorship of images of Muhammad.

    Your first point about accuracy of Muhammad-images is incoherent gibberish which have been addressed multiple times in this very RfC (in the above section too). I won't repeat that.
    "many Muslims who believe that it is against their religion" - It's not Wikipedia's responsibility to cater to the unsubstantiated, irrational demands based on false beliefs.

    That's the point isn't it? Brendon is here 20:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I'm not trying to misguide anyone and that's a serious bad faith accusation by the way. First of all what you're quoting is one interpretation of Islamic law. If you read our entry Depictions of Muhammad you'll see that there is a legal basis for the belief that many Muslims have that figurative depictions are off limits. But Islamic law is differs historically and across groups because there are different sources recognized as authoritative by various jurists. But once again, that's not the point anyway. It doesn't matter how strong or weak the legal claims are. We do not base our decisions on how strong or weak a certain religious legal interpretation is. You claim this is an argument that people are making but who is making that argument? The people who are arguing about offense are arguing that average Muslims (not specifically Muslim jurists, schools of Islamic law or various other Islamic institutions) are offended by the images. If we accept such offense as a consideration then its the offense, and not the supposed Islamic legal interpretation, that matters. Do you really not get that? The logic of your argument would have us considering the validity of offense based on our understandings of Islamic jurisprudence when quite clearly we should not be doing so and no one is arguing that we should.Griswaldo (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just the second line of Depictions of Muhammad clearly states the following,

    “Oral and written descriptions are readily accepted by all traditions of Islam, but there is disagreement about visual depictions.”

    And that “the Quran does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad”

    "what you're quoting is one interpretation of Islamic law.....Islamic law is differs historically and across groups because there are different sources recognized as authoritative by various jurists." —— If anything, these consolidate and corroborate my contentions even more than I previously thought. It proves that the matter is not even decided yet (law is not totally against depictions of Muhammad). And that there are indeed conflicting views within the Islamic jurisprudence. So, one cannot, with certainty, label it as a religious issue rather than a “personal-faith issue” (which is even less significant here).

    "who are arguing about offense are arguing that average Muslims .. are offended by the images." —— If you are concerned about average Muslims' (I don't know what percentage of Muslim world do they constitute) claims of offense predicated upon the baseless beliefs (which are false anyway) without any semblance of a justifiable basis, then I couldn't care less about what you feel.

    If you think man-made hadiths are to be followed when Qur'an didn't explicitly forbid drawing images of Muhammad, then I must tell you that there is a whole "Anti-hadith movement" going on around the world.

    "I'm not trying to misguide anyone" - Good, you shouldn't. But from your excessively captious attitude, false-reasoning and chicaneries, I found it hard to come to any other conclusion. However, I didn't mean that you're knowingly trying to misguide people. I meant you are muddying the water and thus people can be misguided because of you (stop picking on phraseology). It did not seem as serious an accusation to me (also, it had nothing to do with good or bad faith)!

    Anyways, I'm sorry if it truly hurt you.

    BTW, You should know that a harsh accusation of bad-faith is in itself a grave accusation. Brendon is here 02:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Agree with Griswaldo based on my own experiences.
    I lived in Egypt for several years and was fortunate enough to make many friends. Through them, I often came to know their families. Just living life on a daily basis amongst the people allowed me to learn a great deal about their society and culture. One such thing is how it isn’t respectful, or indeed normal to depict images of prophets in their faith. In fact, no prophets are shown on TV, in films, in books, or anywhere else for that matter.
    When the animated film the Prince of Egypt (including the animated character of Moses - another prophet) was released, it wasn’t shown in Egypt. No one there had ever seen the Ten Commandments. It was strange for me as I hadn’t been aware of this aspect of their religion before. I asked questions and came to respect their beliefs whether I personally agreed with them or not.
    Wikipedia would cause great distress to not only my personal friends but also millions of other devout Muslims by artificially coupling images with this article. I speak from my life experience; what I have garnered first hand. There is no need for conjecture, assuming or predisposed guesses on my part as to what will offend. It is not only an absurdity to Muslims that such pictures would be included in this article, but also represents a preposterous audacity, lack of respect and illustration of ignorance.
    Moreover and on to the crux, the overwhelming arguments for the desire to include these images do not seem to address how such images support the topic of the article and help the reader learn. Rather, they cry afoul of perceived censorship to material that would never naturally exist in such a context. My perception is that the issue has basically devolved into what the rights of people are vs. what constitutes relevant material. We must get it right and have the article reflect what is truly most important to its essence. By not including images, we show respect and more importantly keep the article accurate and true. Wikipedia must not take on the role of creating connections and correlations where there were none before. Veritycheck (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Wikipedia would cause great distress to not only my personal friends but also millions of other devout Muslims by artificially coupling images with this article." —— again this argumentum ad populum fallacy? Experience, huh? What if I told you, I also had many Muslim friends who migrated from Iran and didn't mind seeing images of Muhammad?

    Millions of people are offended but how is that claim justified?

    It's not even in that qur'an! Even if it were truly a religious issue. How are they valid in an encyclopaedia? That's why I said, in an encyclopaedia reader's sensitivity matters next to nothing. But as it seems, you are hell-bound not get this into your head. You cannot just demand your way around everything, you know.

    All other "arguments" presented in the post above by User:Veritycheck, has been thoroughly discussed and refuted several times in this very discussion.

    I think the policy-makers weren't kidding when they explicitly wrote,

    "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms."

    — WP:CENSOR
    "By not including images, we show respect" — Would it be okay if we deleted the article holocaust denial to show our respect and to keep it true. Because the subject "holocaust denial" is essentially about denying the truth as well as truly offensive and with good reason. (you put emphasis on truth and offensiveness both of which are hard to quantify and of secondary importance in an Encyclopaedia.)
    Policies define Wikipedia and are responsible for the work-flow for the most parts in wikipedia.
    But in this case, Wikipedia policies (essentially, the identity of Wikipedia) must be ignored/disfigured because some (nobody knows exactly how many) hyper-sensitive (as this sort sensitivity is induced and not natural) people are offended by the pictures, all this due to some religious injunctions whose validity and credibility are still unclear.

    WOW! Come on! What's up with all these sophistries? What do you want to accomplish here? Is it just for the satisfaction of making others bow down to irrational sensitivity or what?

    I am sorry but I honestly feel this RfC is being pushed in the wrong direction in all sorts of ways.

    Asking same boring questions with no merit again and again, and again compelling people like me to repeat the same answers, cite the same policies. This is really idiotic and counter-productive (I mean no offense though). Brendon is here 07:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    It is dishonest to imply that the legal perspective is irrelevant. The moral view of depictions is not uniform across all Muslims, nor all the readers of the Muhammad article. Even the abstract concept of a depiction is not uniformly agreed upon. This is why scholar works providing historical and present views is important to discussions like this RFC. Belorn (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No one said that historical views are not important. What's unimportant are the specifics of legal arguments. We're not here to tell Muslims how they should be interpreting hadith or the Qur'an. So yes if you have historical literature on the reception of figurative images then of course its relevant. But a historical view of reception is not the same as claiming that if you interpret the law correctly there's no legal argument. That's what you'll find in the above and that's what's being objected too. I'm flabbergasted by how instinctively you all seem to raise straw men to argue against.Griswaldo (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "I'm flabbergasted by how instinctively you all seem to raise straw men to argue against." - that line suits you more, Griswaldo. Belorn clearly wrote, "It is dishonest to imply that the legal perspective is irrelevant." but you replied saying "No one said that historical views are not important". He was specifically talking about historicity of legal perspective on this issue which you didn't bother to touch. Brendon is here 14:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • More