Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images: Difference between revisions

Add links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tarc (talk | contribs)
24,217 edits
→‎Sensationalising vs. Informing: - 5 to 1, baby, 1 in 5
Brendon111 (talk | contribs)
3,269 edits
Line 1,694: Line 1,694:
::I rather wish now the two hatnote questions were the last two, then people would grapple with the substantive material first. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 11:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
::I rather wish now the two hatnote questions were the last two, then people would grapple with the substantive material first. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 11:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
::: 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. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 15:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
::: 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. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 15:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' - Only those votes that ''do mention'' at least one wikipedia policy <u>should be counted</u>. '''What else do we need wikipedia policies for if we cannot cite them as credible arguments while opining on something here on wikipedia?''' If — heaven forbid — any restriction is placed on the free use of ''any'' Image solely ''based on the fear of upsetting some over-sensitive lunatics'', it will '''contravene''' not only [[WP:NOTCENSORED]], but also other policies namely [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:PROFANE]], etc. Why is this so hard to understand? AFAIK, Wikipedia is ''not an Islamic proselytising website'' that it has to comply with the quranic embargoes. It's an encyclopaedia whose job is to relay/transmit information with as much neutrality and intactness as possible sans prejudicial censorship or distortion. <nowiki>:)</nowiki> <font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR:#FFFFCC" size="2">[[User:Brendon111|<font face="Ravie" color="Green"><b>Brendon is</b></font>]] [[User talk:Brendon111|<font color="brown"><b>here</b></font>]]</font> 13:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


===Undue weight===
===Undue weight===

Revision as of 13:33, 30 March 2012


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

  • Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to me to be an appropriate application of WP:IAR. FormerIP (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is entirely appropriate for this unique situation. --JaGatalk 03:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second choice. Invoking IAR here is justified. But in practice, instructions have been too difficult for all users to follow. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • very much second choice as wikipedia is an encylopedia so the images should be there but an encylopedia should not put barriers real or perceived in users way. Edmund Patrick – confer 07:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needed--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 07:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both factual (educational) and functional, so fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • First Choice: R.E.S.P.E.C.T. and principle of least astonishment. --Advocado 15:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • support This is not censorship, this is fairness to readers. This is not a barrier; the easiest thing is to go right on ignoring it--if it said the inverse, "click here to see how to show the images" , as in the ill-fated and community rejected WMF resolution, then it would be a barrier. But there is no harm from telling people what the available options are (it also has the advantage of right at the top defusing some frequent objections). DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: that is the purpose of the hat notes and this is an essential given the contention. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Best option on the table. Even better would be simply not to allow the Muhammad pics at all. The negligible education value is outweighed by the distress and alienation they cause to large numbers of devout Muslims. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A reasonable accommodation to millions of Muslims that preserves the content and illustrations for all readers.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Images portraying Muhammad are offensive to Muslims who represent 1 in 5 people on the planet. No doubt, Wikipedia is a place where many of them may come to read this article. Furthermore, no actual pictures of Muhammad or portraits painted while he was alive do in fact exist. Why bother to include them in the article when they serve no purpose but to inflame? We don’t show pictures of paedophilia to those who want to read about the subject nor do we show lynching photos in the African American article. Respect first. Forcing western perspectives about what is deemed acceptable in the west seems out of place and entirely insensitive in such an article. Finally, at least two of the current images are attributed to a Jew, which only adds insult to injury and seems somewhat suspect when Islam itself expressly forbids such depictions. Adding a hatnote seems to be both a sensible and sensitive option that will allow all readers to see or shield content as they themselves see fit. Wikipedia has no place in putting its readers in awkward, if not humiliating, positions. Veritycheck (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Makes sense. Arguments stating but we don't do this for swastika or sexual... are somewhat silly. An RFC on those would end up having the argument but we don't have them for Muhammed. It's not a contravention of WP:NOTCENSORED as a single click allows users to get to the relevant images. Those that are most interested in Muhammed are the ones that are likely to be offended by the images. It actually improves the article in relationship to getting information of relevance to the intended audience. PuppyOnTheRadio talk 07:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It seems to me to do no harm to anyone, and some good to some (as would 1b). I would suggest though, that (as I believe is currently the case) when the page loads it is unlikely that one of the potentially offensive images is visible at first (i.e. not in the infobox or early in the article). This is not censorship, but a means to allow users to block something they might not want to see, while reading a topic they may well want to read. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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]

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]

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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
  • In a belated response to the question posed to me above regarding how a hatnote censors, I will answer that by drawing an analogy to John Ashcroft and Lady Liberty. I'm sure most here would agree that Ashcroft censored the statue by covering her nakedness with drapes, yes? But by your argument line here regarding hatonoes, it would not be censorship since people were free to walk up and look behind the drapes at any time. Tarc (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]

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]

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]

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]
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]
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]

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]

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]
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]

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]
  • Support This is not censorship: the images are there. This simply gives those who want to read the article to do so without being offended. Not doing this is a form of censorship because it makes the article unavailable to those who would like to read it but would be offended by an image of the prophet. This sensibility is real and should be respected.TheLongTone (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as alternative to 1a. Either seems like a good idea. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Affirmative wether this or via 1a, it adds an option without removing content. PuppyOnTheRadio talk
  • DISTANT second choice again to deny a person the freedom to choose to conform to their religious morales because WMF doesn't censor is intollerant. By allowing somebody to make the choice, we show compassion and acceptance. It isn't WMF/wikipedia that would be censoring the images, it would be the community accepting other people with different views/stances.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 14:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC) NOTE: Moved to distant second choice per comments to B-Critical below. The only reason why this would be a support, is if option A failed, I'd rather give people an option even if it is inferior than forcing our views on others.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 06:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong support The same should have been done at the Pregnancy article instead of censoring the nude lead image. This will allow greater freedom in Wikipedia while easily facilitating people's right to filter their own content. Be——Critical 20:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually no, but I don't want to rehash that debate... but your brining up the Pregnancy article does raise the issue as to why this option is inferior to option A. In both articles, I would much rather have the ability for somebody to voluntarily opt out of seeing images that they might find objectionable---whether it is nudity, sacraligious symbols, etc than to blanket block all images. By blanketly blocking ALL images, we are literally throwing out the baby with the bath water. There are images in both articles which have value that would be blocked because we too concerned with a misapplication of "NOT:CENSOR".---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 06:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is also seems fine to me. Mathsci (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems fine to me too. --JN466 13:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, even better than 1a.VolunteerMarek 21:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. this solutions should keep most open-minded readers happy. We should not force images upon those not wishing to see them, or hide them from those with the opposite preference. --Wavehunter (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is a Founding principle "4. The creation of a welcoming and collegial editorial environment." A hat-note is a no-brainer. Penyulap ☏ 14:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support This is even better than the instructional hatnote. It is not censorship, and helps to make the article more accessible for some users. Thom2002 (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. This does not imply there is anything wrong with the article and supplies a tool that some readers may find helpful. I'm not enthusiastic about it, however! Geometry guy 23:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - and other possibly offensive articles. Who wants to pull up offensive images in a place where they might get in trouble for it, or be personally offended by it? Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it affects a lot of Wikipedians, between 1,2 and 1,5 billion people are muslims (about 22% of earth's population). If the custom forbids an image, we should honor that. On the other hand, every user has the right to see the pictures. I think having a hat note solves that problem satisfactory for both sides. I do not feel censored, if I have to make an additional click to see potentially offensive images. Common sense and courtesy, is that what's missing on wikis the most?? --Hedwig in Washington (TALK) 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Letting people have an option as to what they do not want to see is not outright censorship. Lucasoutloud (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support. I think that this is a good idea. I can see a number of situations where this might be useful. I, for one, am interested in reading medical articles, but would like to be able to choose not to be confronted with photos of surgical procedures. Many Indigenous Australians do not look at images of Aboriginal people who have died; many Australian publications state a warning that they include such images, in order to give a choice. The removal of pics can also make a page faster to load. There are probably other situations in which this template option could be very useful. While Wikipedia does not censor, we can offer an option to our users, if they wish to do so. Why not? Amandajm (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Also effective alternative. Cla68 (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same as 1a Bulwersator (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I like this one better than the instructional hatnote--no presumption of why the images might be offensive, just a button to click if someone doesn't want to see them for whatever reason. Seriously see no rational reason to oppose this, and I think it could be quite useful on other articles as well (aforementioned gruesome medical pictures, spiders etc.) Florestanová (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - prefer this one to the option above, but either is fine. Again, I see no reason not to do this. We should be making things easier for our readers, and this option does that. Robofish (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good solution, and it can implemented to other articles where there are similar cases. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There may actually be good potential for this device in general to broaden the content available on wiki. Where there are images, audio, video or other contents that are highly charged or known to be offensive to an identifiable class of people, providing this option seems highly useful to keep the doors of information open without having to make a determination regarding the value respect for religious against the value of the pursuit for open knowledge. AwayEnter (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Albeit, I prefer option 1.a because it is clearer to the reader as to what they can expect to encounter when visiting the page. If the former option is not available, I would accept this one. Veritycheck (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think option 1a and 1b are about equal in value, but between them I prefer 1b because it offers the user technology that can help them. The arguments citing censorship make no sense to me: Wikipedia reaches just as many people with the original version as it did before, and now it will reach more people as well. 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. When the record companies decided to divide compact discs into tracks, was that censorship? After all, this allows me to skip songs I don't like! No, that's not censorship, and neither is it censorship to provide someone with a button that allows the to not see the images on a page. — Lawrence King (talk) 02:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[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]

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]
  • 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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]

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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]

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]

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]
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]
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
  • It's a slippery slope right down to "This article contains points of view which offend me; of course an 'abortion' article must describe how evil it is and how civilized people think of it as murder, so why is this article filled with this 'choice' crap?" Ravenswing 16:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slippery slopes don't exist. They make large assumptions that people supporting one change (in this case a hatnote) are going to support another one (your abortion example). That is patently false. In my opinion, no matter what the debate is, any argument based on slippery slopes deserves zero weight. AIRcorn (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel like either of the hatnote options really constitute 'censorship' as such. Censorship is blocking people from seeing something, these simply give people the option to avoid it if they want to, and view it if they want to. It would even (as I understand it) default to displaying the images. That's not censorship.Euchrid (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • I see some inconsistency. This is much stronger than 1a, & puts us much more in the position of encouraging people to hide images, which seems to be rejected as being too much like censorship. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[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]
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]
So put it somewhere less prominent. Toolbox, in the Userinterface above the title, etc. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see where the intent of the functional hatnote is to allow users offended by images to not be forced to look at them while reading the article, while allowing other users to see them. But even if we are OK with encouraging the omission of pertinent content, there's another slope we slip down. Once we put it on this article, there will be thousands of other articles where people say, "Well, why does Muhammad get to turn off images, but this article doesn't? I want it on this one too!" Eventually every even remotely controversial topic is going to have either this same hatnote, or a contentious mob of sockpuppets willing to be disruptive until it gets put on. Let's therefore skip the tedious and unproductive step of having a thousand time-wasting discussions on a thousand contentious pages and just put a general "turn off images" button in the sidebar, as other editors have suggested. This may even be just a good idea technically - if any user is on a slow connection or has other reasons for wanting to forego loading images, that's a courtesy that en-WP offers to its readers, rather than being an encouragement to skip content and/or cater to (patronize) a minority of people who are saddled with an extremely proposterous fringe. This is the best way out, akin to when the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly declines to take the bait of a broad and divisive constitutional stance (which would constitute making new law), but rather decides a smaller question particular to its case. That's not a punt, it's a practical decision against deriving first principles ass-backwards from particular questions. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 18:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[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]
  • I would like to support this proposal, and I find the slippery slope argument a fallacy (the world is not black and white, and compromise is sometimes desirable) but I'm not convinced it would actually help address the problem. As Tarc pointed out, the objection seems to be to the existence and propagation of the images, not to the complainer having seen them. Is there any evidence that any of the people who claim blasphemy would be satisfied with having the images hidden on their computer? ~ Kimelea (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
The history shows what I said is correct. Nothing you say will change it. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[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]
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]
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]

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]

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]

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]
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]

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]
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]
  • General Comment Re: Nudity, Censorship, Slippery Slope, Wiki Policy

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]

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)

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]
Indeed, my bad. Fixed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the way we depict all other ancient religious figures for whom no contemporaneous images exist. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before I refute this, let me make clear that my approach has nothing to do with a desire to self-censor. I am completely in favour of showing images of Muhammad on the article, and am open minded about the extent to which we should help Muslims who actively want to restrict what they see.

      But the fact is that the most common way of depicting Muhammad takes a different form to that of almost all other religious figures, and the lead image should reflect this. It is nonsense to knowingly argue for anything other than the most common depiction, regardless of what the appropriate depiction is at other articles. It also goes against the widely accepted principle that other stuff exists is a non-argument. —WFC— 17:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is appropriate to display a picture of Muhammad unveiled because other religious figures are shown unveiled for example Jesus. Knobbly (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acceptable, but choosing the right one might prove difficult. An infobox image should help identify the subject; is an image available that could serve this purpose? Goodraise 04:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • perfectly acceptable Edmund Patrick – confer 07:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because it makes sense and is acceptable--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 07:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Jclemens. Unless we change to a standard where artists' impressions of other figures like Jesus or Moses are not recommended for infoboxes, this is unfair favoritism of one group's superstition. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 09:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally support This is basically how almost anyone is depicted: by showing his face. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; unlike other figures, Muhammad is traditionally not depicted in this way. Even though art does exist of that form. What we do on other articles is utterly irrelevant, what the sources depict in each specific case is important. --Errant (chat!) 10:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. What is the point of an image obscured in some way if we have available an unobscured version. Encyclopedia presents the most precise information it can (in this case image). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - nice picture, not modern, so clearly it was 'acceptable' to someone in the know at the time. Soosim (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as this is what we do for all other biographies where a suitable and usable (legally, etc) image exists of the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Jclemens. --CapitalR (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support What would be the point? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per JClemens & Hellknowz. Skier Dude (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per JClemens. Kelly hi! 14:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's not just a philosophical question. There simply is no commonly used unveiled depiction of Muhammad. To use an unveiled depiction would (1) Not be representative, since there is no consistency in these images; and (2) Be giving drastically undue weight to such an image. I defy anyone to produce multiple reliable sources that present any consistent unveiled image of Muhammad. So for those who are supporting, without (in my opinion) even understanding the issues here, which image would you even use? --Elonka 15:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it is neither neutral nor wise to embarrass potential readers without necessity. It is educational to use the principle of least astonishment. Additionally as nobody knows, how he really looked like, every picture would be wrong. --Advocado 15:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Jclemens. Anything other than this would make no sense in the context of a factual encyclopedia article on the subject. God is not consistently depicted the same way throughout history, but we somehow found a picture to use without controversy. Don't fool yourself, this discussion is about censorship and catering to the demands of a religion, not about a survey of depictions used in sources. —SW— yak 15:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: While I strongly oppose censoring the article in any way, shape or form, the lead image should - reasonably - be of a sort most commonly depicted. That, with Muhammad, is a calligraped representation. Ravenswing 16:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my refutation of the argument that most people are voting (and no, I didn't mean !voting) on, and comments in section d. —WFC— 17:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not the most common representation. Giving it this much prominence would violate the policy of WP:UNDUE weight. But it is a legitimate point of view, so it should appear in the encyclopedia somewhere. Just in proportion to its prominence. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Common enough in Iran, but literally a fringe image throughout most of the Islamic world, and not a common choice of cover image in Western publications either. --JN466 19:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We don't show other historical figures with their faces covered, obviously, because there is no reason to do that. The point of an image, especially in an infobox, is to depict the figure as fully as possible. Since Wikipedia is not censored, there's no reason to choose an image that conceals the subject in any way. Equazcion (talk) 20:31, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per above; this is how virtually every other central religious figure is treated (from Abraham to Zarathustra). Making an exception to the generally accepted style (and I'll even be so bold as to say unspoken consensus) just to avoid offending people is ludicrous and goes against everything Wikipedia stands for (particularly after our response to SOP--*is shot). Sleddog116 (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Errant and Elonka. It simply isn't a representative image. This style of depiction is well and truly in the minority. It may have a place somewhere in the article, but not as the infobox/lede image. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits›     01:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: though supporting this option would be an adequate reply to the whole off-site campaign, still it isn't the most common representation of Muhammad these days. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—this is just a knee-jerk to-heck-with-you reaction to people who have raised these concerns. It is childish to do something just to show that you can.Davidjamesbeck (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Though this is perfectly acceptable to me, but not to all users, and there is a image format that is universally acceptable. Therefore using a depiction like this in the lede is going far out of our way to be deliberately offensive. And it's not as if there were actually an authentic true image. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is the only legitimate option for an encycylopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to Neutral -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Per Elonka, I think it's not about censorship in this case. The infobox should display a correct representation of the subject. In most cases, this would be an image or painting of the subject. In this particular case, it is established that no such images exist that would display the subject as he looked like (i.e. one that was actually created by someone who saw him). If such images appear at any time, they should be used. As long as they don't exist, we should go with the most common representation instead. Regards SoWhy 13:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This should be treated the way any other historical figure is treated. No special exceptions. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No exceptions for anybody. --Voyager (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As I very much doubt he wore one. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support under the assumption that no other media exists with a higher information density. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. 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? St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 00:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Jclemens. -- Neozoon 00:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: this would be a misrepresentation and not even correctly representing the Islamic culture. Even country articles seem to use that specific country's version of English language... why not in cases of other cultural aspects. Even from a neutral POV this is not a correct representation. No wonder wikipedia is busy offending people claiming the not-censored policy as a pretext. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ~FeedintmParley 01:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WFC's excellent argument. --Pgallert (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per WP:NOTCENSORED. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Especially per Jclemens and WP:NOTCENSORED. Specific religions, topics or articles rarely get special treatment, and there exists no compelling case here. The only two arguments seem to be that this is offensive (irrelevant, NOTCENSORED) and that Muhammad is better recognized by a calligraphy. No page on Wikipedia is supposed to represent any culture or be tailored to it. Fundamentally I believe at hand is whether this article should be forced to comply with Wikipedia's standards and into consistency with other articles; I believe it should. To do otherwise, especially in such a high profile case, would compromise the encyclopedia's neutral point of view. OSborn arfcontribs. 21:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose An infobox about a notable person must first and foremost contain facts, not fiction, facts on fiction or related facts. Second, one may have many rights but that does not mean he or she must use it anytime. The police for instance has the right to detain anyone for 24 hours without giving a reason; it does not mean that one police officer must do so indiscriminately. We too, have WP:NOTCENSORED, but that does not mean we should use it to irritate others when we simply can do better. Third, please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Fleet Command (talk) 05:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Jclemens. It makes sense. This is not intended to irritate or offend. It takes a series of conscious actions to find the article - it's not being put on billboards in public places. Davidelit (Talk) 12:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per my comment below, having this in the infobox would be a misrepresentation. The common representation is calligraphy, not images, therefore Wikipedia should stick to the facts. Most of the arguments asking for an image to be used in the infobox are based on WP:Other stuff exists rather than anything meaningful as to why an image should take precedence over calligraphy - which is the most commonly used representation. Mar4d (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DISTANT second choice tied with other image option "Not-censored" is not an argument for use of or not use of an image. Making an argument based around that premise, is censorship and a fallacy of reasoning. The reason to use an image or something else should be based solely on an editorial decision. What makes most sense. While there are editorially sound reasons to use either an image or calligraphy; calligraphy has two distinct advantages. First, it doesn't offend---this is not a censorship question, but an editorial one. If an image is KNOWN to offend, then editorially some favor has to be given to the option that won't offend. Editorially using an image explicity because it offends or knowing that it offends should only be made when the objective is to offend, not when the objective is to educate. So some weight has to be given there (again this isn't censorship, it is an editorial consideration of the facts and a purvue of the audience who may read the article.) Second, the calligraphy has an educational element that is missed by many so far... the educational element that images of Mohamed offend Muslims and how Muslims depict "The Prophet". Muslims (generally) do not use pictures of Mohamed. Our use of a non-image would be educational as it would depict the way the subjects followers depict him. The image in the lead should be the one that has the biggest educational impact/convey the most. By using calligraphy, we send an instant message that this is how he is most often portrayed/represented. That being said, I prefer an image over no-image or something arbitrarily unrelated.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 16:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In no other case would we even be having this discussion. I can't think of a single article aside from this one that only has pictures of its main subject under the fold.—Chowbok ☠ 21:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Given that the most common representation is calligraphic and that none of the images actually depict the Prophet Mohammed in any meaningful sense, I see no particularly strong encyclopædic reason to include a picture in the infobox. WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't mean that we shouldn't take the potential for offence into account in our editorial decisions - only that it is not the only determining factor. IMO, such considerations strongly outweigh the little encyclopædic value that such an image would have in this case. Kahastok talk 23:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Using clipped images, veiled or unveiled, which form a tiny part of an illuninated manuscript is highly artificial. Victorian or Edwardian images of prophets like Moses (also mentioned in the Quran) are not suitable comparisons. Calligraphy is the way to go. Mathsci (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - First choice. Toa Nidhiki05 14:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per WP:UNCENSORED. If we censor Muhammad, it is a slippery slope to censoring many other controversial pages. Pass a Method talk 17:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is appropriate for major historical figures. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per FleetCommand and the fact that if we stick to the idea of representing how the matter is dealt with in most secondary sources, this ain't it. Last time I checked, the desire to offend others didn't trump reliable sources.VolunteerMarek 21:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as inferior to Calligraphy. The point of images is to educate. Muhammad was not Jesus-- he wasn't a pauper, he was the most important man in his world. The lack of portraits during his life is not an accident, it's a result of the choices he made during his life. Indeed, Muhammad is uniquely notable for this choice. The "iconic image" of Muhammad is his name, not a picture of his face. "Doing what we usually do" would be missing an exciting educational opportunity to teach our readers about the subject and his very notable stance on icons. Insisting on an unveiled image even at the expense of a chance to educate would be "cutting off our nose to spite our face". --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I personally don't care about viewing such things, however, this is not simply deeply offensive to a minority of possible readers and editors, this is a significant portion of the world population. Penyulap ☏ 15:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Hector. --JN466 15:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support or the next closest thing to a secular image. Neotarf (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Headlining or infoboxing the article with unrepresentative western images is unencyclopedic systemic bias. Geometry guy 23:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Only a uncensored image is a proper illustration. -- Laber□T 08:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perfect illustration of how this proposal is ass backwards! "Only an uncensored image is a proper illustration"? What image should be used? Obviously, the one that makes the most editorial sense and conveys the most pertinent information. But the people who insist upon the use of an image "per not censored" or some variation thereof, are saying "We can't consider other images---we can only consider images of Mohamed without a veil because we aren't censored." Er, isn't that censorship? Isn't the whole line of reasoning of "per not censored" really censorship? Once you say that we have to do something "per not censored" and that is the rationale for your argument, then you've engaged in censorship. If that is the crux of your opinion, wheter it is Laberkiste or anybody else, then your argument has to (by definition) EQUALLY SUPPORTS ALL OTHER OPTIONS. If it doesn't support all other options as viable options, then it is not "Not Censored" but "Censored as I want."---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 18:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - nothing to do with censorship; we should use the image which will contribute most to a reader's understanding of a topic. The common calligraphic representation of his name contributes something because it is iconic; one of a small number of imaginary depictions contributes much less. Warofdreams talk 13:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • support Wikipedia is not censored! a×pdeHello! 18:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The most common manner of representing Muhammad is the "iconic image" of his name, as stated by HectorMoffet above. We should go with the best available version of that image. I would prefer one with some cultural context, such as text taken from a tile, embroidery or manuscript, rather than the very bland black and white image given as the sample. Amandajm (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Elonka, who said it perfectly. Rivertorch (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NOTCENSORED applying to the others. Ale_Jrbtalk 10:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No other way of doing it. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Best secular representation of the subject. SpencerT♦C 21:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not the most common way of doing it, calligraphy is clearly NPOV. That it is 'secular' is, to me, irrelevant. JHSnl (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - agreed that this is nothing to do with censorship, it's simply the case that images like this one are not a common depiction of Muhammad. It would arguably violate NPOV to use an image in the infobox that the considerable majority of the world's Muslims would reject. Robofish (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose - not a common depiction of article's matter --Rax (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the purpose of a physical depiction is precisely that – calligraphic is an abstract depiction.  White Whirlwind  咨  23:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - An unveiled image is NPOV an the most descriptive representation available. Wiki-Taka (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Use best available image. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per opposes.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 18:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NOTCENSORED. Quoting Wikipedia guidelines is not my personal opinion of any sorts. Any such censorship of such images which have been on the English Wiki for years is a massive violation of this and undermines this rule. Removing them to appease Muslim hardliners is censorship. Showing a visual representation of Muhammad in terms of importance, whether they are needed and such is a totally different matter altogether, NO APPEASING the multitude of Anons creating "REMOV TEH IMAHGES NOOW!!!111!!!1" comments. --Τασουλα (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[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]
Wikipedia is not a Muslim community. —SW— express 22:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[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]
  • Agree with Jclemens. Knobbly (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistent with how Muhammad is most commonly and famously depicted. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently the best way to help the reader identify the article subject. Goodraise 04:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely the best option. Calligraphy from an actual mosque or other Islamic site should be preferred to a simple user-generated graphic. We need to remember that the purpose of these articles is to educate, and someone who browses briefly (or uses a lede-only version distributed on a CD, etc.) should not come away with the notion that "Muhammad looks like this" or even "Muhammad is represented this way" because it would be wrong. Wnt (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best choice. A man famous for not getting his portrait shouldn't have a portrait as his primary image. The most informative image we can provide is one which reflects that.--HectorMoffet (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely the most appropriate choice, seeing as most existing depictions are of this form. There's no binding decision anywhere that says infoboxes must have portraits, even if they are the norm elsewhere. HectorMoffet's comment sums it up best, IMO. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 06:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferred as I assume the calligraphy is the least varies option of images to choose from. If there is a continuous debate on what he looks like, bypass what he looks like for the main piece of the article and let people make up their minds as other images are shown later. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 06:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because it makes sense and is acceptable--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 07:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best Choice. It is the most common and appropriate method of depicting Prophet Muhammad through an image. Shariq r82 (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no rule that infoboxes should have portraits. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't know of any other figure whose infobox includes a stylized name as a picture, especially when there are numerous depictions of said person. What function would this even serve, since it's clearly not depicting the person in question? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; standard way to depict Muhammad, per sources. I also want to register concerns that the push to display an potrait style image in the infobox is being influenced by a push-back against resistance to these images being in the article. That's hugely problematic. --Errant (chat!) 10:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — If opposition against a veiled or an unveiled depiction is really that fierce, we should be considerate hereof and opt for the least offensive solution that we all can get along with in the infobox. This should, however, not lead to the conclusion that other depictions of a veiled or an unveiled Muhammad are no longer displayed in Wikipedia altogether.--Aschmidt (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional neutral. It's far from ideal to represent the subject of a biography in this manner, but given the fierce opposition in some quarters I can't really object in the circumstances. However, I oppose both infobox and lead images being calligraphy as this is a biography not an article about calligraphy. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Other articles have artistic depictions of people, as Jclemens said above. --CapitalR (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Text, no matter how stylized, is not an image, and should not substitute for it when images are available. Skier Dude (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Jclemens. Every other article on a deity prophet starts out with a portrayal of that deity prophet, why would this one start out with calligraphy? In the context of a secular, rational, factual, and neutral encyclopedia, this makes no sense. It only makes sense in the context of an encyclopedia that is biased by religious pressure and caters to the irrational fears of the religiously extreme. Yes, I understand that Muhammad has been frequently depicted as calligraphy, but generally when most humans think about deities prophets who supposedly took human form at some point, they don't imagine the deity prophet as a jumble of fancy script letters walking down the street. I have no objection to a calligraphy depiction later on in the article (since it appears in many sources), but to have it at the top of the article would be ridiculous. —SW— converse 14:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, assuming the statement that "it's the most common way that Muhammad is represented" is true.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:31 (UTC)
  • Oppose, depiction would be more helpful and educational than text. Kelly hi! 14:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The calligraphy image is redolent of computer-generated devotional art that can be found on the Internet, which is not a neutral way for Wikipedia to illustrate an infobox. FormerIP (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It can transport similar emotional information like a picture of Muhammad. In contrast, as nobody knows how he really looked like, a picture of Muhammad himself wouldn't be representative. --Advocado 15:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—This seems the most appropriate to me, not because it does not offend Muslims, but because it is the most common form of depicting Muhammad. Much as Emperor Jimmu is depicted through traditional Japanese artwork and Plato depicted by a Hellenistic bust, it seems fitting to use a culturally-relevant depiction in the infobox. GRAPPLE X 16:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support-This is the kind of depiction that most muslims would recognize. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Elonka, Wnt, and others. Presenting any other manner of depiction as primary in an encyclopedia if such depictions do not, in fact, hold primacy beyond the bounds of the encyclopedia itself would be misleading and thus would serve no encyclopedic purpose. scisdahl (t•c) 16:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most common depiction. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it took a lot of discussion many years ago to arrive at this position I don't see any reason to change.--Salix (talk): 16:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: In many other areas of Wikipedia (cf. WP:COMMONNAME), the most common usage is what prevails. The most common depictions of Muhammad are in calligraphy, and I have very little use for the comments above which maintain that the only reason anyone could choose this option is out of cowardice. I would appreciate some WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, please. Ravenswing 16:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We should use the most common available representation in the infobox. That said, I agree with the rationales of Thryduulf and Allens among others that not all of the images in the article should be calligraphy. Jclemens' rationale I vehemently disagree with: the arguments applicable to the most common depiction of Muhammad are not applicable to similarly prominent figures in other religions. —WFC— 17:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The most common, mainstream and culturally significant representation. JN466 19:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The most widespread style of representation is clearly the best choice as the main image. Cloveapple (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's ridiculous to suggest that an article on a historical figure should have calligraphy as its main image, when for very good reason we always choose to depict such figures as fully as possible. Equazcion (talk) 20:44, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)
  • Support In my humble opinion, in an article about a factual person, the infobox must first and foremost supply facts about the subject instead of fiction, facts on fiction, or facts about related subjects. So far, calligraphy fits the bill for being facts on the subject, i.e. the spelling and the pronunciation of writing his name as well as a common way of identifying association with him. Fleet Command (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We are streeeeetching the Principle of Least Astonishment by doing that. That, and (and at the risk of sounding WP:Other-stuffy), I can't think of a single other notable biographical article that uses calligraphy or lettering as the only infobox image (if there is one, please bring it up). Sleddog116 (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[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]
  • Support: the article should give the most weight to the modern viewpoint on Muhammad. As long as it is now common to depict him with calligraphy, we should stick with it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as most common depiction. It's not Wikipedia's job to make arbitrary decisions on what constitutes a valid depiction and what doesn't, our job is to reflect the majority of reliable sources. The calligraphy option achieves this cleanly. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits›     01:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—not only the most common depiction in modern times and the least-offensive, many of these images are quite beautiful and widely-regarded examples of Islamic art. Davidjamesbeck (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The lede image should be one that is most universally accepted. Those who think pictorial images appropriate also accept calligraphy, but not the other way around. Nobody can really say that a calligraphic image is waffling or a concession--it is simply the most universally accepted form. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Absolutely not. We are not a Catholic or Jewish or Protestant or Muslim encycylopedia, we are an English-language encyclopedia, and our criteria for inclusion should not be swayed by what one group of people want to the exclusion of all others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Either an unveiled image or calligraphy would be acceptable, there is a case to be made either way. What isn't acceptable is veiling or omitting for religious reasons. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wouldn't mind if both kinds of pictures were shown, though. --Voyager (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Darkness Shines (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per above comments, and adding: What about when various religions begin to push for a portrayal of Jesus Christ using "ICXC NIKA" or "INRI"? Muslims are opposed to all depictions of all living creatures, after all. Bad precedent. Wikipedia is not about being "considerate" or "not offensive". The "principle of least astonishment" is satisfied here for all but hard-line Muslims, as, when looking up a person, you expect to see - a person, not a stylized representation of his name in a different script, essentially the article title repeated in a different language. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 00:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Jclemens -- Neozoon 00:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support: this would be the correct representation of the Islamic culture. Even country articles seem to use that specific country's version of English language... why not in cases of other cultural aspects. Even from a neutral POV this is the correct representation. No wonder wikipedia is busy offending people claiming the not-censored policy as a pretext. Adding calligraphy would be most appropriate. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral/Second choice ~FeedintmParley 01:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, best choice because it is the most common illustration of the subject. --Pgallert (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The correct, common and accurate representation, as used by Muslims, is calligraphy. No reason as to why Wikipedia should be any different as far as this is concerned. Mar4d (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral to Oppose because the made computer images proposed are just plain bad. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The most commonly-used representation. – hysteria18 (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support so they can see the message about clicking to suppress images. Images are supposed to be illustrative of the subject. I just answered a question like this in another place and they wanted to show a demure version of a porn acress and I was saying they need to show some sort of inclination that way as that's what she is known for. The subject is the founder of the religion not just a face and the calligraphy illustrates their belief system well. Dmcq (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per WP:NOTCENSORED. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While the calligraphic representation should be present in the article, we should not give special treatment. Having calligraphy does not accurately portray what the article is about - a person, and having a calligraphic representation when other representation (which is more consistent with other articles) exist seems to be bowing the sensibilities of a specific group.
    AFAIK Wikipedia is fairly infamous for its explicit sexual content which is of course offensive to many, saying that calligraphy is a good choice because it is doable or not inflammatory seems like a massive double standard. I think it quite possible that the reason other encyclopedias etc. do not represent Muhammad this way is because they have been bullied into such a position.
    I also understand from the comments of user FormerIP (talk · contribs) that the claim that calligraphic renderings are more common than depictions is challenged. OSborn arfcontribs. 22:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The least inflammatory option combined with the fact that no actual photos or pictures painted during his lifetime exist. Moreover, this is how he is traditionally represented for Muslims who make up 20% of the world's population. It would be better to leave it to them to choose a representative image of their prophet than a group of westerners. Veritycheck (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Traditionally depicted in exactly this way. PuppyOnTheRadio talk 07:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as it is the most common depiction of Muhammad in an Islamic context; in fact, the most common depiction of him anywhere. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as far as I know it doesn't offend anyone at all. I can't see it as censorship to have the first image (veiled or otherwise) of a person further down the page, so that it isn't the first thing you see when viewing the article. That's being sensitive to others feelings. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • First Choice if this is how Mohamed is presented in most places and by the community in question, why not? Those who argue that we shouldn't use the common (and respected) depiction of Mohamed in the lead, appear to be doing so not because they are right, but rather because they don't want to be "censored." Well, it's not censorship, it is a valid editorial decision. CConsider this, if this were an article on the Olympics, wouldn't the Olympic rings be the most logical symbol to go into the info box? A gold medal, athlete, location, etc wouldn't work as well because people expect to see the ring. It almost feels as if some people who are contributing here want to use images of mohamed in the lead to spite the Muslim community---to piss them off---and to tell them that they can't tell Wikipedia what to do. But that is not a valid rationale... a valid rationale is to use the image/symbol most widely associated with the subject. (Hell, as a non-Muslim, I'm more likely to recognize the calligraphy of Allah than I would some random picture of him.)---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 14:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basically my argument boils down to this. Can a strong argument be made for calligraphy? Yes. A similarly strong argument can be made for an image. Both make sense to a certain degree. Since both are editorially sound decisions, we then look at who the audience is. For this article, we will have a large population of Muslims. For that community having an image in the lead might be offensive. So we have two equally valid views, but one might be more offensive to the audience of the article. This lends credence to the editorial decision to use the calligraphy. What about the non-muslim community? Shouldn't they see a 'figure?' Why? Is it an actual photo of Mohamed or just an artistic representation? Isn't that what calligraphy is, an artistic representation? But there is even a stronger editorial argument here for the calligraphy over the image. Some of the pro-image people have argued that to capture peoples attention, you have to astonish them to catch them off guard. Well, using that rationale, it could be argued that the Western reader expects to see a portrait. By having calligraphy instead, we catch them off guard. This presents a strong learning device for the western reader---that in Islam it is considered offensive to have images of Mohamed. So basically, we have two rational editorial arguments---one to have calligraphy the other to have an artistic fabrication of Mohamed (which likely bears no actual semblance to the historical figure). One will offend the subjects target community. The other will not offend the community, but will provide an educational opportunity for the Western reader. I think the decision is obvious. Go with the calligraphy as it is both the more sensitive towards the Muslim community AND the most educational to the non-Muslim community.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 16:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're assuming that the majority of visitors to the Muhammad article will be Muslims. I don't think this is necessarily a valid assumption. While it may be true, there is no data to support it (that I'm aware of). —SW— gab 22:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per my above. I see no reason why this is not a valid way of doing this, that respects both the most common means of achieving our goal elsewhere and the means that is far less likely to offend a large proportion of our readership. WP:NOTCENSORED shouldn't be something we wave in people's faces, and the possibility of offence should weigh into discussion - not as the only factor but as a significant one. I think Balloonman puts it very well above, and I agree with him. Kahastok talk 23:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - least surprise, but not shamelessly yielding to the censors; reasonable position. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is the most common way of depicting Muhammad. An artistic representation of his person would be preferable only if it was known to depict him as he actually appeared are was notable iconic. Since no such images exist, the most common depiction, non-pictoral as it is is best. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Using clipped images, veiled or unveiled, which form a tiny part of an illuninated manuscript is highly artificial. Victorian or Edwardian images of prophets like Moses (also mentioned in the Quran) are not suitable comparisons. Calligraphy is the way to go. I would support calligraphy, possibly from Persia, of high artistic quality, i.e. not just something looking like a logo. Mathsci (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Mathsci, so second choice. Although there is no reason to then use such calligraphy over and over again, at least the ones proposed and available on commons, which is why the more informative and educational use of a location such as the mosque he founded and is buried in is my first choice, as it's both more educational and more interesting. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Calligraphy in the infobox, images in the body. Mathsci nailed it. This is by far the most common depiction. We shouldn't even be discussing what does or does not constitute a valid depiction. Our job is to figure out what depiction the majority of reliable sources use and use that, no matter what our personal opinion is. The majority of sources use calligraphy to depict Muhammad. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - This is just silly. A fancy writing of somebody's name is not a good depiction of them for an infobox. Toa Nidhiki05 14:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The image in the infobox is usually a portrait. Since there is no known portrait of Muhammad I think the best representation is calligraphic. Ruslik_Zero 15:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The infobox image should best represent the subject as it is most commonly known, and due to the unusual historical circumstances, this is it. Rami R 17:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While it is an interesting choice that has some appeal, it isn't the traditional Wikipedia style. It raises more questions and problems than it solves. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clearly best choice along several dimensions. It's how the subject is depicted in sources, it avoids giving unnecessary offense (i.e. trolling) and aesthetically pleasing.VolunteerMarek 21:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - most common option, also since a choice of image is arbitrary and none can be assumed to have any real likeness.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- Easily most feasible. Bzweebl (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because it makes the point that we don't have a clue what really he looked like. Putting one of the later images in "pole position" would give the impression that the chosen image is definitive when it isn't. The later images belong in the body of the article. Woz2 (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We know how to spell his name but not what he looks liks. Best option. --Wavehunter (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support So long as no significant portion of the population is deeply, seriously, offended, and I believe that is the case, then sweet. Illustrations are cool ! If a few people don't like that, who cares ! Penyulap ☏ 15:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If it can be established that calligraphy is the most common and recognizable representation of him, I think this is reasonable. --Karl.brown (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the main illustration, but it should be included somewhere, just because it has dangled from so many rear-view mirrors. Neotarf (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. It is a bit dull, but is illustrative, representative, and more interesting the more one thinks about it. Geometry guy 23:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, calligraphy is historically the most common depiction and should therefore be shown, just as the most common or typical depiction is usually shown for others topics. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is the most commonly used and recognised depiction of the prophet, therefore it seems entirely appropriate that it should be the lead image, just as Jesus leads with a classical depiction. SFB 12:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this most commonly used depiction, and will add more to an understanding of the topic than one of the depictions. Incidentally, our feature article on Ælle of Sussex leads with an image of a line from a historic document which gives his name, and includes a (wholly imaginary) depiction only later in the article. Warofdreams talk 13:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Wikipedia is not censored! a×pdeHello! 18:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support This is the way he is depicted by an unimaginably vast majority of those who write about him. The infobox should contain the image that is most informative; it's not like we have a photo of the guy, so pictorial representation gives no essential information. Seems like a no-brainer (to use a trite, objectionable phrase). -RunningOnBrains(talk) 22:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support The most common manner of representing Muhammad is the "iconic image" of his name. We should go with the best available version of that image. I would prefer one with some cultural context, such as text taken from a tile, embroidery or manuscript, rather than the very bland black and white image given as the sample. Amandajm (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support most common form of representation. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Cla68 (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Allens, Shooterwalker, and WNT. Best choice for infobox. Rivertorch (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Random support - AFAIK this one is the most popular - so this one should be used per WP:UNDUE Bulwersator (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NOTCENSORED. Ale_Jrbtalk 10:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is the standard modern representation, so it's the one that belongs in the infobox. It doesn't prevent the other images being used elsewhere in the article, so I see no issue with censorship. Anaxial (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, seems the most common representation. Superp (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, WP:NOTCENSORED. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this seems to be the most common representation of Muhammad and while many are citing WP:NOTCENSORED, there is also no need to purposely cause a stir. I am not opposed to other depictions appearing elsewhere in the article. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second choice; but should be placed prominently. SpencerT♦C 21:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support as it is, as is extensively documented, the most common depiction. NOTCENSORED arguments are used in a roundabout way, it should not be used as a counterargument against NPOV. JHSnl (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the most common depiction of Muhammad, and as such the most neutral choice. Robofish (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as text is still only text and should not used as a place-holder because all other images are controversial. Use a image, or use none. Examples can be seen on pi and e (mathematical constant) for non-controversal articles where the calligraphy is not used at the info box. Belorn (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • neutral - would'nt be my choice, but - hej ;) - its only a box ;) --Rax (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - while it is the most common "depiction" of him, it is undeniably an abstract representation of the phonetic value of his name and not of his physical being: it therefore would be highly unusual to use as the main image of an historical individual, even if it is commonly used for that purpose. Perhaps both depictions could be used in some equal setting?  White Whirlwind  咨  00:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - use best available image. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since the images are not likenesses but only fanciful anyway, why bother to include one. Peter Flass (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[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]

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]
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]

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]

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]
  • Support Koavf's alternative proposal. I think we can all agree that no matter which of the previously existing options would have been chosen, controversy would ensue indefinitely. This alternative allows us to incorporate all options, thus eliminating future debate about which to use. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm opposed to selecting an image based primarily on considerations of religious sensitivity or opposition to censorship. Rather, we should, as with any other article, pick the image (or none) that most readers would expect to find in this article, following the principle of least astonishment and the example of other respected reference works. However, since I know next to nothing about Islamic iconography, and the historical, artistic, religious, etc. merits of the various images are not discussed here, and neither is the practice of reliable reference works, I have insufficient information to support any option at this time.  Sandstein  17:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seconded. The quality of the article is the only thing we should aim at, and the choice of images should not be influenced by anything else. I'm also pretty sure the average practicing Muslim can understand very well the necessity of having a few images of Muhammad when they are relevant to the article's topic (especially in an encyclopedia that has no affiliation with Islam). mgeo talk 19:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Koavf's alternative proposal, which neither removes images nor censors them, but provides a nice montage of images. Ogress smash! 22:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Koavf's alternative. If you have to pick a single image, there is no avoiding the fact that calligraphic depiction is the most representative. But it is visually uninteresting, or at any rate the one that is being used now doesn't do anything for me. Montage or no, we need a better calligraphic depiction. I suggest something from the Muhammad Ali Mosque in Cairo. Kauffner (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Koavf's alternative. While a montage of images makes sense for articles about a group of people (like Lebanese Americans), and would make sense for Depictions of Muhammad, it's a poor choice for an article about a single person. Almost all of our other biogaphies use a single image in the infobox or none, not a montage. It would just be too visually cluttered, and there's no good reason for it, since it isn't going to please anyone who objects to the visual representations. Robofish (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[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"

  • Support assuming this is below the fold. The images add interest but must be clearly marked before scrolling down, so that those who do not wish to view them, or are in a place where it is dangerous to view them publicly, can have a choice to leave the page. Neotarf (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: 'clearly marked' (forewarning of images) would be another, unacceptable form of tophatting, discussed in earlier sections above. A technical issue with this suggestion is that there is no practical location to insert such warnings 'before the fold', since different computer monitor sizes, widths, windows, etc... and different screen resolutions result in different amounts of displayed text 'before the fold'. And, no, we definitely don't want floating text box warnings, since again this is another unacceptable form of tophatting. HarryZilber (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Choice f) (2)

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]

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]
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]

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]

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]
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]

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

  • Where an appropriate depiction of an event in Muhammad's life is available, it should be placed in the appropriate section that mentions that event. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as e), yes. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like any other article. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • as above Edmund Patrick – confer 07:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support acceptable, incurs no problem.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 07:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as e) yes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as being in line with all other articles and applicable no matter what future changes may occur in the article. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 10:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems to be the most sensible solution.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the only option (apart from "no such image") that isn't simply arbitrary, and because it represents the way that image placement is normally done. FormerIP (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This would be a logical place. We should not be worrying about who will be offended when we are trying to figure out the best place to locate images in the article. The images should simply be located in the place which makes the most sense for the article. —SW— soliloquize 15:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is how other images are treated on WP, so this page shouldn't be different. Personally, I think the above option is probably what actually fits this description (which is why I had originally supported it), but it shouldn't be an arbitrary decision. Sleddog116 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support: though it is also viable approach, the main value of these illustration is not the depiction of events, but rather the depiction of Muhammad. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per e). Images should be placed where they are appropriate - like in any article. Regards SoWhy 13:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; per SoWhy this may give the same outcome as E, but if the article sections are re-ordered, the first appearance should be wherever we have a suitable image. cmadler (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for images produced in the Islamic world I see no reason fro excepting this natural occurrence in the article to suit modern Wahhabi precepts. If Muslim illustrators thought it relevant enough for their version of orthodoxy, and did not burst up in flames as a result, they are historically relevant and contextually relevant. Dahn (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The same as we do with any other article, right? Well, just look at Fellatio - we don't need that many images of men being fellated. Apply images as one would apply images anywhere else on Wikipedia. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 00:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These images are a fringe tradition from today's majority Sunni perspective, and using an image for every life event that was ever illustrated would give the book miniature painting tradition an undue weight which it does not have in reliable sources. (That's an aspect of NPOV, which arbcom specifically stated should apply here.) It would make our article conspicuously different from the mainstream literature on Muhammad, where figurative images are not used in this way. Where books on Muhammad reproduce figurative images, they do so precisely in the context of presenting them as a curiosity, or as a controversial art tradition; in other words, they are presented as part of a discussion of Islam's attitude towards figurative art. This is consistent with our presenting examples in the Depictions section, but not using them as illustrations in the Life section. Editors should not let themselves be misled by the superficial similarity between some of the images in question here, and similar images of the life story of Jesus. In the latter case, such images have been public sacred art and have fuelled the public imagination for centuries; they are archetypical. In Muhammad's case, they were restricted to the private and elite medium of book manuscripts commissioned by a ruling elite and never penetrated the public consciousness, at least not in Sunni Islam. (The one exception here may be mi'raj images in Shia Islam.) JN466 08:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Because, used in this way, an image adds nothing to the readers' understanding of the text being illustrated. I.e., it does no good, and repels and disaffects even moderate Muslims. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course... it goes where it compliments the text. Mohamed is said to have done X, then an associated image of the event. Makes sense ot me.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Again this seems like a sensible way of proceeding, just like (e). Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the most consistent with the existing Wikipedia policies. However, it should not mean that every event should have an image, because int this case the article may become overloaded with images. Ruslik_Zero 15:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No portrait of Muhammad exists, so the insertion of a pictorial image of him ought not be seen as an essential to the article. As an art historian, I have a very strong objection to "non-portraits" being indiscriminately used by Wikipedians to portray historical figures as if they were portraits. The sort of images that are abused in this way are often 19th century encyclopedic engravings, which are put into the text as "portrayals, sometimes alongs bonafide portraits from which the very same engraving has been taken. I don't want to see a pictorial image of Muhammad shoved into the article, just for the sake of having a "portrait", because none are, in fact, portraits; they are "portrayals". However, there are a great number of beautiful images that are illustratory and could be used within the text, if and where they truly add to the quality of the article. In the light of this, there ought to be at least one portrayal of Muhammad within the section specifically about his portrayal, because it is right on topic. Since the Persians have a strong and ancient tradition of portraying Muhammad, then one of these Persian portrayals ought to be included. Amandajm (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - as I said in (e) above, if a hatnote warning is not used, I'd prefer to confine such images to the Depictions section. Robofish (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

h) Within the first screen (for typical displays)

  • This makes sense especially if a calligraphy is used in the infobox. Ideally, the image chosen (and possibly cropped) would then feature his unveiled face prominently. Goodraise 04:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, particularly if calligraphy is used in the infobox. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, for calligraphy only DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unveiled in first screen only if calligraphy or some other catering-to-superstition is used in infobox, etc. Essentially, I support exactly as Goodraise proposed it. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 00:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, for calligraphy only --JN466 08:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Just calligraphy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Just calligraphy. Veritycheck (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong oppose the only reason to have an image explicitly intended to go above the cut, isn't because it is needed, but rather to prove that "we aren't censored." The citeria should not be to prove we aren't censored, but rather what makes sense for the article. If an image makes sense somewhere, then that is where it goes. If it is simply above the cut to take a stand, then that is not the appropriate rationale.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC) NOTE: several of the above comments, which read "Support, just calligraphy" seem to be saying something different from how I interpret this poposition. I read this proposition as saying, "we need to put an image of Mohamed above the Cut." The Support Just Calligraphy comments seem to say something different.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 17:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - gratuitously offensive and unnecessary. If unveiled images of Muhammad are used, they should definitely not appear in the first screen of the article; that's a direct insult to our readers. We should keep them further down the article, preferably with a warning, thus giving the reader the choice whether or not to view them. Robofish (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Image of Muhammad should not be treated any differently from other images. Wikipedia is not an Islamic proselytising website. It is an encyclopaedia whose job is to transmit information with as much impartiality and intactness as possible sans prejudicial censorship or distortion. :) Brendon is here 12:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Give people a chance to avoid the images with the hatnote, and then all censorship is off. I say no restrictions as long as it's below the fold. --JaGatalk 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The RFC shouldn't micro-manage the article on a section-by-section basis. Obviously most images will be appropriate in only a few sections, but the people writing the article haven't done that bad a job in the past; they'll figure it out. Wnt (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Jaga and Wnt. Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED, and calligraphy is the best image for top. Note: This answer is contingent upon implementing at least one of the hatnotes, so unwary readers can avoid images. If we actually force every non-tech-saavy reader to view all images, I'm less certain we'd have the moral highground.--HectorMoffet (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferred as I believe calligraphy best fits the infobox. Placing the image so close to it would, in my opinion, nullify that choice. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 07:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support acceptable, incurs no problem.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 07:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; but with the strong caveat that it doesn't give carte-blanche to slap images all over the place ;) There should be no restrictions on placing the images but a) editors should be cautious about using depictions (for all the reasons elucidated) and b) the images should have a clear purpose for being where they are. --Errant (chat!) 10:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this in principle, but as an option here it doesn't really resolve very much. "Anywhere but the top" could mean just below the top, or it could mean right at the bottom. FormerIP (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—I agree with all the points raised here, and am happy to leave resolution of FormerIP's point to the article editors.Davidjamesbeck (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, then appropriately chosen images can be used as suitable, just like in other articles.
  • Oppose the principle Where images go they go based upon editorial content decisions, not based upon some arbitrary rules. I can understand taking consideration of peoples morales and views into consideration about the lead and first screen... but once past that point, Nah.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. We're not to micromanage editorial decisions here. Also, if calligraphy is used (which is the name of the article in a different script), top should be allowed. I also strongly oppose the hatnote, unless it's on every single article without exception. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 05:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't object to images of Muhammad (I assume we're talking about the potentially objectionable ones here, not the calligraphy) being in the article, but they shouldn't appear in the first screen. Include a hatnote or disclaimer at the top of the article and then the reader has the choice whether to view them. Robofish (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

n) The article should contain no such image

  • Oppose per all of this and to preserve my right to support/oppose whatever. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose cmadler (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most vehemently opposed as per all of my above comments and endorsements. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 00:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per my rationale to support calligraphy. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support I've stated the reasons above in both the Instructional Hatnote & Calligraphy sections. Veritycheck (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose while I can accept an argument about the lead and ability to block the images from the article, the fact that we have images from a historical perspective is enough to merit their inclusion. The issue is to find that proper balance between the need for images to convey information and respect for another community. If we can make rationale reasoned arguments for an editorial decision that respects others while maintaining our standards, we should do so (thus my endorsement of the calligraphy) but we cannot let that override our other responsibilities to communities with different views.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not fair to the reader, history, and the literature of the subject. We owe it to the reader to show worthy art reflecting the subject. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose principle. A principle that this article should contain no such image amounts to censorship. Instead the merits or otherwise of including such images in various sections should be discussed. If the article ends up without any such image, it is matter of balance, style and editorial judgement, not principle. Geometry guy 23:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose principle. Illustratory material should be used in this uncensored encyclopedia wherever appropriate. Since a section of the article is about the depiction of Muhammad, and because the Persians have a strong and ancient tradition of portraying Muhammad, then one of these Persian portrayals ought to be included within that section, regardless of whether there are portrayals deemed suitable to be included in other sections. Amandajm (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This would amount to censorship, given that such depictions do exist, and are relevant to the article. I support the use of calligraphy in the infobox, but for that to be the only image would not, to my mind, be appropriate to the aims and goals of wikipedia. Anaxial (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I don't care if not having an image on this article goes against a wikipedia policy, ultimately an image isn't going to add enormously to this article, all it's going to do is offend a fifth of the worlds population. I don't think this is unnecessary pandering to islamic sensibilities and I don't think it is hypocritical to include images on other potentially offensive articles (eg sexual articles) - I just think that being respectful is the right thing to do. Coolug (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support - I'd prefer that we consider restricting such images to the 'Depictions' section. But given the controversy they cause, I wouldn't be opposed to removing them from the article altogether, if a hatnote/image blocking solution cannot be found. Robofish (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most intensely oppose - Images may actually add enormously to the article. Besides, it's not about the enormity of the contribution of certain images, it's about the principle. It's Wikipedia's policy not to censor any type of information based on some people's preferences and prejudice. Period! Even the proposal seems absolutely appalling. Wikipedia is not here to pander to the ever-increasing, unreasonable and incessant demands of any religion (no matter how much is its penchant for gratuitous communal violence). Thank you! :) Brendon is here 07:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The article quality is enhanced with images and improves understanding of the subject. Belorn (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional discussion of question 3

  • If calligraphy is used in the infobox, it is important that the first image is not also calligraphy (regardless of where it appears). I oppose options IL and N, but the others are acceptable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the point about calligraphy, but did you mean to type "L and N"? FormerIP (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did. Comment now amended. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[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]
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]
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]
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]
"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]
"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]

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 [6])

(place answers under the chosen subsection below)

Yes (for the following reasons):

No (for the following reasons):

  • No, they are not needed. There are very few images of this type, and they are not really representative of the topic, so might give a misleading impression that these are "iconic" images and common in Islam, when in actuality such images are quite rare. For example, in the 14th century Mongol Ilkhanate, some images of Muhammad were created for history texts such as the Jami al-tawarikh. But the artists were kind of making it up as they went along. They were centuries past Muhammad's lifetime, so would do things like taking common images in Christian iconography, such as the birth of Jesus, and then in the "History of Islam" section of their world history, swap out the characters to try and show an image representing the birth of Muhammad, in the same format as a "birth of Jesus" image. The Mongols were relatively new to Islam at the time (their leader Ghazan had just converted in 1295), and their history books were trying to portray all of human history, not just that of Islam. We shouldn't take images of Muhammad from those history texts as representative of Islam, because they weren't. --Elonka 00:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they add nothing to the readers' understanding of the events described (in fact the image of the black stone tradition that currently illustrates Muhammad#Childhood_and_early_life contradicts Ali's contemporary description of Muhammad). They may be attractive to non-Muslims but they are repulsive to many of our Muslim readers, and since they serve no real educational purpose, they should go. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer to show images in the Depictions section, as well as the dedicated Depictions of Muhammad subarticle. These images lack broad cultural significance. The art we show in the article on Jesus has broad cultural significance for Christians; likewise the art we show in the Muhammad article should be art that has comparably broad cultural significance. Doing otherwise obscures cultural differences that are encyclopedically relevant and must be represented for the reader to obtain a correct understanding of how Muhammad is received. --JN466 19:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, unless the images contain educational value that cannot be suitably provided by the accompanying text. In situations where the educational value of the image can be replaced by less controversial means, those less controversial means should be adopted. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits›     01:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as the images are controversial, we shouldn't use them to illustrate the events. That said, I wouldn't oppose narrative images used to illustrate the historical style of Muhammed's depiction (that is: narrative images used as figurative would be used). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposing using images related to depiction per my rationale to support calligraphy. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they serve no purpose but rather have the strong possibility to inflame. Veritycheck (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. As I've said above, I'm inclined to restrict such images to the 'Depictions' section, which seems like the best compromise between informing our readers and not directly offending them. Robofish (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

  • Any result other than this would be ridiculous. It would mean we would have to create one or more computer images of Muhammad's name in order to balance out each depiction of Muhammad in the article. FormerIP (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not exactly in favor of giving depictions more prominence, but considering the context, I'll have to place my comment here. There should be as many depictions (and calligraphies) in the article as is useful for educational purposes. There should not be a balance of any kind. Using more calligraphies because the majority of sources (originating in the Islamic world) use them over depictions in this case would not be a proper application of WP:NPOV, as these sources are themselves influenced (following local laws and religious norms rather than academic consensus). Goodraise 06:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what more than one Calligraphy gets us. Using one caligraphy is justified since it tells us about Muhammad and his stance on iconography. Using a bunch seems unnecessary. Note: This answer is contingent upon implementing at least one of the hatnotes, so unwary readers can avoid images. If we actually force every non-tech-saavy reader to view all images, I'm less certain we'd have the moral highground. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Calligraphy should remain the exception, e.g. in the infobox.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The evidence presented in all the prior discussions has shown that calligraphic images are only a minor part of the corpus of depictions of Muhammad, and the article should represent this - to do otherwise would violate WP:WEIGHT. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Calligraphy definitely should be covered, but there should be depictions as well. As in everything else, balance is important. Artificially boosting calligraphy's or depictions' prominence for no reason other than censorship is a no-no.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:39 (UTC)
  • Support—One calligraphic depiction, preferably in the infobox, is enough to convey that this is a common form of depicting Muhammad; but multiple images of the same do not add anything to what the first already says. GRAPPLE X 16:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No objections to calligraphy per se, but not at the expense of other images. Again, this is not the Muslim Wikipedia, it's the English language Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Calligraphy is minor and gets to be redundant after the 2nd instance or so if it. I'm fine with a few, but absolutely not in an either/or situation in regards to depictions. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I dislike this question but having reviewed the images proposed and available, it makes no sense to repeat Muhammad's name (in Calligraphy) over and over again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fully support. Depictions should be used prominently, but calligraphy should also be present in at least one image. Repeated calligraphy is pointless, as it is just re-stating the article's title in a different language. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 00:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per WP:NOTCENSORED.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this is not an article on calligraphic representations of the guy's name! --Orange Mike | Talk 01:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Too much calligraphy should be repetitive and would not enhance the article (which is not about the art of the book). Mathsci (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I believe that calligraphy should be used only in infobox. If there are various historical and artistic deviations in calligraphic depiction of Muhammad, there should be an article on that, but the article about Muhammad should make clear the history of Muhammad depiction, where calligraphy is one of many entries. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per Orangemike and common sense. Toa Nidhiki05 14:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A picture is worth a thousand words. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support It should be a consequence of which images would best, for example, illustrate events in his life. That will probably be depictions. We should, however, not strive towards a certain ratio. JHSnl (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calligraphy

  • First choice. Within Islamic culture, calligraphic representations of Muhammad's name are far more common than depictive images. For the Wikipedia article to try and use more figurative images would be giving undue weight to those types of depictions. --Elonka 00:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The calligraphy is a cop-out. For a body that is so quick to scream that Wikipedia isn't censored when any other group is offended, this body is caving in on this one fast. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since figurative depictions of Muhammad are offensive to many of our Muslim readers, they should be used where they add to the readers' understanding, but not for purely decorative purposes. If it's deemed a decorative image is needed, calligraphic representation would be appropriate. An arbitrary ratio of image to calligraphy is silly. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A photograph being historically impossible and a contemporaneous painting being nonexistent, and considering the slightly-mythic status of the subject, using the most common sort of depiction within the relevant community in the infobox is the next best thing. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calligraphy is universal in Islam. It is calligraphy that decorates mosques, calligraphy that decorates editions of the Quran, and calligraphy that is (together with architecture) the primary artistic medium of Islamic sacred art. --JN466 19:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support calligraphy for all instances with opposition to depictions per my rationale to support calligraphy in the infobox question and per above user's comment. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • While I think this is a bit of a silly question, which isn't likely to reach an acceptable solution: if calligraphy and figurative depictions of Muhammad are both used in the article, then yes, the calligraphy should be more prominent, as the most frequent depiction of him in Islamic cultures. Excessive use of figurative images seems POV to me. Robofish (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the same for each

  • Calligraphic representations are overall more common in Islamic art, but they are, by nature, all pretty much the same, and don't justify having a large number. Appreciation of them depends very largely on the ability to read Arabic, which few readers of the article will have. About 6 (as we currently have) is as many as we need. Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll put this answer here, but really I'm thinking "no fixed ratio". Multiple calligraphic images might be taken from various authentic sources; multiple depictions might also prove to be relevant. We shouldn't decide the ratio here. Wnt (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense Yah, I don't think there should be a fixed ratio. It doesn't really matter.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 07:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrelevant. Enforcing a ratio is ridiculous. Images should be present in the article where they appropriately illustrate the text. That's all that matters. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use either where their use would normally be warranted. We shouldn't be officially endorsing one approach over another. AlexiusHoratius 15:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Microscopically Weak Support: As I stated in my comments below, this is just too arbitrary. The images in the Muhammed-related articles should be held to the same standard as any other images on Wikipedia. That is, if they contribute to the encyclopedic content, they should be included. If not, they shouldn't. In other words, I don't support this option per se; I don't support giving "about the same" - I support giving preference to whichever option deserves preference based on encyclopedic value, not based on an arbitrary decision meant solely to appease. Sleddog116 (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that both groups of images should be considered under the same criterion of illustrating the historical trends in Muhammad's depiction. The only exception is the infobox — it should be calligraphy. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both. To argue in favor of one over the other is what a lot of the "pro-image" side is arguing against---censorship. There is value in some of the calligraphy. While we in the west may be more used to our art depicting people, historically in non-western countries calligraphy is an art form. The use of images/calligraphy should be done in a manner which makes sense editorially based upon what is needed---in a manner that conveys information in both ways. To argue any other stance is censorship.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mu

  • Mu (unasking the question) with apologies if this is considered an inappropriate response (although there are several similar ones above). The question makes no sense. How can one balance veiled and unveiled images in figurative art with calligraphy? Counting numbers of images is a pretty daft idea. About the best one can say is that some calligraphic images should feature prominently in their placement, whereas depictions should be used and placed with care. Geometry guy 00:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This situation is complex but questions like this are absurd Bulwersator (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The question makes no sense. Does a 400px image count as heavy as two 200px images? Images should be included when they add value. The article should reflect the reality that various depictions exist. Superp (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Geometry guy. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the whole idea of mandating what types of images and image counts is very un-wiki. Images should be placed in a location which works best for the article, without regard for whether they are offensive. —SW— chatter 22:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree images of any kind should be used as and when useful to improve the content of the article, and in the place best suited for this purpose. If in doubt, I would lean towards including more illustrations than strictly necessary rather than leaving out any useful ones. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

  • I agree with the above comments by ErrantX, Amatulic, and Sleddog116. This is turning into silly micromanagement when what is needed is a general affirmations of longstanding Wikipedia principles (NOTCENSORED, etc.) cmadler (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also oppose this entire section as an attempt to improperly micro-manage content. One of this myriad of subproposals will end up "passing" in a way which the minority will laud and expand upon and wave as a banner to thereby drag out their interminable fight against consensus on what should be a relatively simple matter — images are appropriate, they should exist in proportion to the article's physical ability to support them comfortably, and their composition and placement is an editorial matter to be decided by those involved in working on the page, not by external fiat. There is already a consensus on this, but disruptive IDIDN'THEARTHAT behavior continues. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[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]

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

  • It doesn't seem "astonishing" to me that an article on Muhammad would contain a few depictions where appropriate. It seems to me that the most logical application of this principle would simply be to not place images of Muhammad all over the place, and to be selective in their usage. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should have images illustrating incidents from the life just as we normally would, and as our readers expect. I am in favour of keeping the top few screens free of such images in this case, as a tactful additional way of minimizing the offence some readers undoubtedly feel on seeing them. Some readers are apparently "astonished" to find that historic Islamic images exist at all, but for them the effect of seeing them is educational, which is supposed to be the purpose of Wikipedia. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am generally astonished to find a biographical article without depictions of its subject when there are such – there's a reason that the WikiProject Biography template includes a parameter to request an image! I also agree with Johnbod that it is educational for people to find out that others don't see the world the same way they do; do we censor articles on evolution to prevent creationist-raised children from being "astonished" by facts? Allens (talk | contribs) 02:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most sensitive, intelligent readers would expect to find figurative depictions of Muhammad used sparingly, and only where they add to the readers' understanding of the text they illustrate. No reasonable person who understands anything about Islam would expect to find this article peppered with figurative depictions of Muhammad "because they look pretty" (to non-Muslims). Most readers would expect us to have more sense than that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the board is considering revisiting the whole "controversial content" resolution. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While many devout Muslims might be offended to see a depiction of Muhammad on Wikipedia, "astonishment" is not an appropriate term for such offense. Wikipedia's habit of including depictions of historic figures will only "astonish" a select group of people who haven't heard of Wikipedia's practice, and then suddenly decide to look at our Muhammad article without having stopped by any other biographical article previously. That is so improbable a scenario that even if we are to assume that POLA applies as some advocate, it is unreasonable to modify Wikipedia practices on such a basis. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our policy is about spirit, and not letter. Whatever the principle of least astonishment means, it's been developed with this case in mind. It's meant to point out a balance of heat and light. Given the choice between multiple competing explanations that would all shed enough light to understand the topic, we often have a group of people who (in good faith) think we have a moral duty to add the heat, as to hold it back would constitute censorship. Nobody can really explain what the policy should be in the broadest sense. But the Foundation is trying to achieve something very specific on this specific page. This page is known to be a special case and should be treated as such. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Tyrannus Mundi, but more to the point, I think that the "principle of least astonishment" is worthless. Least astonishment depends solely on individual prejudices. Some will be astonished to see a painting, some will be astonished to omit it. Wnt (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should not astonish our readers unnecessarily. And we aren't. At the very least since the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, people in the Islamic world have to be aware that we in the West don't follow their religious rules (no matter how many angry mobs storm embassies after Friday prayers). They may be offended, but they can't possibly be astonished. Goodraise 05:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The heart of POLA is "Avoid causing unnecessary reader distress". No other article has generated this much genuine distress. Some distress is unavoidable-- but most distress COULD be avoided with a simple hatnote. We have a duty to provide a hidden-images option, so long as it doesn't infringe upon other readers ability to view the article. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be "astonished" if an article about such an important figure did not include a picture of him. A good encyclopaedia should have relevant pictures. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This principle can be applied from both point of views. Give the fact that the religion preached by Prophet Muhammad does not allow depiction of religious figures, the followers of this religion could reasonably be expected to be astonished to find depiction being used in the article. However, readers who do not follow this religion could be reasonably expected to be astonished to find that an encyclopedic biography article does not contain any depictions. Keeping both point of views in mind I would not ask for depictions to be removed. However, I would suggest that in order to cater fairly to the interests of all users depictions should be used only in the "Depictions of Muhammad" section. Also the viewpoint of Islam on depictions should be stated in that section and an instructional hatnote should be used. Shariq r82 (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Astonishment As noted immediately before me, it's surprising to see calligraphy in an infobox about a person and would be more surprising to not see an image at all. I really can't understand who this hypothetical reader is of this encyclopedia who is surprised by seeing a depiction of Muhammad on the article about Muhammad. Certain Reformed Presbyterians would find it blasphemous to see the depictions on Jesus, but I don't think that anyone takes into account their feelings on the matter and I would imagine that they are accustomed to the fact that others will not censor material intended for a general audience with them in mind. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the terms of the foundation resolution, the principle cannot be applied to censor the article. Limiting images used to only the tangential subject of "Depictions" is censorship. They should be used for the purposes they were made, to illustrate events in the subjects life, in his biography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember it's the principle of least astonishment, not no astonishment. If more people expect to see an image in a biography than not, then by including images we "astonish" fewer people. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the principle of least astonishment, or any approach which is based on what readers are likely to do or think. Outside of technical implementations for usability design, the principle of least astonishment is just catering to readers biases. We're writing an encyclopedia, and should do whatever is authoritative, not just what readers will find acceptable. This doesn't mean we can't make small concessions, for example including particularly controversial images below the fold, but it shouldn't be taken as a requirement. In general, the report's finding is not policy, and should be treated only as a recommendation, which in this case, we should thoughtfully decline. Ocaasi t | c 12:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's little astonishment in going to an article about a person and seeing a depiction of him. It would be more astonishing to see an article devoid of artistic depictions, seeing they're common throughout Wikipedia. --CapitalR (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is an illustrated, uncensored encyclopaedia that aims to present a neutral point of view. It would be astonishing for these principles to be suspended for any article or articles, regardless of reason. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see nothing "astonishing" in an article in a Western encyclopedia not abiding by the rules of an Islamic culture.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:41 (UTC)
  • The thing that is astonishing to me is that this is even being considered while objections to other images gets no more attention than someone saying that Wikipedia isn't censored. Again, sorry, but if children can come here and look at nudity, sex, violence and images from other relgions without any sort of "protection", then this subject should be no different. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very easy question to answer; if a reader comes to the English Wikipedia, there is the expectation that articles concerning religion or religious figures will not be subject to that religion's belief system and possible prohibitions. No reasonable person will be astonished to see images of Muhammad in en.wiki's Muhammad article. I said this very early on in the old debates... we can discuss the topic of deference in Islam without actually having to be deferential. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As many others have said, if there is anything "astonishing" about this article, it's the act of going to an article and not having any images of the subject when there normally would be. And this too is stretching the use of the word "astonishment" a bit much. I don't think "principle of least astonishment" really applies here. AlexiusHoratius 15:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is neutral. Thus, it astonishes me that its editors are considering bowing to any special interest, including religious, to create either a special version of an article or a censored article. --Ds13 (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither the "principle of least astonishment" nor the WMF board's resolution are Wikipedia policies, therefore we are not obligated to obey either of them. Citing them in a content dispute is irrelevant. With that said, I don't even remotely interpret the board's resolution as a mandate for banning all images of an unveiled Muhammad from Wikipedia. I interpret it as saying that the board acknowledges that the projects are not censored, but is also sensitive to the fact that some people will be offended by some images, and the board would like to do what it can to mitigate that. This resolution is a message to the WMF, not directly to editors. It asks the WMF to come up with a personal image hiding system, where users can specify their own preferences for image filtering without affecting anyone else's ability to see images (which I would likely support if it worked exactly like that). This resolution does not provide any specific guidance for how editors should choose to use offensive images, for that we use Wikipedia policies and guidelines. —SW— prattle 16:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some editors approach this question assuming that all Muslims will automatically suffer a hernia and refuse to speak for three days if exposed to a picture of Muhammad. I think the reality is more probably that we would find a diversity in attitudes on this question among Muslims. Many Muslims don't actually believe that images of Muhammad are a problem and many others who do see them as a problem will recognise that there is a legitimate case in favour of the educational use of such images which also merits consideration. I think many Muslims will, on the other hand, be troubled by the working assumption that they are all made out of a sort of emotional rice paper and are completely incapable of considering anyone else's point-of-view. IPs who occasionally post on the talkpage in shouty caps should not be taken as representative, IMO. FormerIP (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we depart from practice in the best and most reputable source, then we astonish the reader. The best and most reputable sources on Muhammad use figurative depictions sparingly, compared to the literature on other religious founders like Jesus and Buddha, and therefore so should we. If the literature on a particular historical person, as a whole, shows less figurative art than the literature on another such person, we should be reflecting that difference. Following sources is what NPOV means, and it is also what POLA means, for people are not unduly surprised if we offer them what they get from the best sources. --JN466 19:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)
  • The WMF's principle of least astonishment governs the presence of controversial content, not the absence of controversial content. Arguments made above that readers would find the absence of controversial material astonishing in itself is plainly insensitive to the scales involved. Due weight applies - vastly more people find depictions of Muhammad offensive than the handful of people who claim they would find the absence of depictions of Muhammad offensive. Suggestions that the absence of images would be offensive strikes me as editors trying to make a WP:POINT rather than trying to approach things from as neutral and respectful a direction as possible. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits›     01:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a tool supposed to allow filtering unwanted content. Once this tool is ready, someone should make sure the images of Muhammad are properly hidden when appropriate option is activated. Until the tool is released we have no technical mean to adhere to the WMF resolution on POLA, so it should be disregarded with respect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knowing a little about Islamic culture I would actually be astonished to find a picture of Mohammed. I might expect some picture in supplementary material but I would generally expect the prevalence of images to mirror that of Islamic material as a whole: not very often. This dies tie with the idea of Undue weight to show many images in this context actually becomes undue weight give the relative obscurity of the sources.--Salix (talk): 12:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I look up an article about a subject, I expect pictures and I would be astonished not to find them. I think every Muslim reader would expect the same from every other article and I also think that all those readers know that Wikipedia is not governed by Islamic law, so they should not be astonished to find images in this particular article. The only way for them to be astonished would be if those who object to such pictures actually believed that Wikipedia shares their objections - and there is no reason why they should believe that. Regards SoWhy 13:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no such thing as the "Principle of Least Astonishment" at English-Wikipedia. This is a resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation, an attempt by them to "manage" content. It has never been adopted as a guideline or policy here. The resolution should be utterly disregarded until properly discussed and adopted (or rejected) through normal channels. Carrite (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be most astonished to find that an English-language encyclopedia went out of its way to violate its own policies to accomodate the (not proven reasonable) expectations or putative demands of a minority group of readers who may or may not react vastly differently than the majority, depending on the individual. I fervently believe that the tyranny of the majority is a grave threat to any public enterprise; but this is not a situation of imposing wills, this is a situation of providing information in accordance with the very mission of that enterprise. The only thing that would be more astonishing would be if we went out of our way to include the most derisive and intentionally-offensive images we could find (e.g. if we put up an image of Muhammed having sex with a billy goat in the middle of a satanic pentagram while they share a plate of pork chops). Neither of these is an acceptable way to handle the topic. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MOS image policy gives some guidance for dealing with images that might offend or shock (or perhaps astonish). "Lead images should be selected to be of least shock value; if an alternative image exists that still is an accurate representation of the topic but without shock value, it should always be preferred. For example, using an image of deportees being subjected to selection as the lead image at this version of Holocaust is far preferable to the appropriate images that appear later in the article that show the treatment of the prisoners or corpses from the camps." So while it is possible that one of the images in this article might shock or astonish a large audience segment, such images should be further down the article page. Cloveapple (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The principle should be applied that in articles completely unrelated to Muhammad as well as in relevant articles, depictions should exist for the sole purpose of providing information, not in order to make a statement on an inner-religious dispute. Taking side by veiling such an image would be cause for great astonishment. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The resolution was based on the recommendations of the Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content, which included images of Kenny G. 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 smooth Jazz police discourages images of Kenny 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 Kenny in the Kenny G. article? - A: Don't surprise readers with pictures of Kenny in the infobox behind a flame, with a veil on, on a Night Journey, or talking with Gabriel. Instead, show him realistically, playing his Sopranosax, similar to Muhammad in his infobox preaching to his earliest converts on Mount Arafat near Mecca, --Rosenkohl (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is neutral. Thus, it astonishes me that its editors are considering bowing to any special interest, including religious, to create either a special version of an article or a censored article. -- Neozoon 00:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Jclemens and Ezhiki about Mohhamed images, but the principle of "least astonishing" is a typical invention by people who do not know how to make an effective presentation of educational materials. "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." ??? First of all, if a reader does not know much about a subject (speaking in general), he does not know what to expect. More important, if you want to really bring attention of a reader, you must "astonish" him with something he does not know from the very beginning of an article. This applies to all scientific presentations, grant proposals, political speeches, and yes, to any educational writings addressed to general public (like in wikipedia). That is what Foundation needs to realize. My very best wishes (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see a bit of what this is about but what's the point of having an encyclopaedia if people are only going to only read what they expect to read? There might be something that can be developed here but it requires a lot more thought. Straightforward support for self censorship would cover most problems like this.Dmcq (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the infobox has a calligraphic symbol and there is no hatnote about picture opt-out, it would be probably be astonishing to the reader of Islamic faith to encounter depictions further down the page. More astonishing, actually, than if the article started with an unveiled depiction right away--the Christian, western bias of WP is probably widely known, and I doubt that many Muslims obtain their knowledge about Muhammad from Wikipedia anyway. What should be checked instead is the set of redirects to the article--Is it possible that someone does not want to navigate to Muhammad but is redirected there, and then astonished by the offending picture? --Pgallert (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Astonishment has nothing to do with it. If people come to an article willingly, they can expect to see images of the article's subject. Unless, of course, we're going to expurgate all photographs of human genitalia, female breasts, and anything else a particular group happens to find offensive. I'm barely comfortable with the hatnote, to be honest. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTCENSORED should not be compromised in the slightest. People visiting Wiki should expect to see an accurate representation of all views, unmoderated by Wiki
    Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, it is censorship to include images simply to be WP:POINTy in that wikipedia is not censored. Using images explicitly because we are trying to stick it to those who want censorship is just as bad as removing an image because of censorship. Second, editorial decisions should be the rationale for inclusion/exclusion. Does it make editorial sense? Is it educational? Is it pertinent? If so, then they should be included. If it is included simply to make a POINT, then no. Part of the editorial process IS CENSORSHIP---and that's true with any article. Do the needs of including the information/image outweigh the cost of doing so? Part of the cost is offending others, that is a legitimate editorial consideration that has to be weighed with every decision. Third, when we say "Wikipedia is not censored" that means by the foudnation/Jimbo Wales/some outside source---it does not mean that we blindly allow any rumor, piece of trivia, slander, bias etc to be included in an article. We evaluate the reliability and need for inclusion. Is it objective, NPOV, weighted, etc? Such should be done with images. Is it needed? Is it in the right place? Does it serve a valid editorial reason? If yes, then include. If no, then "NOTCENSOR" is not a reason to include. The flipside to appealing to NOTCENSOR is that it encourages censorship via the inclusion of controversial material. Whenever the editorial decision making process is overruled by a principle to include/exclude material, we are encountering censorship.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 17:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Foundation's mealy-mouthed attempt to satisfy everybody is pretty much irrelevant here. We shouldn't expect anybody to be surprised to learn that the rest of the planet does not follow the strictures of some subsets of one specific religious tradition, however powerful and militant such subsets may be. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am in agreement with Cloveapple's comment. Our purpose here as an encyclopedia is to inform, not to shock. I am concerned by some of the other comments here, by editors who seem to feel that our purpose is to prominently display images as a way of "forcing" readers to accept a certain presentation. I strongly disagree with this approach, because that's not what Wikipedia is about. We're not trying to force anyone to accept anything, we're not trying to push a political or ideological agenda. Our goal is simply to present information in a neutral way. If there's a way to present all appropriate information in a balanced fashion, then we are doing our job. In the case of the Muhammad article, I don't think anyone is arguing to remove images of Muhammad or to deface them in any way, we are just discussing the best way to present the information. I would argue that the "Principle of Least Astonishment" in this case would be best served by putting a non-controversial image in the lead infobox (such as calligraphy), and then other figurative depictions of Muhammad can be placed elsewhere on the project, such as farther down the page, and at the Depictions of Muhammad article. That way, those readers who are genuinely interested in the topic still have full access to the information, but we don't force it on everyone visiting the article. --Elonka 13:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should not be any exception for this particular article. It should be treated like any other biographical article and illustrated where appropriate (including by images of the subject). It is irrelevant if someone is astonished or not. Ruslik_Zero 16:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one can rightfully be astonished that an English language wikipedia would have pictures of historical figures including religious figures. They might be astonished if the arabic language wikipedia has such pictures.Jason from nyc (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't answer the front door naked even though my home is NOT CENSORED. I don't wear a bikini to church, even though bikinis are normal in the community (less-so for men). The presentation of an article or a person within a community or an encyclopedia varies beyond what is legal. There is a place for images of Muhammad on Wikipedia, and just as I believe my naked body doesn't belong behind the front door when it's about to open, images of Muhammad do not belong behind the front-door article for Muslim readers and editors. Let them go looking for it same as everything else.
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]
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]
  • Including an image of Muhammad in an encyclopedia article about Muhammad is in no way astonishing. It is perfectly sensible in the context of the article. Thom2002 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many illustrations, especially about events in the life, is a bit like proselytizing. Neotarf (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignore it. If Wikipedia policies and guidelines, applied to improve the encyclopedia through reasonable and open minded discussion and consensus by good faith editors, lead to astonishingly unencyclopedic articles, those policies and guidelines need to be fixed, again through reasonable and open minded discussion and consensus by good faith editors. It is not acceptable for the WMF or anyone else to bypass that process by identifying problems and imposing solutions by fiat. Such dictats carry no weight with me, and I encourage other editors to respond to them similarly. Geometry guy 00:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    dictats? We need to start tattooing genitals now? "Welcome to Jamaica, have a nice day"? PuppyOnTheRadio talk 00:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    diktats actually (or possibly "dicta"), but thanks for paying attention... Geometry guy 00:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ...a harsh penalty... imposed upon a defeated party by the victor... Well yes, it would be. PuppyOnTheRadio talk 01:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow everyone to temporarily hide images in a particular article, similar to self-hiding lists and templates. There are however too many warnings already to warrant additional hatnotes on each subject that could be deemed controversial by some. --Dmitry (talk•contibs) 22:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I interpret the WMF principle the same way re the Muhammad article as I do re anywhere else: as confused and unhelpful. Astonishment is value-neutral; it can be a perfectly positive thing in many contexts, and encyclopedia articles are far from exempt. If we encyclopedia-builders are doing our job, we damn well should be astonishing our readership frequently, not spoon-feeding them carefully measured doses of what they already expect to find. Will some readers be offended when that happens? No doubt. The closed-minded among them presumably will leave in a huff, but the rest just might be jolted into discovering that a whole world exists beyond their preconceived notions. Aren't those readers the ones we are writing our articles for? Isn't enlightening the world at least a small part of what Wikipedia is all about? Rivertorch (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the dictats of a minority somewhere in the world demand that we break our own rules such as WP:NOTCENSORED, and we comply, where does that end? More than anywhere else, this is a place we must remain resolute. Stifle (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think most English-speaking individuals visiting this encyclopedia would be more surprised by a lack of images than the other way around. JHSnl (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this 'principle' is useful, because as the question notes it can be applied either way. Some people would be astonished to find figurative depictions of Muhammad in the article; others would be astonished to find them not included. Our readers are diverse and have wildly different expectations, and we can't ever satisfy them all. As such, I think the question of 'astonishment' is a red herring. We should instead be asking: what's most appropriate for this article? Does the informative/illustrative value of the Muhammad images outweigh their potential to offend the reader and provoke controversy? What would be the best way of upholding NPOV? Those are the pertinent questions, not the vague and unanswerable issue of 'astonishment'. Robofish (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[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

  • Sources are key, as is WP:UNDUE. We should represent images, just as we do viewpoints, in the proper proportion to how they are represented in reliable sources. Per WP:UNDUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." As such we should be mindful of how reliable sources represent images of Muhammad, and endeavor to keep our own presentation in the proper proportion. I encourage any editor interested in this topic to engage in the following experiment: Go to any public library or major bookstore, and look through the (illustrated) sources that include a biography of Muhammad, be it a chapter, page, or just a paragraph or two. I have performed this experiment multiple times, in several libraries and bookstores, looking through literally scores of books about Muhammad, about Islam, and about religion in general. What I have found is that in the vast majority of these books, reliable sources do not include even a single figurative image of Muhammad. They commonly have images of calligraphy, or scenes of daily life from Muhammad's time, or images of Islamic art and architecture. But images of Muhammad himself are quite rare. Wikipedia should follow this same practice, and not give undue weight to images. --Elonka 01:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commercial publishers do not adhere to Wikipedia policies like WP:NOTCENSORED, and operate under a number of constraints in their choice of images; our articles are always more heavily illustrated, where images are available, than commercial equivalents, and this is one of the strengths of Wikipedia. Apart from the extra costs of sourcing and printing images, in this particular case anyone who has experience of commercial publishing will know how drastic the effect of the Salman Rushdie case was on the industry. Decisions not to include figurative images of Muhammad in books are more likely to be made in the publisher's legal and marketing departments than by editorial staff, let alone actual authors. The application of WP:RS and WP:UNDUE to images is dubious in most contexts, and in this case it falls down completely. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Johnbod. Moreover, many of the sources most concentrating on Muhammad that are without images are Islamic in origin; Wikipedia emphasizes views from outside a religion, not inside. Allens (talk | contribs) 02:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way that our sources or other encyclopedias use controversial images tells us something about what our readers might expect from us. But we have to be sensible. As Allens points out, an Islamic author or publisher would be a less perfect indication of what's expected of a Western secular encyclopedia than, say, Encyclopædia Britannica, or a life of Muhammad by an atheist author from OUP. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images are not points of view, and attempting to apply NPOV to sorts of depictions may inappropriately import systemic bias from other venues to Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All art represents a point of view. We do place images in articles according to their prominence. Take "The Last Supper", which has been depicted by many, but most prominently and popularly by Leonardo DaVinci. Or the article on The most common and prominent depiction of Muhammad is a signature. That being said, there are less common depictions of him that should be afforded weight, and thus there must be a home for actual paintings of Muhammad somewhere. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Johnbod. Beyond that, Wikipedia has ready access to Wikimedia Commons, an extremely powerful resource for ancient artwork - we can and do include more images because we aren't limited to the paltry photo collections a 1980 textbook would have called upon; in fact, under the Commons PD-Art principle we can steal contribute ;) any two-dimensional ancient image any of us can dig up anywhere on the Web. Wnt (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding to the above reasons why we shouldn't follow the example of such sources: There appears to be no widely recognized/accepted appearance of Muhammad. That makes choosing a single image to represent him exceedingly difficult. Many sources may just have sidestepped the issue by not using an image at all. We aren't limited to one image. We've got space! Goodraise 06:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Johnbod, Wnt. Commercial publishers have different values that don't include NOTCENSORED. Per Goodraise, WP:NOTPAPER. Note: This answer is contingent upon implementing at least one of the hatnotes, so unwary readers can avoid images. If we actually force every non-tech-saavy reader to view all images, I'm less certain we'd have the moral highground. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose to the "image survey" requested in the first response. It is synthesis and therefore against the values regarding no original research. No reliable source has done such a survey, and Wikipedia cannot. Reliable sources do use images of Muhammad, thus Wikipedia may do so. Moreover, due weight is provided by written context and not applicable here; it is not provided by unsourced, made up and thus arbitrary image surveys. Also, agree with Johnbod, Wnt and Goodraise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is an uncensored, free-content, NPOV, illustrated, (primarily) online crowd-sourced general encyclopaedia that is facilitated by a non-profit foundation. It would be appropriate to look at what other reliable sources that operate in this environment and have access to the same corpus of images do, but I'm not aware of any that exist. Furthermore, in every other article we choose the images available to us that best illustrate our text. We do not choose to use the images that our sources use to illustrate their text (although in some cases we might use the same image, we use it because its the best image for our purposes not because they used it). Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been greatly opposed to this from the moment someone first unveiled (pun unintended) it in last year's discussions. The use of images in reliable sources should not be seen as any sort of measure or barometer for the Wikipedia's use of images. There is a wide variety of reasons why a RS may or may not make use of an image in a given publication, including but not limited to size, spacing, attribution, relevance, or editorial discretion. Enacting this proposal would put the burden of guesswork into the hands of editors as they try to discern why or why not a source did or did not use an image. Tarc (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In matters of image use, layout, varieties of English, whether or not to use an Oxford comma(,) and so on, Wikipedia should go by what policies and guidelines it has, not by what sources that have their own policies and guidelines do. It would be impossible, in any case that is even slightly controversial, to ever reach the conclusion of a discussion about what reliable sources do, which ones we should follow and which ones we shouldn't. What would be the point of allowing a procedure that will never give us a result in any case? FormerIP (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Elonka. We are an encyclopedia, we do not shoot from the hip. Follow the sources. Follow the sources. Follow the sources. It's really as simple as that. --JN466 19:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reliable sources should be used to determine the historical trends and most prominent illustrations accordingly. Illustrations are heavy, so assuming that some printed sources don't include Muhammad's images on ideological reasons would be inappropriately vague. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, Johnbod has summed it up well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Johnbod and Goodraise. cmadler (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not "poll published sources" to determine image content for any other article at WP. There is absolutely no precedent for this, nor should one be made in this case. Let the actually involved editors decide through consensus, according to established policy and precedent. Carrite (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mainstream sources avoid depiction and so should wikipeadia. That is NPOV. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[P]revalent usage in reliable sources about Muhammad" is irrelevant here; we're trying to build a better reference work here, less subject to commercial pressure, religious lobbyists, cowardice and taboos. Most mainstream reliable sources on sexual topics are too timid to use the images that we use here; so what? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia policy on due weight makes it very clear: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." That images are subject to due weight considerations has been stable part of the NPOV policy since June 2006. When it comes to original research and systemic bias, this is no different from the problems with due weight assessment of textual claims. Western academic sources might be more censored than we would like, but here is not the place right great wrongs: any systemic bias in Western academic sources should be imported into Wikipedia. That's what NPOV implies for both text and images. The only valid objection is that Wikipedia is much more illustrated than most other reference work, so a few depictions should make the cut, but the gist of Elonka's argument remains valid: the kinds of images used for illustration should be guided by the secondary literature. Vesal (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • Which images are used by others is irrelevant. People use images that they like or they not use images that they do not like. It is purely editorial decision based on the subjective opinion of an author. This argument that we should use images that others use is actually quite silly. There are many article here that use images that have never been used in any other source. Does it mean that all that images should be removed as well? This proposal is just an attempt to bend well established Wikipedia policies to obtained a result favorable for the authors of this proposal. Ruslik_Zero 16:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Wikipedia can to better, it should. Pictures are worth a thousand words ... let's use them.Jason from nyc (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calligraphy type illustrations are going to be more prevalent amongst rs texts, and can be used on that basis. The bloke died a long time ago and didn't sit for any portraits. I'm not saying the centuries old illustrations are akin to vandalism, or graffiti. They have their own notability from age, but not as actual depictions of Mr M. wouldn't they be simple WP:OR in Mr.M.'s article ? Old doesn't come into the OS judgment, in the end that's what it is. 'This is what artist X thinks Mr M looked like'. The artist is notable, and the old painting he did is notable in his own article for sure, but are we looking at a version of a pop culture section in this article, just an older version of it ? If there is no free image of the subject, should every artists depiction do ? There are plenty of aspects here, it is UNDUE (in that article, but not elsewhere), but there are larger issues.
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]
  • Dead-tree sources may avoid photos because of the expense. Here it's only pixels, and you can use as many as needed. Neotarf (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons provide much more illustrative material than any other encyclopedic source. This practice should continue for the benefit of the community. --Dmitry (talk•contibs) 22:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Vesal above. While we are not bound by what mainstream academic sources do, we do have a duty to respect NPOV and give fair weight to opposing positions. If the use of figurative images of Muhammad is rare in other sources, that's not decisive, but it should influence us to consider whether our use of them is excessive and non-neutral. Robofish (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images in sources are and should be treated different from facts written in text. Images are not commonly referenced to support facts. There is practically never a third-party made image to an event. Text can be summarized or rewritten, while images are not "redrawn". Fact checking is not performed on images, text are. All in all, images on wikipedia is there to support the text in helping understanding. Belorn (talk) 11:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[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]

"Figurative" = "not calligraphy etc". FormerIP (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[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]

Numbers

  • One image, in the "Depictions of Muhammad" section, and then other images can be placed in the Depictions of Muhammad article. --Elonka 01:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am happy with 6, the current number, or one more or less, with the article at the current length. Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No limit, provided they truly add to the readers' understanding of the text they illustrate. At present, I can see 2: one in Muhammad#Islamic_depictions_of_Muhammad and one in Muhammad#European_and_Western_views. The rest are decorative, attractive to non-Muslims and repulsive to many Muslims, but add nothing to understanding. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enough to include all major depiction styles (full-person and flame), so at least 2. Any exact numerical upper limit seems highly arbitrary. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No limit. Each depiction that adds to the educational value of the article should be included, short of turning the page into an art gallery, just as we do it with every other article. Goodraise 06:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with the current page. No special limit, but we do need extra scrutiny to avoid inserting images just for the purposes of upsetting readers. Truly educational images that improve the article should be as welcome here as on any other page. Don't bash people over the head with images, but don't avoid images either. Note: This answer is contingent upon implementing at least one of the hatnotes, so unwary readers can avoid images. If we actually force every non-tech-saavy reader to view all images, I'm less certain we'd have the moral highground.--HectorMoffet (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this idea. Why, is this thing necessary?--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 07:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current number 6 seems right given the article length and subject matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the least we should include a representative sample of any historically significant images. Without overdoing it, the article should be richly illustrated to enhance the content in the body. Ocaasi t | c 12:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No limit. Use as many as needed, so long as they're useful or interesting. --CapitalR (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No arbitrary limit. Each image should be individually assessed in terms of relevance to the article, weight, etc. both locally and to the article as a whole. The number of images the article has, and what proportion of them are figurative will likely change as the article does. This is exactly what happens on every other article in the encyclopaedia and it works well there. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No limit given non-free restrictions, why should there be any special limit for the use of free images? Skier Dude (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There shouldn't be an arbitrary limit. If adding a picture makes sense, it should be added. If some of the pictures are redundant, some can be removed. It's just like any other article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:43 (UTC)
  • Opposed to the existence of this section. This is ridiculous. We shouldn't be discussing numbers. Whatever images are appropriate for inclusion, should be included, regardless of how many or few there might be. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No more or less than 42 sarcasm, obviously. A limit on the number of images seems particularly extreme, unnecessary, and bureaucratic. There should be no limit imposed. —SW— chatter 16:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've opposed a set quota, but to give a number, I'll say 11. The six images presently in the article appear to be well-chosen, but more will doubtless turn up with further research. There are a few unillustrated sections that there must be something for somewhere - the quotes in "appearance", for example, must have led someone to try to make a portrait that follows every word available. And there are notable images, e.g. the Muhammad figure in the South Wall Frieze of the United States Supreme Court Building, which are not currently in the article. I'm picturing a modest growth of the text (~30%) accompanying a near-doubling of the current number of illustrative figures, occurring over the next three years (the term suggested about the RFC). Wnt (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1–2 in the Depictions section. One should perhaps be the famous miraj image. --JN466 19:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there is any basis on which to pick a number. However, I would point out that we are currently more conservative in our use of images of Mohammed than either Persian or Kurdish Wikipedia, which suggests to me that the current number (6) is too low. FormerIP (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as vehemently as civility permits: Per Amatulic above. Again, enforcing a decision like this serves no purpose but appeasement. Sleddog116 (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No limit - I oppose setting an arbitrary number on this article. Images should be used as appropriate and not subject to removal for religious reasons. Tarc (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No limit. Per Sleddog116/Amatulic. There is no reason to set a limit. Appeasement has no place on Wikipedia. Equazcion (talk) 23:54, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)
  • 1 per each style: enough, still not too much. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No quotas. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The appropriate number of images will vary based on article length, availability of suitable and relevant images, and variety of such images. cmadler (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As many as it takes to illustrate a Featured Article, no more and no less. The most offensive thing we could do on this issue would be to single it out for special treatment, whether that's uncommon courtesy or uncommon denigration. As FAs on differing topics have differing numbers of images, depending both on the topics themselves and on how, precisely, they are organized and written, so too we cannot decide a priori that n images is OK, but n + 1 images would be unencyclopedic or (worse) offensive. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No arbitrary limit - As many as the article can support comfortably, same as for any other page at WP. No special exceptions. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree there should be no quota but you editors are not being very helpful here. The purpose of this question is to ask you to look at the article, and make a recommendation if you can. You can discuss "no quota" elsewhere but, here please give Wikipedia the benefit of your editorial judgment, so that this article may be put to rest, for the next three years. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Oppose Should be based on Wikipedia is not a gallery and each image should be directly pertinent to what it is associated with. They can go to commons for galleries. Dmcq (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as stylistically reasonable, as per WP:NOTCENSORED.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose setting an arbitrary limit. While I agree we should be conscious of the sensibilities of all our readers, placing a definitive number is just wrong. The questions should be: 1) Is the image necessary? 2) Does it provide an educational purpose? 3) Would the article be hurt if it was removed? 4) [repeat] Is the image necessary? If the answer to those 4 questions is yes, then include it regardless of the count. If it is no, then remove it. Same as any other article, but with the caveat that we can be conscious of the controversy surrounding it.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current number is about right although not necessarily the images already chosen. Mathsci (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No limit. There should be as many as are relevant to text. Pass a Method talk 15:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Form of this question is not correct AFAIK there is a big difference between images of a person (especially mohammed) and images of things that were never alive, like writing. This question needs research and re-phrasing. So for now, Zero people depicted, limitless calligraphy and places. (though I think trees are kind of frowned on by some, not sure, but I wouldn't worry, as it's not Wikipedia so blatantly taking a stand trying to deliberately offend anymore if it's plants and such) Penyulap ☏ 16:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 or 2, more if discussing depictions, unlimited thumbnails at the end. Neotarf (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No limit. There should be as many as are relevant to text. Span (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No limit - the article should contain as many images of the man as is required to appropriately illustrate all areas where they fit. It can also contain as much calligraphy, if so decided, as it wants in places where that fits. An arbitrary limits is just that, arbitrary and a bit random. Ale_Jrbtalk 10:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No set arbitrary limit - what a ridiculous idea - David Gerard (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is another pretty silly question, and strict quotas are a bad idea, but since you asked: I think 1 or 2 would be appropriate, enough to show that figurative depictions of Muhammad exist and what they look like, but not giving a misleading impression by overusing them. Robofish (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No limit - Is this question here to mock some of the editors? Is wikipedia a joke now? Let's request comment for every single detail for every single article. :) Brendon is here 17:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional discussion of question 8

  • This question is not about setting a quota or limit, and "no quota" does not really answer it (see the next two questions for that). It asks for editors' views as to the appropriate number. Some editors will have views on this, some won't. Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]

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]

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]

There should be no artificial quota on images

Saying they need to meet a higher standard is censorship. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[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]
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]
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]

Additional discussion of question 9

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

We don't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[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]
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]
I'm not arguing with that! Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[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]

I agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[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]

General discussion

  • I find discussion of censoring any otherwise perfectly appropriate content on Wikipedia for any reason to be both offensive and a waste of time. If a separate "censored" version of this article ends up being implemented, it sends a terrible message and sets an embarrassing precedent. Placating those who would want accurate and pertinent information hidden or removed is simply antithetical to the goals of this site. --Resplendent (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should be considerate of the feelings of faithful Muslims, but we also have to defend tolerance and enlightenment as fundamental Western values an encyclopaedia is a part of.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
  • Where's the option to change the Wikipedia logo into a small picture of Muhammad? I'm not sure who wrote this RfC, but since there's no clear option to say WP:NOTCENSORED really means not censored, I'll just leave a note here. Gigs (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While reviewing the discussion on this page, I noticed that a contingent of editors seemed to express in their chosen rhetoric the idea that "Western" English Wikipedia users and individuals belonging to "Islamic culture" are two entirely separate groups of people, whereas that is not the reality—that is, Muslims and Westerners are not two mutually exclusive groups. This comment is not so much an attempt to persuade either way on any question above, but merely something to keep in mind for all editors involved as the discussion procedes. scisdahl (t•c) 16:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The overlap of the two groups is so minimal as to be functionally nonexistent, honestly. We are here discussing this today because over the years there has been sporadic off-wiki protests and advocacy to remove the images from this project. This has been either in the form of vandalism to the article (now contained by permanent semi-protection) or edit requests (shunted off to their own article talk sub-page). It was only recently that the WMF commissioned the study on controversial content; some editors took it to mean a license to remove the images, others saw religious concern as not meeting the threshold where images had to be removed. That disagreement is why we're here now, but again, the impetus for all this is the attempt to impose a non-Western point-of-view on the English Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for a summary of this conflict, but I remain convinced that an "us vs. them" mentality is overly reductive and therefore not conducive to reaching a lasting solution. I understand that vandalism can be a thoroughly frustrating issue, but hostile or divisive language in this project's discourse can only serve to de-legitimize the outcome of these proceedings and further open the door to future conflict. scisdahl (t•c) 23:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some editors believe we shouldn't gratuitously insert images that add nothing to the readers' understanding but are offensive to many of our readers. This is not "imposing a non-Western view." It is advocating for adult behaviour.
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]
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]
  • This is an interesting discussion, but I think that the discussion around CENSORSHIP here is misleading. 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 (I am excluding here vandals and others who have agendas over and above making Wikipedia a friendly and useful place to be a part of). The comparison to pornography and sexually graphic images is also misleading. A better comparison would be the use of offensive words like "nigger" or "fag," which most of us voluntarily refrain from using outside of contexts (like the present) where their relevance or utility outweigh their affective impact. I have the right to use these words, but I choose not to because I don't want to offend other people. Of course, avoiding slurs is easier than the image-of-Mohammed problem because having these images can be argued to serve a genuine purpose, unlike most slurs. However, there is no reason that we can't serve that purpose without showing some delicacy and sensitivity (as per some of the measures suggested above), particularly when the only reason that I see offered here not to be accommodating is largely emotional. I would not advocate removing these images, but moving them off the first screen, adding a warning or option to show the page without them, or taking some other measure to acknowledge that Wikipedia IS aware that the issue is important to some (many?) of its users does no harm. It is not caving in to censorship because nothing is censored, and minimizing the objectionable images by keeping them down to what is necessary for the purposes of the article seems perfectly reasonable to me. The fact that there might be other constituencies out there that could raise similar objections to other Wikipedia pages is simply a fact of life, and if there needs to be discussion around other such pages, it's all part of the process of developing the Wiki community. Davidjamesbeck (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we allow our content to be dictated by small groups of radicals, then it is indeed censorship. Gigs (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not the small groups of radicals we want to be concerned about, it's the much larger community of people who are offended by these images or feel that they are disrespectful to a dearly-held belief. My point is simply that we shouldn't be thinking about this in terms of radicals trying to dictate what Wikipedia does, we should be thinking about this in terms of doing what needs to be done and saying what needs to be said in a way that doesn't unnecessarily alienate members of the community. Not everyone who is potentially upset by this is a radical, and I don't think finding ways of accommodating these cultural sensitivities without compromising Wikipedia's aims is impossible.Davidjamesbeck (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I strongly agree that many of the solutions being suggested here are not true censorship, especially in the case of the 'remove images from this article' hatnote - see my comments in that section. I would also point out that very little of the discussion on this page is motivated by radical Islam, but rather a spirit of inclusiveness and concern for the beliefs of others - while I haven't read every comment here, I haven't seen a single person in favour of hiding/limiting/removing images say that their choice is motivated by their own religious belief Euchrid (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is because the sorts of users (anon IPs and single purpose accounts) that demand removal based on their personal beliefs have been excluded from this discussion, per the Wikimedia Foundation's suggestion. Not that they are excluded because of their beliefs, not implying that, but that there was a desire for actual vested Wikipedia editors to make the decision on inclusion of controversial images. I agree that no regular users are advocating removal for this reason directly, they are just taking into account the belief system of some Muslims in general. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The way I understand it, the vast majority of Muslims are not offended by depictions of Muhammad. Nothing in their holy texts prohibits non-muslims from creating or displaying depictions. So this has nothing to do with the sensitivities of any mainstream group, only with the sensitivities of radical agitators, which we should never cave to. Gigs (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're mistaken. Most Sunni Muslims find depictions of Muhammad offensive. Shias are more relaxed about it. These are generalisations, of course. Several Sunnis I know aren't especially bothered by our use of gratuitous depictions of Muhammad. Their response is more like disappointment that Wikipedia should be so puerile, and concern that other Muslims may be alienated by it; one sees it as a deliberate insult to Sunnis but he, too, is more disappointed than hurt or angry. No one here is arguing for the removal of all figurative depictions of Muhammad, only that we should use them where they add to the reader's understanding of the text they illustrate. Most images presently at Muhammad are purely decorative. It's the gratuitous use of such images that is problematic. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • This idea of editors trying to speak for "most" of any group is a fallacy. Trying to state another's offense risks patronization. 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. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[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]

  • It matters to me what a Muslim (of the type about whom we are concerned) feels upon viewing a depiction of Muhammad. Does he feel defiled in a way similar to if he had unknowingly ingested pork? Or, rather, does he deplore the wickedness of the image-maker and feel offended for the sake of the honor of Allah and Muhammad, but not feel personally defiled himself? Or is it something in between, or altogether different? Please answer this only if you practice, or have expert knowledge of, Sunni Islam. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal

  • 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. Discuss. —SW— chatter 16:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Quite right. I've amended my comments above. Thanks. —SW— chatter 04:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[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]
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]
Amen Reverend Good Father. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 01:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Music is also offensive in Saudi Arabia, at least in public. Neotarf (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[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]
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]
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]

Another new proposal

  • I mentioned this in one of my above comments, but it relates to WP:NDA. I am most definitely opposed to all of the hatnote-related suggestions that have been raised in the discussion, but would it be such a bad thing to make the site-wide disclaimers a little more visible at the top of the Main Page? That's not censorship, after all (because it's on one page - the page everybody sees when they first come to WP - and therefore applies equally to all articles on the project), and it might help alleviate some of the problems (I suspect the WP:IDHT edits will continue no matter what is decided here - call me cynical). Right now, the site-wide disclaimer isn't particularly visible. Yeah, the link is at the bottom of the main page, but shouldn't it (and by "it" I mean, of course, the link - not the disclaimer itself) be visible at a glance on the main page? To put it as simply as I can: The Main-Page link to the site-wide disclaimer should be more prominent (i.e. visible somewhere on the first screen) of the English Wikipedia. Sleddog116 (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]
(I think?) he's being sarcastic. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 11:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[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]
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]
(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]
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]
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]

(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]

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]
"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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
"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]
"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]
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]
Well... a few years, anyway. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[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]

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]

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]
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]
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]
They are not "enriching" because there is religious precept against them? Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[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]

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]

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]
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]
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]

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]

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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]

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]

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]
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]
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]

Sorry, but I have to wonder how much of this "consideration" argument is really fear.Thelmadatter (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[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]
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]
Agree with JN466 on the point that Iranians are very open to depiction of Muhammad.Farhikht (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --JN466 09:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[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]
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]
I recall that you were instrumental in preventing that. --JN466 20:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
"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]

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]

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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]

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]


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]
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]
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]
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]

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]

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]
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]


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]

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]
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]
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]
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]

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]

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]
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]
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]
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]
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]

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]

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]
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]
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]
  • Strong Support. I think it is especially telling that so many people made this argument in opposition to 1a. I can see how some of the other sections might be seen as censorship, but 1a removes nothing and only serve to increase the users choices. I believe that after the first few oppose votes invoked the magic WP:NOTCENSORED word, it was copied over and over by people who never bothered to read it, much less consider whether 1a actually violates it. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in the case of the two hatnote options. How giving people the option to personally not see the images on the page, or informing them about what they're about to see, counts as censorship is beyond me. It doesn't even go against the 'spirit' of the policy. Do rating on movies count as censorship? Hatnotes would give people the power to make informed decisions about what they personally view, but no power whatsoever to affect anybody else's experience. Euchrid (talk)
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]
  • I dunno, gang. I loved the hatnotes, but I "get" what people are saying when they say NOTCENSORED. It's not a valid policy citation, to be sure, but it is a 'wikimedia value' that is at play here. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[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]
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]
  • Oppose - Only those votes that do mention at least one wikipedia policy should be counted. What else do we need wikipedia policies for if we cannot cite them as credible arguments while opining on something here on wikipedia? If — heaven forbid — any restriction is placed on the free use of any Image solely based on the fear of upsetting some over-sensitive lunatics, it will contravene not only WP:NOTCENSORED, but also other policies namely WP:NPOV, WP:PROFANE, etc. Why is this so hard to understand? AFAIK, Wikipedia is not an Islamic proselytising website that it has to comply with the quranic embargoes. It's an encyclopaedia whose job is to relay/transmit information with as much neutrality and intactness as possible sans prejudicial censorship or distortion. :) Brendon is here 13:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[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]

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]
+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]
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]
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]
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 images of Muhammad, and indeed very few images that can be regarded as portraits. Johnbod (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[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]

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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
"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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Muhammad_images&oldid=484694336"