Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images

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:

• Five pillars
• Mission

Policy:

• Verifiability
• Neutral Point of View
• Image use policy
• Not censored

Guideline:

• Manual of Style - Images
• Image relevance
• Offensive material
• Disclaimers
• Options to not see an image

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.

• For further background, participants may wish to review Talk:Muhammad/images, the Arbitration-related pages, the mediation pages, and evidence adduced (also, [1]) during the arbitration, which compared the number of images in the Muhammad article with several other Wikipedia historical biographies.

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)

Note:There is a proposal in the general discussion below "that all arguments based solely on WP:NOTCENSORED should be ignored" editors might want to get involved in that discussion. Thank you. :) Brendon is here 08:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Support 1a

• Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• This seems to me to be an appropriate application of WP:IAR. FormerIP (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• I think this is entirely appropriate for this unique situation. --JaGa^talk 03:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Needed--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Both factual (educational) and functional, so fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• First Choice: R.E.S.P.E.C.T. and principle of least astonishment. --Advocado 15:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

• Strong Support first choice. I can't believe the people who are citing "NOT CENSORED." The option is for the viewer to make the choice based upon his/her personal views. Wikipedia is not censoring the items, but only offering others a means to read the article in a manner than would not offend them and conforms to their religious stance. To oppose giving a person an option to adhere to their religious convictions is intollerant.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support and Call for Clarification Those who oppose citing "NOT CENSORED" are in danger of having their votes not counted for having an invalid reason (giving someone a choice is not censorship). This should be made clear and they should be given a chance to change the reason they give. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support, I'm very skeptical of calls to WP:NOTCENSORED. The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to disseminate knowledge freely worldwide. The question then becomes: how best can we serve our readers? A significant population on this planet finds depictions of this man immensely offensive; we should honor their requests in some reasonable fashion then. Give them an option to opt out. I doubt this will make a dent in the complaints we receive, but it would help those moderate few who are willing to meet us halfway. For the record, I support any measure that accepts a pluralistic solution. We're a multifaceted, multicultural society; to neglect that would neglect our mission. Blurpeace 23:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This seems like a useful accommodation.--Srleffler (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support This seems the sensible the thing to do, considering the diversity of wikipedia's readership. Mathsci (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Not censorship, but a basic respect and right of choice. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Seems like a possible solution. --JN466 13:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Apparently a lot of people don't understand what "censored" means. This ain't it.VolunteerMarek 21:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support- How could it hurt anyone to ignore censorship rules for such a special case where it would be optional to avoid viewing images that may be sacrilegious? Bzweebl (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support—Djathinkimacowboy 05:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support It is a Founding principle "4. The creation of a welcoming and collegial editorial environment." A hat-note is a no-brainer. Penyulap ☏ 14:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Excellent idea. The hat-note will reduce the offence caused to some users without introducing censorship. Thom2002 (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Seems a sensible solution. We can't compare showing these images with showing educational images of sex and violence. Epbr123 (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - couldn't hurt, definitely could help. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support appropriate instruction provided to readers at at appropriate point. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Reasonable accomodation and something that might could also be used to screen articles with adult content. Cla68 (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• I agree that "There are a lot of articles that could potentially offend people. We need to develop a clear policy that covers all of them. (...) --Tango[odp] (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)" - but I disagree with "Having special cases could do more harm than good." - I think that it may be a good place to check this solution Bulwersator (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC) BTW, "WP:NOTCENSORED" chants are funny ("the only actual censorship being discussed here is an attempt to censor the instructional hatnote itself. --Guy Macon[odp] (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)") Bulwersator (talk) 07:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support This seems a reasonable way to deal with a unique situation, and clearer than 1b. Anaxial (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support sounds like a good compromise
• Strong Support - burdak (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Probably won't stop complaints from total fanatics, but for the rest of the world it's a very reasonable and logical solution. Florestanová (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• This is a completely reasonable compromise, considering that such a large segment of users will be offended by the images. Opposing on censorship grounds is just silly – we should not be the ones to decide whether we allow individuals to self-censor themselves (actively obscuring the way to hide the images is close to deciding it for them). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - obvious solution. There is no good reason not to do this. Robofish (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Unstoppable Support - This seems an unstoppable, mandatory compromise, since many editors are determined to force images into the article, regardless of how peculiar or unnecessary, when the fringe article "Images of Muhammed" allows a place to show shocking images, for proper balance. A similar hatnote warning could also be used to warn readers if the "Jesus of Nazareth" article contains 18 "Jesus-porn" parody images, or article "Murder" contains videos of actual murders-in-progress, or any similar case where unusual images or videos have been forced into an article, in direct of opposition to WP:UNDUE and wp:FRINGE-mongering of peculiar images. Also, the hatnote cannot be stopped, per wp:NOTCENSORED, which even allows a hatnote to warn people of fringe information in an article. Hence, this discussion can be wp:SNOW-closed as "Unstoppable Support per wp:NOTCENSORED allowing any non-vio hatnote. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support The article is fine as it is (30 March a.m.), but it does no harm to give readers a choice. Apuldram (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support This is a minimal compromise. The images keep devout Muslim editors away and is a form of censorship in itself. --agr (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Seems like an appropriate idea. Student7 (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support There shouldn't be any problems with giving people guidance in a situation where they may need it. FurrySings (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support for both 1a and 1b. It's not censoring, it's enabling people to make a choice, which is skirting the lines of self-censorship, but not crossing it. Let's not make broad sweeping judgement here about other things that may or may not be affected by the precedent here. This situation is fairly unique, and may the situation arise that more/many articles get the same treatment, which I don't predict, we can always come back to this, and decide it was not a good idea. Lets take the pragmatic approach here. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Support I recognize that the no disclaimers guideline is a community consensus that goes against this proposal. My real position is in opposition of the "no disclaimers" policy. This just happens to be a good example of why I think disclaimers are a reasonable thing to have in Wikipedia. (Lexandalf (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC))
• Support: Sounds like a pretty good solution that would lead to greater stability in the article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Clearly, a vast majority does not mind seeing the picture or even welcomes it. But there is a significant minority which finds it offensive. Strongly religious people treat such matters very seriously. I do not really see why we have to make a point in a pretense anti-censorship by not respecting the religious minority's sensitivity. In fact, not showing the picture is a sign of tolerance, respect and courtesy, even if we find the ban on Muhammad's images unreasonable, or even ridiculous. I would even go farther and move all representations to a separate article, but this is clearly not a solution which could be accepted here. Probably unnecessary caveat: I am completely a-religious, but I think that respecting minorities' quirks is just a nice thing to do. I would treat it as a censorship thing only if Wikipedia was threatened or terrorized. Pundit|utter 15:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support In the library where I work the rule of thumb is, "If you don't like it, don't read it." This option allows any visitor to easily make that choice. Carptrash (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Does your library have such a disclaimer on the cover of every book that might potentially be offensive? That is essentially what this amounts to. Wikipedia actually already has a general disclaimer elsewhere.--New questions? 21:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support This is a reasonable solution for a unique problem. It's courteous and respectful. Providing a simple way to inform readers that they can view the article without images could effectively increase the accessibility of the article. At a time when we're trying to expand Wikipedia beyond its English/Western roots, a small compromise such as this feels appropriate. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 18:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support per DGG, Gobonobo, and others in between. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support (like Gobonobo) -- Aflis (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - While I believe that those who feel viewing images of Mohammed is idolatrous are mistaken about their own religion, I respect their POV. However, Wikipedia should be uncensored. I believe that the hat note is the best solution to this dilemma. The default should be to have images, but people who want them off should be free to do so. The hate note just aids a reader to do what they could do on their own if they knew how. To argue that providing people this information is censorship is a ridiculous position, IMO. If Wikipedia is partially about freedom, then that includes the freedom to follow one's religious conviction by turning off the images. :This article presents a unique situation, so no precedence will be set. However, even if one was set, it would not harm Wikipedia in any way. Allowing readers to turn off image censors nothing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - as long as Wikipedia doesn't take this a step further (ACTA style) and limits these kind of solutions only on this article.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Others have rightly said that this isn't censorship. The other objection is that it opens the floodgates for anything objectionable. Slippery slope fallacy: This is very different from profanity or sexuality articles. This is an article that Muslims will have a particular interest in, whereas anyone who objects to overt sexual content can be reasonably expected to avoid those articles. -- Perey (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC) (PS: Proposal 1b is also good, but seems to be more involved, so I'm putting my name down on 1a.)
• Strong Support I believe this is the most fair option to all readers. I strongly oppose all censorship, particularly that which is put forward by a very vocal religious authority. Display the pictures, allowing open-minded individuals to see the images; while still giving those with strong convictions the ability to hide those images. Amarand (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support and better delete the images. Please consider the WP:CENSORED. Mbak Dede (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support As per Gobonobo Kiltpin (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose 1a

• What would be the purpose? I am skeptical that this would reduce the number of complaints. Those who complain generally come to the article for the purpose of complaining about the images, because it is well known throughout the world that the article has them. As such, it offers no benefit for the vast majority of the audience for the English Wikipedia, but rather merely gets in the way of the article, in a similar way that being forced to jump through digital rights management hoops gets in the way of honest users who are just trying to install some software. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:CENSORED. We're not about to put disclaimers on every article where people will be offended, e.g. Virgin Killer, etc. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with both of the above. Allens (talk | contribs) 01:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose As per the above reasons. Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic information on any subject for which encyclopedic information can be provided. It is not here to cater to sensitivity-induced religious shenanigans. Case in point: I don't like people raised in my religion abandoning it for an atheist or agnostic lifestyle, but I have no plans of going to the articles which may discuss this matter and requesting that the information be removed. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I hate these nonstandard hatnotes. I wish the one on WikiLeaks was removed too. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• It starts with images of Muhammad and ends with spoiler warnings for articles on TV episodes. This might reduce drama on one page, but would increase it just about everywhere else. Goodraise 03:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose There are always going to be subjects and images of all types that offend someone. Speaking generally with no knowledge of percentages or numbers, Jews are offended by the Nazi swastika, and African Americans by the Confederate flag. This does not mean the images should be pulled from or hidden within the articles. I grant that this discussion may be for a more extreme case than others, but it shouldn't be given exception just because it makes some people unhappy. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 06:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose As Per WP:NOTCENSORED. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 08:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Headbomb and others. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 08:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:DISC. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Islamic Wikipedia. Some people may be offended by the images, but we should not treat this risk of offence any differently to the way we treat the risk of people being offended by images of naked bodies, by rude words, or by ideas that they disagree with. The general disclaimer must be deemed sufficient for all articles, otherwise we'd end up with disclaimers on all sorts of things. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:CENSORED - In an encyclopedia, sensibilities don't count. Denis Barthel (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is not censored and it is reasonable to expect that a substantial biographical article on someone will show a depiction of him. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Opppose; although usefully addressing one of the main issues (i.e. providing a way for those offended to access the page) it does go strongly against our stance on disclaimers - and if we allow one, more will follow. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose — Wikipedia is not censored, it is a medium of enlightenment.--Aschmidt (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. We shouldn't add disclaimers to some particular articles based on some issues being sensitive to certain groups. This is not a unique case, and the same would hold true to so many other articles. This one just happens to belong to a major religion's viewpoint and thus garnered much more attention. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - too slippery a slope.... Soosim (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. If we have a disclaimer here then we'll sprout them on every article someone finds offensive. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Thryduulf directly above. If we put a disclaimer here, then they'll start showing up everywhere. --CapitalR (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - should be no censoring/ no disclaimers Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOTCENSORED. There are a lot of other potentially offensive images in various articles, none of which have (or need) a disclaimer hatnote. There is a reasonable expectation that if you look up an encyclopedia article on Muhammad, you'll see some portrayal images of him. If you can't handle looking at such images, then don't look up the article in an encyclopedia. —SW— ^soliloquize 14:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - This simply flies against the spirit of NOTCENSORED & in agreement w/ others above, this is the 'slippery slope'. Skier Dude (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is the English-language Wikipedia. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that an article in a Western encyclopedia is unlikely to be bound by Islamic traditions, which makes a hatnote redundant.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:27 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CENSORED and above. Kelly ^hi! 14:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CENSORED Niteshift36 (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Religious objection is IMO not sufficient grounds to invoke WP:IAR regarding disclaimers. A reader visiting the English Wikipedia should expect to see a Western, secular treatment of religious material. Not material that is presented in deference to a conservative interpretation of one particular religious group. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I would suggest neutral POV means offensiveness should be judged from well, a neutral POV. There are Muslims who find *any* depiction of nature offensive. There are Christian and Jews who find the use of the word "Jehovah" offensive. Shall we cater to them as well? Kouhoutek (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose—As has been mentioned elsewhere here, the opposition to depictions of Muhammed does not tend to come from those who wish to use en.wikipedia without being offended (those users are generally going to be rational enough to understand what to expect from a secular western organisation, and have the option of using their browser's image settings to much the same effect); any solution which caters to a group that isn't the contentious one isn't worth pursuing. GRAPPLE X 15:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - 1) per principle of least astonishment (I would be astonished that a neutral encyclopedia bowed to religious interests), 2) per WP:NOTCENSORED, and 3) avoids creating precedent for subsequent special interests requesting special versions of WP articles. --Ds13 (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - If any hatnote is used I'd prefer the shorter version. AlexiusHoratius 16:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - as per WP:CENSORED. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I find it doubtful that the average user would find this solution anything but frustrating. It requires a multi-step process that demands a level of knowledge of Wikipedia's inner workings that goes beyond that of an average user, and thus is somewhat of a non-solution. scisdahl (t•c) 16:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CENSORED. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Sorry, WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't come with a "... except when we think there might be someone out there who is really offended" caveat. As has been stated, this is the English Wikipedia, not the Islamic Wikipedia. (And come to that, while we're contemplating catering to the orthodox, if Islam strictly enjoins us not to depict the human form, why are there numerous photographs and artwork on the article for Muhammad on the Arabic Wikipedia doing just that?) Ravenswing 16:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Censorship issues aside, Wikipedia articles are at times repurposed for print or other media, and so should not contain content specific to the Web, such as instructions to "click here".  Sandstein  16:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. My response to 1b applies here too. There's plenty of material on Wikipedia for which there are more practical reasons to provide this kind of header, yet we don't. There's no particular reason to cater to this mere "it's very offensive" plea. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:18, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't like using the slippery-slope logic, as it is far too often twisted and turned into a tool for pressing illogical viewpoints, but in this case, I have to agree with the general feel. If we have to put a hatnote on this article, how long before we have to put stuff like that about other potentially offensive articles? Wikipedia already has a content disclaimer, and that should be sufficient to cover every article on Wikipedia and which does, itself, contain links to instructions for filtering images. If there is any problem here, it's that the disclaimer is not more visible on the main page. My view is that we need to make links to the disclaimers much more visible on WP's main page (instead of just a tiny little link at the bottom). Sleddog116 (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOTCENSORED. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -----<)kmk(>--- (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Slippery-slope arguments aside, these sorts of issues are the very reasons we have WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:DISC.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I hate slippery-slope arguments, but this appears to me to be a legitimate circumstance in which one can be made. Setting a precedent such as this would open the door to unnumerable requests for similarly structured articles, which is not what we're about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above. Slippery-slope arguments are sometimes valid and this is certainly one of those times. WP:NOTCENSORED either applies to all articles or none of them, not some articles only. If you don't want to read an encyclopedic article about a subject (i. e. one that contains all relevant information), then don't read an encyclopedia. Regards SoWhy 12:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per SoWhy (slippery-slope and NOTCENSORED). cmadler (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per comments above. mgeo talk 17:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose --Voyager (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Amatulić Darkness Shines (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the wording is a partisan statement on a religious matter and outside of the scope of Wikipedia -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I didn't think we censored things around here. People have a choice, don't go to the page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:NOTCENSORED. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 02:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:NOTCENSORED --Neozoon 00:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:NOTCENSORED. ~Feedintm^Parley 01:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOTCENSORED To do this starts a slippery slope: the next campaign will be "images off by default", then "paragraphs critical of the subject optional" then "critical paragraphs off by default". Then it will be images in library books "I wandered into your library and I happened across an image I don't like..." Woz2 (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:NOTCENSORED. --ST ○ 11:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, but I'm being contrarian: I don't think WP:NOTCENSORED is at all relevant given that all this would do would be to make WP:NOSEE a bit more public and thus more inclusive; and I'm pretty uncomfortable with my own thoughts fitting into the same section as some of the racist claptrap above, but here I am. I think the (perceived) problem is really more with the fact that the images are there at all rather than whether any individual has to see them (then again, as a non-religious optimist I'm prone to those sort of overly-generous interpretations of religious doctrine); and, secondarily that such a hatnote would limit the "opt-out" option to users with accounts, which is a much more worrying slippery slope. – hysteria18 (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:NOTCENSORED.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. If you are easily offended, go somewhere else. Jeff Song (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Bizarre that this is being considered for Muhammad but not for sexuality related articles. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:NOTCENSORED should never be compromised by the slightest of ways.
  Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article shouldn't be singled out for a special hatnote. -- œ^™ 07:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:NOTCENSORED. Would set a worrying precedent. Davidelit (Talk) 12:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NDA and WP:POV. I'm not prepared to support a one-off, special case scenario designed to placate those interested in censorship. If we want to make instructions and ability to modify personal settings for Wikipedia as a whole more visible, that is fine. This, however, is not. Resolute 15:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose, per like 20 policies that we would never be consider violating in any other case.—Chowbok ☠ 21:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This is going to be absurd. Some people really should ask themselfs, if they understand the idea of wikipedia. WSC ^® 21:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Using a hatnote for a situation like this would set a bad precedent. Furthermore, one should expect artistic representations of Muhammad when viewing an article on him, so a hatnote seems unnecessary. Silverseren^C 22:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose - to borrow partially from the words of others, this would de facto concede that this content is objectionable, agreeing with a specific point of view. We must not make that sort of editorial decision, especially if only Islam related articles have this treatment. The sensibilities of those calling for censorship are fundamentally different from the ideas Wikipedia exists on, especially since the Muslim objection is not that they see the image but that anyone sees the image, which this proposal would not address. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - per WP:CENSORED. Toa Nidhiki05
• Oppose. I do not see any point in hatnote. Ruslik_Zero 15:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. For many of the reasons above. WP:CENSORED; bad precedent; slippery slope; etc. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for WP:CENSORED and others. I don't agree with the slippery slope arguments, but I also don't think an exception should be made for one particular religion - even if it is a major world religion. I would support a general setting, allowing users to turn off all images across wikipedia - that way, sexual images, swastikas, images of Muhammad (PBUH) etc would be blocked. Then, for users who have turned of all images, allow them to turn *on* images on a per-article basis, once they've read the article and metadata for each photo, and are comfortable seeing it. --Karl.brown (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for WP:CENSORED and just about every other argument in this section.Thelmadatter (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose weakly. Any images should be below the fold, as in [the pregnancy article.]NSFW. There are places in the world where it is dangerous to open such an article; there should be a clear indication of what the article contains before scrolling down. (have changed my mind on this after reading what others said about disclaimers.) Neotarf (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Gentle oppose. This is a reasonable proposal, and dismissing it per "WP:NOTCENSORED" is part of the problem here, not part of the solution. This proposal is not contrary the policy that content should be uncensored, but is instead contrary to the guideline that there should be no disclaimers. So the question is whether it should be allowed as an exception. In my view, allowing it is an admission that there is something out-of-the-ordinary or unencyclopedic about the way we treat Mohammed images: far better to make sure our treatment is encyclopedic than issue disclaimers. Consequently, those who share my view must also recognise that this is an obligation, not a carte blanche. Readers who understand Wikipedia well enough to expect spoilers in plot sections should not be surprised by our treatment of religious content. Geometry guy 23:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:CENSORED. miracleworker5263 (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This is no censorship, so I don't know why so many people are opposing "per NOTCENSORED", but I don't think it is wise to make a special case for this article. There are a lot of articles that could potentially offend people. We need to develop a clear policy that covers all of them. Having special cases could do more harm than good. --Tango (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Readers do not have any reasonable expectation to not be offended by what they find on any Internet website. A disclaimer would only acknowledge that some might find it offensive, and while it may be an act of respect in person-to-person interaction to not offend someone's beliefs, Wikipedia should not selectively show obeisance to any sect, religion, political persuasion, etc. Rkitko ^(talk) 03:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:NDA and WP:CENSORED -- Laber□^T 08:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Will open the door to disclaimers and warnings elsewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Redundant with Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. --illythr (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I originally started writing up my "Support" vote, but the more I thought about it, and the more I read (especially Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles), the more I came around to the "slippery slope" side. There is no fundamental difference between this and pornography; both are expressly forbidden to be viewed by Muslims. Indeed, pornographic images are expressly forbidden to be viewed by a number of religions. Since the community always comes down strongly against content warnings for pornographic pages, and I am in agreement with that position, I must, in all fairness, oppose this proposition. The most important thing is not tolerance of all groups (we certainly don't tolerate child pornographers and militant neo-Nazis) but equality. If we do not give consideration to that which is forbidden by other religious groups, then we cannot in this case either. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Adding an article-specific hack is just bad policy. Implement a global feature that hides images in any article if you have to. --Dmitry _{(talk•contibs)} 22:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Hatnote ought not be specific to Muhammad, or any other subject. Amandajm (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• opposee We can't pick and choose which particularly forms of objectional content are considered bad enough to need a note. Should we by this logic include hatnotes on the evolution article because some extremist Jews and Christians find them offensive? Or should we include a similar disclaimer for one of the religious figures from other religions that object to depictions of their major figures? Are we simply going to do so based on which groups happen to be more vocal? This is not NPOV by any stretch of the imagination. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as generally unencyclopedic and violative of the spirit of WP:NPOV. Slippery slope arguments are sometimes facile; this one is not. Adding a disclaimer to avoid offending some readers on one article will either open the floodgates on other articles or create a double standard specific to a subset of Muslim users. Rivertorch (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Opport, slippery slope. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia does not carry disclaimers other than the general disclaimer - David Gerard (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia does not carry disclaimers other than the general disclaimer. What's next "This article on evolution contains the statement that common descent is supported by all available scientific evidence. If you would like to view the article without any science, click here for instructions." Hipocrite (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: This would represent the complete abandonment of pretenses to neutrality. Abyssal (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CENSORED. Spencer^T♦C 21:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I find images in some wikipedia articles quite disturbing, and I avoid looking at them. Each of us has differing sets of things we would rather not see. Wikipedia would become very complicated, if each article had to disclose what things might be disturbing and why. As long as images are legal and contribute to the value of the article, they should stay. Wikfr (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Opposse As this would open up similar measures to other articles, which would be the wrong direction for this project.JHS_nl (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: We don't censor articles on nudity, nor should the images in this article be 'covered up' to protect the sensibilities of some readers. This proposal is a rehash of the previous discussion on hiding pictures that some may find objectionable. WP is an encyclopedic work, not a fake censored encyclopedia; those who are offended by our principles have the choice of looking elsewhere for their knowledge -this encyclopedia should not be forced to change its standards to conform to their cultural, religious or idiosyncratic beliefs, a serious mistake which would inevitably lead to greater and greater restrictions on our works demanded by such groups. HarryZilber (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Oppose" this goes against the spirit of wikipedia. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• for this request eventually will have effects on other language versions: oppose - this thing we are working on together is to be an enzyklopedia, not biased in any way so not biased religously. If there are scolarly established reasons to include a historically confirmed image in the article, there is no need for a disclaimer like this. regards --Rax (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CENSORED. Even though there are limits to everything, also the rule that Wikipedia is not censored, I belive this is well within the limits. As the summary before the Rfc show there is in reality no actual picture of Muhammad, and those that is used in the article is from islamic artists. Ulflarsen (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly WP:CENSORED - Even the proposal of such an action seems absolutely disgusting. I tell you why. In an encyclopaedia, not sensitivity but verifiability along with the quality of information is what matters. Wikipedia must not capitulate to the extremely wicked and unfair demands of some people (which will eventually curb the flow of information). Wikipedia must not mollycoddle 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 07:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Hatnotes should only be used as an exception, as common use of hatnotes over controversial articles would be disruptive and bring undue weight to the controversial side of the topic. If a hatnote is to be used, the argument for inclusion should describe why we should make an exception in this case. Belorn (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose This would be adapting our content to not offending the Muslim minority. Wiki-Taka (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per existence of the article Xenu.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 18:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as illogical. AFAIK, the issue Muslims have is with creation and distribution of depictions of Muhammad, not with viewing them. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as unecessary exception. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 07:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per JoshuaZ.--В и к и T 15:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is not censored and it is reasonable to expect that a substantial biographical article on someone will show a depiction of him.--Nemissimo (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose what's next? This article contains medical images, if you want to hide them please click here? This articles depicts the Kashmir border according to the current political situation. If you want to see the border according to the official position of India, please click here? -- Liliana-60 (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is not a censoring argument so much as NPOV. The basic question is: are we going to have a precedent for every group that has an objection? For example, many orthodox and pious Jews will not write out G-D, because an electronic medium has the potential to be erased, thus "destroying" said name. Orthodox Jews will not listen to women sing, or view pictures deemed "immodest" (not just pornography, but things like bare arms and legs, etc., which is why there was an image doctoring issue with The Forward (IIRC) last year. Nazi symbolism is banned in Germany, but we have swastikas on en articles. We don't block Evolution for creationists. My point is that if we change for one group, we set a precedent for everyone that lobbies for it. MSJapan (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is religious based censorship. Wikipedia is not in the business of humoring the neurosis of people. Lots of people are offended by lots of things. Porn? Nudity? Etc. I vote no. Why censor on religious sensitivity grounds and not others? Let them complain. That's what censors do. --Benjamin 00:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would support such a hatnote if Muslims believed that viewing such an image would cause them personal harm (such as punishment in the afterlife). However this is not their belief - they are not upset that they are seeing the images, but that we are publishing them. The hatnote's prominent placement would serve only to disrupt the article flow without resolving any concerns, and could lead to a precedent where all articles containing any sort of controversial content get disruptive hatnotes - which would in turn lead to disputes over whether those articles contain controversial content or not, a very subjective call in many cases. Dcoetzee 03:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Many religions are offended by many distinct bits of image and content on WP. Why make an exception here? IronDuke 14:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• For such a superstition: oppose. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose consistancy above all else, Indigenous Australians dont repeat the name of a deceased person do we also then remove those reference to them. Its slippery slope when we treat something different for reason outside of Wikipedia issues WP:IAR is there overcome issues that would normally prevent the functioning of WP its not there to for outside groups to dictate how article are written WP:NPOV seams to be ignored by such solutions Gnangarra 23:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Gives special prominence to a certain viewpoint, and violates the spirit of both WP:DISC and WP:DISCLAIM. CT Cooper · talk 23:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - some mossback muslims will always coplain about something. First its pictures of Mohammad, next its pictures of women without burkas and in the end you have to delete improper articles about leading wrong believers or evil books. Give them an inch an they will take a mile. Weissbier (talk) 08:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - per SoWhy. Khazar2 (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this again? Categorically oppose all image hiding. TotientDragooned (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. To maintain NPOV, Wikipedia should not accommodate any cultural norms (except those prescribed in the Manual of Style). All articles are already covered by a general disclaimer. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• oppose Wikipedia should not pander to certain sections of world society. Tony May (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose It creates a special case and an implicit acknowledgement that the material is in some way objectionable. Mark Shaw (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Sets a precedent that could make other controversial articles a nightmare. RubberTyres (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We are not going to remove the WP:DISC guideline and we should not treat this article as a special case. This article should be treated like any other article in terms of content.--New questions? 18:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The images are either relevant to the context of the subject or they are not. If they are not then remove them. If they are then giving the reader an "opt out" is not in the best interests of the dissemination of knowledge. Betty Logan (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as Ëzhiki, also religious fanatics have many reasons to stay away from wikipedia and a hatnote will not make them return. - Richiez (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It gives undue and functional weight to a minority opinion. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Oppose I think it sends a poor precedent for any article that could be deemed 'sensitive' --Pat ^talk 02:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose To put a hatnote on this article would be to step onto a very slippery slope. There are many kinds of perfectly encyclopaedic, factual, historical content (including, but not limited to, historical depictions of Muhammad) that one group or another may find offensive or blasphemous; and if we put a hatnote on this article (and any others that may reasonably contain depictions of Muhammad for sound encyclopaedic reasons), then why should we not put a hatnote on every article with encyclopaedic content that some broadly identifiable minority of the population has decided to deem objectionable? And if we do that, then - given that one or other portion of humanity will find, over time, a way in which to be offended by almost any conceivable factual report of any matter worth reporting in an encyclopaedia - what kind of an encyclopaedia will we be left with? It will be one riddled with mechanisms for censoring much of its most interesting content from the eyes of its users. Such an encyclopedia would be of diminishing educational value. It is not Wikipedia's fault that some people, Muslims and others, have depicted Muhammad; but it would be Wikipedia's fault if it helped its readers hide this historically informative truth from their sight. See also: WP:NODISCLAIMERS. zazpot (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - we don't give instructions like this for our articles on aborigines in Australia or the Amish in the US - should not here either. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an article about Muhammad in a secular encyclopedia. It is not a corner of Wikipedia in which Islamic ideas take precedence over the norms in the rest of the encyclopedia. --Nigelj (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose according to Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - if we create a special case for this one then we are opening us up to setting special cases elsewhere. Gillyweed (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Opppose 1a - per WP:DISCLAIM, mainly.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 16:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose no reason to treat this article differently than the various other religious/biblical/divine figures for which no "warning" seems to apply, despite a large population for whom depictions of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity runs afoul of "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above..." Exodus 20:4-6 (KJV) of course, it goes on to say "... or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." so under that premise virtually all images ought to have some warning. Since that's NOT going to happen, to single Mohammad out seems a bit odd. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, on the grounds both of Wikipedia is not censored and No disclaimer templates. We do not treat any other article this way, including articles with images that are NSFW or would be shocking to a large number of readers. Image:TrangBang.jpg would very likely be shocking to a lot of people, but we do not hide it. Making a "special exception" here would violate neutrality, one of our core standards, and so we cannot do it. We do not censor relevant information based on the possibility of causing offense. Ever. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose par WP:NDT. The article space itself should be limited to pure article content, and should therefor not contain disclaimers which are not article content. Our medical article's have a disclaimer on their talk pages stating that Wikipedia should not be used to diagnose diseases - should they also be moved to the main article space? In a similar vein of though - some student fraternities, sects and so on have an internal code of secrecy, which means that members may not read some details regarding the organisation - should they also have a hatnote? The problem i am trying to sketch is simple - offensiveness is simply an opinion, and you cannot correctly or reliably classify article's on this basis. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The problem with the hatnote is that its existence makes a value judgement, ie that some images on this page are offensive - and I do not believe we should be making such value judgements. The Main Page link, back button etc apply equally to all articles; they do not act only on some pages that someone has decided may be offensive. An item on the Toolbox that hid images would be OK (in my opinion) if and only if it applied equally to all articles. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Guy Macon, I acknowledge but disagree with your opinion that there is no hint of the spirit to which I refer; we may simply have to agree to differ on that matter. As you rightly point out, the spirit of the law is difficult to objectify. (I'm not sure that "Falsifiability" is a meaningful term in this context; the term is only relevant to physical laws or scientific theories of fact, rather than imperative laws.) However I notice that while WP:CENSORED doesn't prevent us from adding hatnotes to specific articles, it does not say that we sometimes do, nor does it make any other mention of editorial judgement about the offensiveness of specific articles, although I concede that WP:DISC does. WP:CENSORED's lack of mention of editorial judgement, together with the parts that I quoted (14:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)), strongly implies to me that the intent is that such editorial judgement (and thus hatnotes) is undesirable and not the intent of the policy. If we do intend to put hatnote warnings on some "offensive" articles, perhaps we should say so explicitly in CENSORED, as we do in DISC. (I disagree with both the hatnotes and the addition to CENSORED, but if we have the former, we should consider the latter.)

Lawrence King, skipping tracks on a CD is not a good analogy - the issue is not about whether you can "skip" an article, the issue is about whether Wikipedians decide about the offensiveness of specific articles. A better might be: your CD player doesn't warn you that specific tracks might be offensive and tell you how to skip them. At most, there is a warning sticker that the CD may contain offensive material. The "skip track" button works applies equally to all tracks on all CDs. Mitch Ames (talk)

Mitch, while I disagree with you on the substantial question, I completely agree with you that once this issue is resolved, the WP:CENSORED policy should be updated to clearly specify what the policy is with regard to hat notes and the other things we are discussing here! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 23:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

One reason, I cannot agree that anti-censorship rules apply (to these hatnotes) is that the hatnotes proposed are functionally similar to hatnotes Wikipedia has everywhere: 'This article is about ______, if you want _____, click here.' They make no judgment on why the reader wants to 'click here.' Neither do the proposals. And readers ignore or use those all the time. Now, if a different proposed hatnote actually said to the reader, 'we know you don't want to read or see this,' that would, perhaps, be a different argument. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is a valid comparision. Those hatnotes ("this article is about... click here for ....") serve a different purpose; they are navigational aids, not content warnings. In particular, they don't conflict with (the spirit, as I perceive it, of) any policy, whereas hatnotes that say "this article might offend you" do. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The proposals before the body don't say that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Your pedantry precision is acknowledged, but are we putting the hatnotes (as worded in the proposals) there for some other reason than "the article might offend"? If we are going to have the hatnotes, perhaps we should state explicitly why they are there, lest some ignorant reader wonder why some articles have picture toggles and others don't. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• WP:NOTCENSORED is a very weak argument for the inclusion of offensive material. It's a great argument against the removal of such material, but to include offensive material you need a better reason than NOTCENSORED, especially if there are less-offensive alternatives that work just as well. (See WP:GRATUITOUS) ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• WP:NOTCENSORED: Wikipedia does not recognize censorship in any articles. I think better DELETE the images. Mbak Dede (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• There's Wikipedia is not censored, indeed, which does apply here (putting a curtain over something, even if people are free to peek behind the curtain, is censorship), but the more relevant one is no disclaimer templates and, paramount above all, neutrality. If we did this in this article, then to maintain neutrality, we'd have to do this in every article where someone could be offended by its content. That would quickly reach ridiculous extremes. So the only choice here is to refrain from doing it anywhere at all. We do not hide or censor content relevant to an article because someone may take offense to it, and we never should. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

• Fine with this. There are a range of articles on other subjects where this would also be appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Good solution. Those offended can avoid the images, those who are not offended aren't unduly inconvenienced. Euchrid (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• This seems the most reasonable and practical thing to do. I see the slippery slope argument on the other side, but, frankly, I'm unmoved by it, because I don't see that it would harm the editorial freedom of Wikipedia to have this on every article. Wareh (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Sounds good to me. Ironholds (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. It accommodates those who wish to avoid the images without compromising Wikipedia's integrity. What's not to like? We should be sensitive to other cultures whenever it doesn't require us to compromise our values. --JaGa^talk 03:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. A few lines of code can end this whole dispute without imposing any censorship at all. A functional hatnote would enshrine and protect WP:NOTCENSORED. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• This seems like a very good, non-intrusive idea. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 06:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Good.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Many articles need such a hatnote. This could act as the first. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 09:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Why not? It's a gesture of respect for the sensibilities of our readers. Let's not be oafs. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Such instructional notes are allowed and this would be a good place to have one. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support; elegant and importantly not a disclaimer. Useful functionality (although I would prefer to see this available on *every* article). --Errant ^(chat!) 10:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support; Images are not essential for the article. As long as it is not the default option, it's a reasonable concession. Forcing people to view images of Muhammad may keep Muslims away from the article, which is bad both for a neutral POV and for the spread of information. -- Lindert (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. A reasonable compromise to offended readers, and it's not a disclaimer. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 12:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional support. While I oppose the hatnote proposed above this section, a small unobtrusive link to toggle graphics on/off in all articles on Wikipedia could be added. This is not the place to decide that, however. The place to do it is over at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), and even then, the best solution may be for any user who wants the capability to add a script to the user's skin.js. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Second Choice: R.E.S.P.E.C.T. and principle of least astonishment. --Advocado 15:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support (somewhat weak). Some are concerned with slippery slopes or precedent setting, but I think this situation is unique enough to do things a bit differently. As it is worded above, it's available but not too large or wordy. AlexiusHoratius 16:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. An elegant, unobtrusive solution to the problem. I favor a functional hatnote over an instructional one as it would be far more accessible to average users. scisdahl (t•c) 16:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• support unfortunately I think those who most strongly object to these images object not only to seeing them, but their very existence. However, this step will at least allow us to deflect some criticism easily. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support — It's reasonable for people to exercise this option, and non-disruptive for us to offer it. The slope should begin and end with traditions that culturally or ethically prohibit visual behavior (viewing images of 'x') since these are a disable-able portion of the encyclopedia that does not compromise its encyclopedic function. I would consider applying the functionality to dead members of Australian aboriginal groups where viewing the dead is a grave taboo, for instance.--Carwil (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support —This does no harm. If there are other pages that warrant it, these could also be provided with something similar. Davidjamesbeck (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Not every one wants to view and this is an essential piece of information which is what hat notes are for. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support:I don't get the "not censored" arguments. We are not censoring the article, but providing choice to readers that want it. Choice is a good thing. I have no time for slippery slope arguments either. It is a logical fallacy, any change is a slippery slope so we might as well not change anything at all. AIRcorn (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support — Especially if the only pic on the first screen is a calligraphic symbol. To start of with a symbol and then to display pictures further down could violate the least-astonishment principle. This hatnote could alert alert readers. --Pgallert (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support and I'd make it more prominent. If they want to censor themselves let them. It might open them to reading something else rather than rejecting Wikipedia outright. Dmcq (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support for the reason given for the first suggestion, which seems much less popular.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support, provided that hatnotes like this will be considered for other articles when the question arises, and this won't be a one-time thing for a single topic. Wikipedia is not censored, etc. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 08:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• Support as alternative to 1a. Either seems like a good idea. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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. B^e——C_ritical 20:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

  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)

• Support This is also seems fine to me. Mathsci (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Seems fine to me too. --JN466 13:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support, even better than 1a.VolunteerMarek 21:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support. Also effective alternative. Cla68 (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• The same as 1a Bulwersator (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support. Good solution, and it can implemented to other articles where there are similar cases. Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 14:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support with 1a as my second choice. (My arguments in the comments have been in favor of 1a because I see the censorship arguments as being especially invalid when applied to a proposal that deletes / modifies no content) --Guy Macon (talk) 05:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support in preference to 1a. This is simpler for the user, responds to valid concerns, and does not constitute censorship. It could be applied to other articles at editors' discretion. It's a useful tool. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 18:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support in preference to 1a, as it is simpler for the user, with the same goal. FurrySings (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support for both 1a and 1b. It's not censoring, it's enabling people to make a choice, which is skirting the lines of self-censorship, but not crossing it. Let's not make broad sweeping judgement here about other things that may or may not be affected by the precedent here. This situation is fairly unique, and may the situation arise that more/many articles get the same treatment, which I don't predict, we can always come back to this, and decide it was not a good idea. Lets take the pragmatic approach here. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support: Excellent use of technology to solve a longstanding problem (especially if used in conjunction with the calligraphic depiction in the Lead/infobox). This is unobtrusive, un-astonishing, and sidesteps the censorship problem that so many editors seem to see. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support: While 1a sets a stickier precedent, this wouldn't do any harm if it appeared on every Wikipedia article. (not, obviously, that it should). Khazar2 (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support: This would be my first option with non-functional hatnote being my second. It does not violate WP:NOTCENSORED, since it allows any user who wishes to view the images to view them, and allows any user who wishes not to view the images to not view them. WP:NOTCENSORED is not the same as "You must view this," and I think many articles with potentially objectionable content could benefit from a hatnote of this type for those who wish not to view potentially objectionable material. It allows for personal choice, not censorship. -Jhortman (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, use technology to solve this problem. LaTeeDa (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Very Weak Support. Will the hatnote be added to every single WP article that contains images? Mark Shaw (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent use of technology to solve a longstanding problem (especially if used in conjunction with the calligraphic depiction in the Lead/infobox). There are a range of articles on other subjects where this solution would also be appropriate.Smsagro (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• →Στc. 08:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support This is a good solution for a unique problem. It's courteous and respectful. Providing a simple way for readers to view the article without images could effectively increase the accessibility of the article. At a time when we're trying to expand Wikipedia beyond its English/Western roots, a small compromise such as this feels appropriate. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 18:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support. My second choice, but still good. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support for same reasons as 1a. However, I prefer the wording of 1a. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Mild support as we are getting into semantics here - show the concerned reader how to disable the images, or give them a link which disables the images for them. Having said that, I prefer the wording and functionality of 1a. My belief: "If you don't like it, you don't have to look." Censoring, in my mind, simply isn't an option in this case. When it's a major concern like this, I do like the balanced option of allowing the reader to hide the images if they so desire. Amarand (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• STRONG support - Please, add header on the page Muhammad to see the articles w/o Muhammad's pictures. And better delete the image. Mbak Dede (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - non-intrusive, less disclaimer-y than 1a, and a suitable option for those who find the images offensive.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 16:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose 1b

• Oppose as Ridiculous. It matters to nobody on Wikipedia that someone might be offended at seeing pictures of nudity or graphic depictions of sex acts. If anyone objects, they are quickly told that Wikipedia is not censored. If someone objected to depictions of Jesus, there wouldn't be this RFC. Why is a single group getting preferred treatment. If children can come here and look at pictures of erections and cum shots without needing to navigate a hatnote, they shouldn't need one to see artwork depicting Muhammad. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Turning off images is a standard feature in modern web browsers. Readers who really don't want to see images of Muhammad – and such images have to be expected in an article on Muhammad – don't have to see them. Goodraise 04:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as I don't agree with the idea of a hatnote at all (see above vote for explanation.) — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 06:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Niteshift36. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 08:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the same reasons I oppose an instructional hatnote. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:CENSORED - In an encyclopedia, sensibilities don't count. Denis Barthel (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose He that does not want to see any pictures can switch off loading graphics in his browser.--Aschmidt (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles and my answer to Q1a. If it isn't already it should be linked from the appropriate site-wide disclaimer though. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. A hatnote is just not necessary. --CapitalR (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose No place for sensibilities on Wikipedia. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Reluctantly Oppose. It looks harmless enough, but the slippery slope issue is overwhelming. For example, do we place such a note on the Depictions of Muhammad article even though that's what it's about? Do we require no images on the first screen or two of that article so that people won't see an image before they see the note? Then there are all the other types of articles people have mentioned... Last but not least, does it really matter? The people in the Arab countries protesting the Jyllands-Posten cartoons were not regular subscribers to the newspaper. Wnt (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per my answer to question 1a. There is very little difference between a functional and a non-functional hatnote. The only way I'd support something like this is if there was some kind of censorship software that Muslims could install on their browser, and we supported that software in our HTML code. That way, only those who have the software installed would see any options to hide images. First and foremost, Wikipedia is about documenting human knowledge, as opposed to constantly worrying about who we might offend in the process. If knowledge offends you, then don't read encyclopedias. —SW— ^yak 14:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; same rationale as in 1a.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:28 (UTC)
• Oppose per Niteshift36. Kelly ^hi! 14:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Interesting approach but it doesn't actually get to the heart of the matter; those Muslims who object to depictions generally object to ALL depictions, i.e. for EVERYONE who views them. This has never really been about "give us a way to read en.wiki and not be offended", but rather "the existence of these images is blasphemy, remove them now!" Tarc (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose—As has been mentioned elsewhere here, the opposition to depictions of Muhammed does not tend to come from those who wish to use en.wikipedia without being offended (those users are generally going to be rational enough to understand what to expect from a secular western organisation, and have the option of using their browser's image settings to much the same effect); any solution which caters to a group that isn't the contentious one isn't worth pursuing. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Slippery slope. The discussion at hand should reinforce WP's principle of neutrality, not a new principle of engaging in future requests for custom articles from special interest groups. --Ds13 (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Most browsers have a built-in feature to disable images. This is redundant. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:CENSORED. I know not to view certain (NSF) articles at work. I can do my own self-censorship thank you very much. Censoring an encyclopedia is anathema. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: ... followed swiftly by "If you would like a conservative viewpoint on this controversial issue" / "If you would like an article that agrees with your POV" hatnotes. Wikipedia is still not censored" ... and shouldn't be. Ravenswing 16:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• As with 1a. Wikipedia articles are at times repurposed for print or other media, and so should not contain content that makes no sense in other media, such as instructions to "click here".  Sandstein  16:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's plenty of material I can think of on Wikipedia for which there are more practical reasons to provide an optional censor, yet we don't. There's no reason to cater to this mere "it's very offensive" plea. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:15, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose with Fire, Storm, and Large Aquatic Mammals. Look at Ravenswing's comments above. I can't possibly top that. Sleddog116 (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: though Wikipedia tends to respect all of the views, it is still encyclopedia, not a social network. The encyclopedic article is (ideally) a consistent piece of collaborative work, where illustrations are given for the informational purposes. Given that this discussion lasts long and quite a few people participated in it, every image left after this RfC is thought over and considered important for the article. We just shouldn't provide the mechanism for downgrading the quality of our articles. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. No technical shenanigans, please. Either some content is enzyclopedically appropriate. In that case, it should be presented as is to everyone. Or it is not. Then ist should not be part of the content in the first place.-----<)kmk(>--- (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

  Nevertheless, it would be useful to have an account settings option to enable such a toggle, not for specific articles, but for all. That way if I'm on a slow connection I could toggle the images off to speed up the load time of the article, and I could turn it off or on without having to go into my account settings. This feature is completely irrelevant to this RFC, though, and shouldn't even be being discussed here; it's a topic for Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). ~Amatulić (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose any such hatnote per Niteshift36's comments above and also ---<)kmk(>---'s statements. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff's comments bear repeating: images included in the article after this RfC will have been vetted and justified as important and encyclopedically valuable and any such hatnote amounts to a "downgrading (of) the quality of our articles".--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 04:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reason as 1A. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as in 1a -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The reasons mentioned by others and myself in 1a are equally valid here. Regards SoWhy 13:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Niteshift36, Goodraise, Tarc, and others. cmadler (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wikipedia is not an islamic encyclopedia, it is a neutral (illustrated) encyclopedia. Anyone can set his internet browser not to display images if necessary. Note: I would have nothing against a global option (part of the wikipedia interface) allowing to turn off images in all articles. mgeo talk 17:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose --Voyager (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Same problem as in 1a.
• Oppose Same problems as 1a Darkness Shines (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose preferential threatment for one out of many assumed iconoclastic movements would be a disservice to the user base. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose just more pandering to a POV. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as per all above comments, especially those of Ravenswing and Niteshift, and Tarc as well (who has diagnosed the root of the problem). [[WP:NOTISLAMOPEDIA]], WP:NOTCENSORED. This is the beginning of a true slippery slope (overused argument, yes) to fracturing the community and POV-forks. We don't cater to other religion's sensibilities, racial sensibilities, or sexual sensibilities. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:CENSORED - In an encyclopedia, sensibilities don't count. --Neozoon 00:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose ~Feedintm^Parley 01:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOTCENSORED To do this starts a slippery slope: the next campaign will be "images off by default", then "paragraphs critical of the subject optional" then "critical paragraphs off be default". Then it will be images in library books "I wandered into your library and I happened across an image I don't like..." Woz2 (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:NOTCENSORED. --ST ○ 11:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:NOTCENSORED. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per myself in oppose 1a and Niteshift36 (talk · contribs) above. Adopting this proposal would de facto admit that this content is objectionable, agreeing with a specific point of view. Wikipedia as a whole must not make that sort of editorial decision, especially if only Islam related articles have this treatment. The sensibilities of those calling for censorship are fundamentally different from the ideas Wikipedia exists on. Kimelea (below) notes an important point that the Muslim objection is not that they see the image but that anyone sees the image, which this proposal would not address. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support As opposed to to Conservapedia. Wikipedia will still contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive so I can't see how WP:NOTCENSORED applies - other than allowing my comments to remain where I chose to put them. PS "not encyclopedic" is used day in & day out to Censor Wikipedia. Tom Pippens (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:NOTCENSORED should not be compromised in the slightest manner
  Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - This should be handled by client software not by MediaWiki or javascript. – Allen4names 06:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Tarc convinced me to change my mind. I would support this proposal if I thought it had any chance of satisfactorily resolving the problem for people who feel unable to read the page, but as I said in discussion, the objection seems to be to the existence and propagation of the images, not to the complainer having seen them. I fear that nothing less than complete censorship of Muhammad images will satisfy the complainers, and that's obviously not an option. If anyone can show me evidence that any of the people who claim blasphemy would be satisfied with having the images hidden on their computer, I may change my position. ~ Kimelea (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per my rationale in 1a. This could be useful as a sidebar widget that could be applied to any article. But I categorically oppose singling this, or any other, article out individually. Resolute 15:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose per above.—Chowbok ☠ 21:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose see above WSC ^® 21:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose As in my prior oppose, one should expect images of Muhammad when reading an article about him. Also, adding this sort of hatnote to the page would ostensibly require its use on every other page as well, which is clearly unnecessary. Silverseren^C 22:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose - to borrow partially from the words of others, this would de facto concede that this content is objectionable, agreeing with a specific point of view. We must not make that sort of editorial decision, especially if only Islam related articles have this treatment. The sensibilities of those calling for censorship are fundamentally different from the ideas Wikipedia exists on, especially since the Muslim objection is not that they see the image but that anyone sees the image, which this proposal would not address. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CENSORED and common sense. Toa Nidhiki05 14:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unless it added to every article. Ruslik_Zero 15:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per 1a. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose more or less for the same reasons as 1a. --Karl.brown (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose more or less for the same reasons as 1a. But I could live with it ONLY if the feature was put on all pages.Thelmadatter (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose but readers should be given clear advance warning about what the article contains so they can chose whether or not to view it. (I have changed my mind about this after reading what others wrote about disclaimers.) Neotarf (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per 1a. miracleworker5263 (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per 1a - making a special case for this article is a bad idea. --Tango (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Niteshift36 and my response to 1a. Providing the hatnote implicitly acknowledges that some might find images offensive. There is no reasonable expectation to not be offended by the internet. Also, other websites like Google Image search do not provide such a function. If you google "Prophet Muhammad" the third item is a series of images from Google Images. Rkitko ^(talk) 03:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Will open the door to disclaimers and warnings elsewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The hatnote switch is non-discretionary. While the contention is with depictions of Muhammad, the "button" would remove ALL images, including ones that only enhance the article. Grika Ⓣ 13:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. To view a censored version of this article, please refer to an encyclopedia that is not Wikipedia. There are ways to enforce personal censorship in articles, and that link should be added to the content disclaimer, but that is enough. No special single article "solutions", please. --illythr (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments on 1a. No reason to change our disclaimer policy. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Make it either a global option or implement an "image off" feature as part of the interface so it is accessible in any Wikipedia article. --Dmitry _{(talk•contibs)} 22:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as a breach of WP's NPOV ideal. Users can turn off images in their browsers. We should not hold the hands of a select masochistic few who object to certain images but somehow cannot help themselves and insist on visiting the very articles that logic and common sense dictate will have those very images. Rivertorch (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose NPOV violation - David Gerard (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia does not carry disclaimers (real or implied) other than the general disclaimer. What's next? "If you would like to view the article without any science, click here." Hipocrite (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: It's disgusting that we're even considering this. Pretty much every article will offend someone. There'd be more hatnotes then articles if we marked them all off. If we were selective though, we wouldn't really be neutral. Abyssal (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Again, as in Ia. Spencer^T♦C 21:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per arguments against 1a. JHS_nl (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: As stated earlier, we don't censor articles on nudity, nor should the images of Muhammad be 'covered up' to protect the sensibilities of some readers. This proposal is a rehash of the previous discussion on hiding pictures that some may find objectionable. WP is an encyclopedic work, not a fake censored encyclopedia; those who are offended by our principles have the choice of looking elsewhere for their knowledge -this encyclopedia should not be forced to change its standards to conform to their cultural, religious or idiosyncratic beliefs, a serious mistake which would inevitably lead to greater and greater restrictions on our works demanded by such groups. As noted in this New York Times article on the issue, "Islamic teaching has traditionally discouraged representation of humans, particularly Muhammad, but that doesn't mean it's nonexistent.... The idea of imposing a ban on all depictions of people, particularly Muhammad, dates to the 20th century, he said. With the Wikipedia entry, he added, "what you are dealing with is not medieval illustrations, you are dealing with modern media and getting a modern response". So you have a very slippery slope here: accede to 'some' (not all) Islamic groups' 20th century cultural beliefs on images of Muhammad, and then become subject to fundamentalist demands that ALL images of ALL people be censored, deleted or hidden. Neither a sound nor reasonable path to follow. HarryZilber (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• see comment above (1a); this hatline will open Pandora's box for hatlines; enzyclopedias should'nt have disclaiming hatlines. --Rax (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Even though there are limits to everything, also the rule that Wikipedia is not censored, I belive this is well within the limits. As the summary before the Rfc show there is in reality no actual picture of Muhammad, and those that is used in the article is from islamic artists. Ulflarsen (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:CENSORED - In an encyclopaedia, not sensitivity but verifiability along with the quality of information is what counts. Wikipedia must not capitulate to the unfair demands of some people. Wikipedia must not pander to the ever-increasing, irrational and incessant demands of any religion (regardless of its penchant for gratuitous communal violence). Thank you! :) Brendon is here 07:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia should not conform with the demands of any religion. Wiki-Taka (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tarc.--В и к и T 15:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Should be unnecessary with hatnote in 1a, which is clearer. Student7 (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the same reason as Wiki-Taka, but extended to "groups in general," not just religions. MSJapan (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, If they don't like offensive images they can go to rational wiki, wikiinfo, conservopedia, etc. Wikipedia is wikipedia because it does not censor and is not POV based.--Benjamin 00:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As I noted in 1a, I don't believe the vast majority of Muslims are concerned about viewing these images, but about us publishing them. What I would support is a uniform link (say in the toolbox) allowing the user to switch easily to a "no images" mode, whether or not they are logged in. Such a uniform mechanism would be useful for technical purposes (reduced bandwidth) as well as social ones. Dcoetzee 03:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• For such a superstition: oppose. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• oppose same reason as 1a, Gnangarra 23:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Doesn't make sense to have this exclusively for the Muhammad article; if something like this is to be done it should be part of a global opt-in image filter (which I am open minded about, though this does not yet have consensus). As it is, this cuts too close to violating the spirit of WP:DISC and WP:DISCLAIM. CT Cooper · talk 23:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - as stated above. Weissbier (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, same as 1A. TotientDragooned (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. To maintain NPOV, Wikipedia should not accommodate any cultural norms (except those prescribed in the Manual of Style). All articles are already covered by a general disclaimer. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this isn't necessary. Tony May (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unless we are going to implement this on every page that could potentially contain offensive images. As far as we know, we aren't.--New questions? 18:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The images are either relevant to the context of the subject or they are not. If they are not then remove them. If they are then giving the reader an "opt out" is not in the best interests of the dissemination of knowledge. Betty Logan (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose If we open this possibility here, in a short time there shall be as many versions/view of each article as many POVs exist: the end of WP. A ntv (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, same reason as 1a. - Richiez (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no logical reason for this article to get any special treatment --Pat ^talk 02:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose For the same reasons as I opposed the hatnote suggested above, and also because web browsers typically provide a mechanism to avoid fetching images in web pages, which anyone who doesn't want to view images in given web pages ought to use, instead of requiring the maintainers of the pages themselves to waste time duplicating this functionality. zazpot (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - for the same reasons I gave above in 1a. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no requirement to abide by Islamic teaching in Wikipedia's voice. If Muslims look up Islamic topics in a secular encyclopedia, they should expect a secular treatment of the topic. This isn't a little piece of 'Islamopedia', it is just one among many articles in Wikipedia. --Nigelj (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. It can apply to a lot of other articles and this is not a very good forum to discuss this. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. A fun technological exercise, and actually pretty cool, but far too slippery a slope. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 03:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for so many of the reasons above and my reason for opposing 1a. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, on grounds of Wikipedia is not censored, No disclaimer templates ("no", not "a few"), and above all, neutrality. We should not make concessions to any religion's rules on "offensiveness", or else to maintain neutrality, we'd have to abide by all of them. That is not feasible or desirable, so the answer is sorry, but no, the article includes images, and if you go to it, you will see them. There are plenty of clientside solutions the user can implement on his/her own to avoid seeing the images, but for us to facilitate that in certain places and not in others is to implicitly agree that yes, images of Muhammad are offensive. That is a huge breach of NPOV, it is our job to stay neutral and present the information available. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

I agree with User:AnkhMorpork above. Brendon is here 14:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

1. Readers must be able to read English.
2. Readers must have access to computer.
3. Readers must have access to the internet.
4. Readers must know and fully understand the policies and traditions of Wikipedia.
   and so on.

The thing is that you have to give something in order to get something.

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I am against any image-toggle in the left hand toolbar. I am in favor of the proposal of individually configuring the browser not to display pictures (prevents any alteration to wikipedia interface or any article).

This "image toggle" or "toolbox" or whatever that you're proposing is utterly redundant and gives undue weight to the controversial side of argument spectrum because a permanent image-toggle in the left-hand toolbar as an option to hide images, will unavoidably reflect a specific point of view and can will be seen as an impetus towards self-censorship from Wikipedia itself. That is not helpful.

"To people suggesting that this be done by turning off images in the browser-- we could do that, but it wouldn't allow for 1-click-to-reveal-all-images instantly." — So what, Hector? You think some users' immense laziness is worth a modification on Wikipedia? Well, guess what, I don't.

"We really shouldn't be encouraging users to turn images off, unless we encourage them to do it for all articles" —
If it's about image toggle, then I agree Wikipedia shouldn't encourage its users to hide images that way.
But otherwise (if it's against the idea of personally eschewing images by configuring browser), It's an abject fallacy (diminished responsibility of the reader). It's also a misrepresentation of the original suggestion. Nobody has so far suggested that wikipedia should encourage its readers to hide images. All that was said is down below for anyone to read. We also need to take into consideration somethings like "Wikipedia policies" (WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:PROFA, WP:NDA, WP:IRELEV, etc) which are not sitting there for nothing.

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

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

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

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)
  • 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

So put it somewhere less prominent. Toolbox, in the Userinterface above the title, etc. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• 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)

• These "slippery slope" arguments are even weaker than usual. Wikipedia has a lot of hat notes on lot of articles, already. Users can ignore them or not, editors can use them or not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The history shows what I said is correct. Nothing you say will change it. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 ^arf_contribs. 20:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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 ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 05:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

"Yes, but giving readers the option to not see images should not interrupt (or even be visible to) users who don't want or care about such a feature." - right, I concur. But that option already exists. Click here. Brendon is here 19:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and in fact suggested this solution independently above. I think it would work best if it allowed the user to toggle between an "images shown mode" and "no images mode" that would be remembered using cookies whether or not they're logged in. This would be useful for conserving bandwidth as well as dealing with visual sensitivities, and would avert discussions over which articles deserve such a notice. However, I don't think it's particularly pertinent to this discussion since I don't think Muslims are offended by viewing the content but rather by our publication of it. Dcoetzee 03:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This seems to be an eminently sensible neutral solution and adds additional convenience. It should apply to all articles until further notice (or possibly till the end of the session or cookie expiry for non-logged-in users), Preferably, there would be suppression of future downloads as well as immediate suppression of display, which would save bandwidth and improve response times as well as having the potential to avoid triggering external filtering mechanisms that implement real censorship. It could also serve as a "panic button" for people viewing images that might be inappropriate for passers-by (children, religious fundamentalists, secret police, etc.). Developers should possibly also consider using a tab (like the watch/unwatch tab); it could even be a drop-down "quick preferences" or "temporary preferences" element with show/hide toggles for various features such as images, ToC, categories, links to other languages, etc., but feature creep is a valid concern. --Boson (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I actually Oppose a global image toggle for images on the toolbox. It places undue weight on the idea that images should be toggled on and off, while not providing a similar toggle for anything else. By providing such a toggle to "hide all images," while at the same time not providing such a toggle to "hide all text," we are implying that there needs to be more to be hidden for images than text. That is a bias against images, violating NPOV.--New questions? 19:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• 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)

Question 2: What image should appear in the infobox?

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

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

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

a) Unveiled

• Strong Support It is a matter of freedom of speech. Joanakestlar
• Support WP:NOTCENSORED should not be compromised in the slightest manner
  Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Perfectly acceptable to me. Niteshift36 01:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Anything other than this is unacceptable per WP:CENSORED. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you mean to say "unacceptable"? Do you support an unveiled image or not? — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 09:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, my bad. Fixed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Anything other than this is unacceptable per WP:CENSORED". This argument doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that WP:CENSORED is a good reason to always use the most offensive images? Should we always pick the least-censored images? And who defines what is least censored? I could just as well argue that you are trying to censor the calligraphic or flame representations by replacing them with something else. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)

• Before you refute it further, you should consider taking it to a discussion field and not here in the middle of the !voting. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• perfectly acceptable Edmund Patrick – confer 07:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support because it makes sense and is acceptable--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support per Jclemens. --CapitalR (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support What would be the point? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per JClemens & Hellknowz. Skier Dude (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per JClemens. Kelly ^hi! 14:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support This is the only legitimate option for an encycylopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support to Neutral -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support - This should be treated the way any other historical figure is treated. No special exceptions. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support No exceptions for anybody. --Voyager (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support As I very much doubt he wore one. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support under the assumption that no other media exists with a higher information density. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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 ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Jclemens. -- Neozoon 00:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support ~Feedintm^Parley 01:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WFC's excellent argument. --Pgallert (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support as per WP:NOTCENSORED. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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 ^arf_contribs. 21:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Strong support - First choice. Toa Nidhiki05 14:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support This is appropriate for major historical figures. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose per Hector. --JN466 15:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support or the next closest thing to a secular image. Neotarf (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Headlining or infoboxing the article with unrepresentative western images is unencyclopedic systemic bias. Geometry guy 23:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Only a uncensored image is a proper illustration. -- Laber□^T 08:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • 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)
• 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)
• support Wikipedia is not censored! a×p_de^Hello! 18:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose per Elonka, who said it perfectly. Rivertorch (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTCENSORED applying to the others. Ale_Jrb^talk 10:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. No other way of doing it. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Best secular representation of the subject. Spencer^T♦C 21:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose not the most common way of doing it, calligraphy is clearly NPOV. That it is 'secular' is, to me, irrelevant. JHS_nl (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• oppose - not a common depiction of article's matter --Rax (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - the purpose of a physical depiction is precisely that – calligraphic is an abstract depiction.  White Whirlwind  咨  23:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - An unveiled image is NPOV an the most descriptive representation available. Wiki-Taka (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Use best available image. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per opposes.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 18:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose Undue weight; the most common representation is calligraphic. This is deliberately offending with no encyclopedic reason. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The calligraphic representation currently in the article is fine. As we have no idea what Muhammad looked like, any 'portrait' would be incorrect and misleading. Apuldram (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Jclemens.--В и к и T 15:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Most consistent with similar articles about similar historical figures.—Kww(talk) 13:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It is my understanding that there are no contemporary images in any form of Muhammed, any more than there are of Jesus or Moses. The only reason there are images of any of those three is artists used their imagination. The images of Jesus and Moses are pretty much iconic in our culture. Man on a cross, you think Jesus, even though Romans executed probably tens of thousands of people that way. Guy with a couple stone tablets, you think Moses. There is no such iconic image of Mohammed in our culture. Since the most common depiction of Muhammed is an artistic calligraphic one, I see no problem with that being in the infobox. --VikÞor | Talk 14:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This is the only way most English-readers have seen these depictions, however fictional they may be. Student7 (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support - per User:JohnChrysostom - "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?"

  And to say that "we need to behave like muslims in order to write an article about Muhammad" - is abject sophistry. :) Brendon is here 21:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Without Veil, because censorship is never acceptable, arguments about sensitivity not withstanding. We live in a world where anyone can get on a plane and go anywhere. Where anyone can write anything and have it published in any language. The world of information has gotten small. People need to get used to the inevitable fact that they will be exposed to ideas that offend them. As information is shared at an ever increasing trend, this will only accelerate.--Benjamin 00:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support, per Ben above :) --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional Support if there is a scholarly recognised image that depicts Muhammed Gnangarra 23:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - but I prefer this picture. Weissbier (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Anyone looking at an article in a non-censored encyclopedia, where articles tend to have an information box with an image, would expect this sort of picture for a well-known person (whether real or mythological); just like we have for Moses and Alexander the Great, we should have one for Mohammed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:GRATUITOUS. "When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, Wikipedia does not retain the most offensive options merely to "show off" its ability to include possibly offensive materials." There are several options for portraying Mohammed, and this is by far the most offensive. If an actual portrait of the man existed, there would be a good argument for having that, but there isn't, so the other representations are just as good, with the plus of being less-offensive and more commonly used (which WP should follow). ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - that's what the picture space in the infobox is for, to give a give a fair representation of the subject's likeness (even if it's not based on reality), no need for a Muhammad exception.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't know what Muhammed looked like. Any image used would be a work of fiction. An encyclopedia should present the truth, or where this is not possible, admit ignorance. Presenting fiction as if it were truth is misleading and dishonest. Maproom (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Jclemens. This article should not be considered a special case under any circumstance in terms of content.--New questions? 18:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support, to be consistent with other biographies, but only in conjunction with convenient method of suppressing display, in order to avoid unneccesary offence without censorship. --Boson (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose 1. WP:GRATUITOUS 2. There are plenty of pictures of politicians in questionable poses such as | Chris Christie does not mean we're are going to put this on Wikipedia. This is not a question of freedom of speech. Wikipedia is not a ground to protest and express our freedom of speeach. 3. See WP:Gratuitous again. The Determinator p t c 16:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support, we should consider this Article as any other article. A ntv (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reason as Kahastok. - Richiez (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support we should not have nay special images. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Support To preserve equality of ideas we need to treat this page like any other --Pat ^talk 02:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the infobox should use a calligraphy since that is the normal way to depict Mohammed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. per not censored. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support as long as it is an image that was produced by and/or commissioned by a practising Muslim or a group of practising Muslims. This way, the treatment would be broadly consistent with other articles about religious figures; and no-one could reasonably argue that the image used had been created in order to offend Islam. zazpot (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose none are representative, so with no accurate likenesses, we might as well go with the most common depiction in Islamic cultures. No need to go out of our way to purposely offend, which a figurative image in the infobox would do. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support because as a reader of this on-line encyclopedia, I would like to see each method of depiction shown. My preference is unveiled as the lead, as veiled obscures identification; and providing calligraphy calls to mind Prince renaming himself as a symbol, and I would be personally offended seeing a person depicted primarily as a symbol in a balanced, unbiased medium. Amarand (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Not censored--GrapedApe (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - As others have clearly pointed out this is a very uncommon way of depicting Muhammad. Censorship is besides the point. It goes against our most basic principles about using what is most common and mainstream to depict (in word or image) our subject. WP:UNDUE anyone?Griswaldo (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The unveiled images are no more accurate than the flame. They should certainly be included in the body of the article, but the most common depiction (based on current usage) should be in the infobox. Historical accuracy isn't important; nobody really thinks the Buddha looked like this. Remember, guys, we're not setting precedent for all time here; Wikipedia is writ in water. If convention changes sometime in the 26th century, we can always revisit the issue. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 04:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support we have no requirement that ancient figures be depicted in photographic realism. Do people really think that God looks like the guy on the Sistine Chapel? And which Jesus, Mary, Adam & Eve, etc. is the best depiction? none? but we have them. What Mohammad looked like is probably less important than the concept of what he looked like as depicted in later depictions meant to be representative of the likeness. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support, in any other article about a historical figure, if contemporary photos/drawings aren't available, we use historical ones once they become available, not calligraphy or the like. We should not censor here by doing any differently, and the portrait should be the lead shot. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose The fact that there is no contemporary portrayal, combined with the fact that an unveiled representation is extremely uncommon in both modern and ancient times leaves no angle to argue for an unveiled representation in this entry. Lwsimon (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

b) Veiled

• Oppose. Too cluttered. Not acceptable. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Useless for infobox purposes, unless if this is (and as I understand it, it isn't) how Muhammad is depicted in the overwhelming majority of works. Goodraise 04:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose because we can't understand it's whos. It can just be a man flying in the air.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This wouldn't depict the subject in a meaningful manner. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. A veiled image might be suitable for an article about how Muhammad is depicted, but it's not relevant to his biography. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Would have no value. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - It would be better to have no image than this image. —SW— ^converse 14:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - not a particularly helpful image. Kelly ^hi! 14:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Third choice. In looking through reliable sources (which I believe most of the people commenting here haven't), there is an image which tends to show up more often than others. My first choice would stilll be calligraphy, followed by an image of Muhammad's tomb, but if we chose a veiled image, I would recommend this one. File:Miraj_by_Sultan_Muhammad.jpg. --Elonka 15:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose it is neither neutral nor wise to embarrass potential readers without necessity. It is educational to use the principle of least astonishment. --Advocado 15:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: it isn't the most common representation of Muhammad these days. Effectively it is more of historical interest. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose cmadler (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per inverse of my comments above. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose in favour of next option per my rationale to above. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose does do little to illustrate the subject. --Pgallert (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose pretty much just silly. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 22:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC) no opinion. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose An infobox about a notable person must first and foremost contain facts, not fiction, facts on fiction or related facts. Still this is much better than unveiled version as it has less potentials to offend. Yes, yes, please do not bother reminding me that per WP:NOTCENSORED, we have the right to show all forms of undesirable contents indiscriminately as part of our holy mission to harass the universe! Fleet Command (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• DISTANT second choice tied with other image option see rationale above.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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) 09:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Not really good for this encyclopedia. Toa Nidhiki05 14:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose A veiled image does not impart useful information, and so choosing this image would be a form of censorship. The image chosen must be the best one on purely encyclopedic grounds, and not selected on the basis of potential offence. Thom2002 (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as a main illustration, but okay for discussion of historical depiction. Neotarf (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I'm surprised by the strength of opposition here, as I can see the benefits of a veiled image, even if this particular image is not ideal. It is both a strength and a weakness of such an image that it illustrates not only Mohammed, but an aspect of the associated iconography. However, for the main article on Mohammed, I think it is undue weight to draw attention to this issue in the lead or infobox. Geometry guy 23:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• oppose Wikipedia is not censored! a×p_de^Hello! 18:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pointless, as a lead image. The most common manner of representing Muhammad is the "iconic image" of his name. Amandajm (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Elonka and Neotarf. This is not the most common or historically significant type of depiction. Rivertorch (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, silly. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose not the most common way of doing it, even less than unveiled, calligraphy is clearly NPOV. JHS_nl (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• oppose - no veiling in any way --Rax (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - use best available image. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• 'Oppose per my !vote above.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 18:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Undue weight; calligraphy is the most common depiction, followed by unveiled, with veiled a distant third. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The calligraphic representation currently in the article is fine. As we have no idea what Muhammad looked like, any 'portrait' would be incorrect and misleading. Apuldram (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose No secular justification for such a choice has been presented.—Kww(talk) 13:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose See bold type above.--Benjamin 00:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose doesnt add value to the article, a calligraphic representation would be better choice then this Gnangarra 23:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose what should be the use in such a picture? Weissbier (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Don't care but prefer over unveiled. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, seems rather pointless to me.--SUFC Boy 18:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, this should be an unacceptable compromise on WP liberty.A ntv (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose pointless --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose none are representative, so with no accurate likenesses, we might as well go with the most common depiction in Islamic cultures. No need to go out of our way to purposely offend, which a figurative image in the infobox would do. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose as I am not against the veiled representation in an of itself, I am more against the veiled image being used as the only, or primary (lead) image. My first preference for lead image is the highest quality unveiled version available. Amarand (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose is there any historical accounts that Mohammad wore a veil? Thought not. Maybe this would pass muster at Jyllandsposten but not WP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This is slightly better than the "unveiled" proposal, but only slightly. By blocking the face, a portrait provides little value in an encyclopedic context. Seeing as this is a common representation both historically and in modern publications, there is some argument that such an image should be included - but I don't believe it is fitting for a lead image, which should be representative of the topic. Lwsimon (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

c) Calligraphy

• First choice, calligraphy for the infobox. It's the most common way that Muhammad is represented, with calligraphic representations being an elaborate artform in Islam, so it's an appropriate choice. --Elonka 00:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Obviously, because calligraphic depictions of Muhammad abound, and are the most common type of depiction, the infobox should have such an image. I prefer a notable artwork rather than a simple black and white calligraph, but the best one unfortunately has a copyright status that permits only a low-resolution rendition in one specific article. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unacceptable. The fact that this discussion is even taking place is evidence of a gross double standard. (And no, calling me names won't make me change my mind.) Niteshift36 (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support First choice, since calligraphic depictions are far more common and, notwithstanding Niteshift's comment, would probably be the least controversial. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Best choice, as most typical of Islamic representation, avoiding offence, and because none of the figurative images are much use as portraits, which was not their intended function. But not the example given. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This is how Muhammad is most commonly represented outside of Wikipedia, so we should follow suit. Euchrid (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Calligraphy for the infobox is acceptable, being the most common way that Muhammad is represented, provided that other depictions (portraits with faces and without) are found in the rest of the article. Allens (talk | contribs) 01:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• It's what most readers would expect to see on an article about Muhammad. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Most common depiction of him. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• I support calligraphy since it is the most common depiction of him. If this were not true, I would reluctantly insist on the image. --JaGa^talk 03:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Not how any other ancient religious figure for whom no contemporaneous images exist are depicted. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia is not a Muslim community. —SW— ^express 22:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

• Agree with Jclemens. Knobbly (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Consistent with how Muhammad is most commonly and famously depicted. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Apparently the best way to help the reader identify the article subject. Goodraise 04:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support because it makes sense and is acceptable--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support There is no rule that infoboxes should have portraits. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 08:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose. Other articles have artistic depictions of people, as Jclemens said above. --CapitalR (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support-This is the kind of depiction that most muslims would recognize. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support Most common depiction. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support The most common, mainstream and culturally significant representation. JN466 19:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support The most widespread style of representation is clearly the best choice as the main image. Cloveapple (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Neutral -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose Wouldn't mind if both kinds of pictures were shown, though. --Voyager (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Darkness Shines (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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 ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jclemens -- Neozoon 00:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Neutral/Second choice ~Feedintm^Parley 01:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support, best choice because it is the most common illustration of the subject. --Pgallert (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Neutral to Oppose Second Choice because the made computer images proposed are just plain bad. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support The most commonly-used representation. – hysteria18 (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose as per WP:NOTCENSORED. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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 ^arf_contribs. 22:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support Traditionally depicted in exactly this way. PuppyOnTheRadio talk 07:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • Not at all. My argument is applicable both if the majority of readers are Muslim or Non-Muslim. The fact that calligraphy is less offensive to some, is only one factor in my position. The fact that using calligraphy in the lead would be educational to non-Muslims is the principle argument. Since most depictions of Mohamed are NOT figurative, by having calligraphical image in the lead, it accentuates how important it is to Muslim communities and it accentuates how Muslim communities depict their prophet. By using a calligraphic image, we provide a strong learning opportunity to the non-Muslim readership while at the same time respecting the morales of the Muslims who might come here.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Art, within any tradition, is full of conventions and standards. People can look at historical piece of art and identify the subject based upon these standards. This is espeically true for religious art. Depictions of historical/artistic figures are emmeshed in these conventions, which help art historians identify the subects of pieces of work. The conventions surrounding Mohammed are not to use figurative art. Figurative art to depict Mohamed is not representative of the historical norm. This is true regardless of one's religious beliefs. To use a figurative piece of art in the lead, is thus UNDUE and not consistent with the artistic conventions used to depict Mohamed.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support - least surprise, but not shamelessly yielding to the censors; reasonable position. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support- Easily most feasible. Bzweebl (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support. We know how to spell his name but not what he looks liks. Best option. --Wavehunter (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• oppose Wikipedia is not censored! a×p_de^Hello! 18:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support most common form of representation. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Cla68 (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Allens, Shooterwalker, and WNT. Best choice for infobox. Rivertorch (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose per WP:NOTCENSORED. Ale_Jrb^talk 10:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support, seems the most common representation. Superp (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, WP:NOTCENSORED. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Second choice; but should be placed prominently. Spencer^T♦C 21:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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. JHS_nl (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support as the most common depiction of Muhammad, and as such the most neutral choice. Robofish (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• neutral - would'nt be my choice, but - hej ;) - its only a box ;) --Rax (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose - use best available image. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support No valid portrait exists. Calligraphy is the best available choice and has the advantage that it rarely gives offence. Apuldram (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Inconsistent with presentation of similar figures, no secular justification for different choice.—Kww(talk) 13:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Moderate Support: Baloonman seems to sum up my views --VikÞor | Talk 14:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - If this is the way he is most commonly depicted, it is the most useful representation for the general reader. MSJapan (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Don't Care--Benjamin 00:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Assuming the "background information" at the top of this discussion is accurate, this is the most common representation of Muhammad used in practice by Muslims and scholars. It makes sense to lead with this image (while still including other depictions later in the article). Dcoetzee 03:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• conditional Support agf on the introduction info that this is the most common representation, though if a scholarly recognised image is available(subject to copyright etc) then that should be used. Gnangarra 23:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - The most common portrayal is the logical choice.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - rather useless, since its not a picture or a drawing of the person. Weissbier (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• First choice. It's the most common portrayal (which we should follow) and has the plus of being least offensive. I'd highly encourage using this in conjunction with the 1b option of being to hide future images. I believe this combination would make this nasty problem go away, helping us to avoid further vandalism, criticism, lengthy RFCs, etc. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - objectively speaking, this is the most common representation of Muhammad, so we should go by the mainstream view. Also, most importantly, this would avoid the question of authenticity of the images - in any case how do you accurately represent a personality from the 7th century when there are no popular representations of him around. Shaad lko (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - As others have said, this is the representation that is, by far, the most common in contemporary use, and I don't see how using it violates WP:NOTCENSORED. That policy also does not mandate the use of images, and since the calligraphic use is now the most common form, I think it makes the most sense to use. -Jhortman (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Seems to be the standard depiction. LaTeeDa (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I am swayed by Balloonman's Francis of Assisi argument, above. Maproom (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Jhortman, as the best option. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• 'Support We avoid contentious or shocking imagery in an info box. See Wikipedia:Images#Images_for_the_lead. --agr (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, calligraphy requests an understanding of the Arab culture that the most of the readers do not have. And we cannot renuonce to the liberty of WP to please a single POV.A ntv (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Response Most the reader don't even have a visual representation of Muhammad either, but more think of Muhammad from the Calligraphy than the picture The Determinator p t c 03:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support as per Wavehunter. -- Richiez (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Not because it's least offensive, but because this is the most common representation of Muhammad. As I wrote above, Wikipedia shouldn't accommodate any cultural norms. In this case, it shouldn't accommodate a (Western) norm expecting the first image in a biography to be portrait. A photograph or scan of a calligraphic design from a historical source would be preferable to a modern computer-generated one. A caption should explain to non-Muslim readers that calligraphy is the most common representation of Muhammad and why. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:NOTCENSORED, no matter what the topic--Pat ^talk 02:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support the infobox should use a calligraphy since that is the normal way to depict Mohammed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support Second choice. If the community decides not to be consistent with articles about other historical/religious figures and therefore not to use a likeness of Muhammad in the infobox, then the next best option would be to use calligraphy, since this is how Muhammad is - so I understand - most commonly represented. zazpot (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• STRONG SUPPORT This is how Muhammad is represented usually. The Determinator p t c 03:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article." This is quote from WP:Images I would say your conventional reader who knows about Muhammad knows him by calligraphy rather than a picture. The Determinator p t c 03:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support - with nothing that is sure to be an accurate description, we should go with the usual depiction in Islamic culture. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as it's one thing to provide a veiled representation (as the secondary, not lead image) but it's another thing entirely to depict an individual as a symbol. I don't mind having this third on the list, or even having this as the second image, but I strongly believe that the lead image should be unveiled. Amarand (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Answering the question 'Which class of image is best suited to the infobox' is an editorial or content decision best left to those with a good grasp of the subject matter. What we need here is an image that best summarises and represents the topic. One that is very commonly used is probably the best, and if that is calligraphy, then that is the best. The reasoning here should not either to avoid upsetting some people, or certainly not to purposely anger anyone just because we can. The issue is what is the most recognisable and satisfying visual summary of the topic, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is it. Especially among subject specialists. --Nigelj (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support, this is a good idea, not just because it should be the least politically controversial, but because it's as close as it gets to the person about which we only know from classical Arabic texts. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - This is a nobrainer since Muhammad is almost always depicted in this form. I agree with Johnbod though, the actual example image used is not a good one.Griswaldo (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - This is how Muhammad is depicted almost everywhere. It's not like we have a photograph that should be used instead, so I think it best to show Muhammad as he is depicted in Islamic culture.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 16:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. For all intents and purposes, in modern Islam, this is the image of Muhammad. Other images (veiled and unveiled) are fine for the body, but this is the most common current depiction and as such belongs in the infobox. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 04:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose no other person or thing has calligraphy as his depiction - this is getting rather ridiculous: are we going to have to spell God as G-d because some people cannot see the word in print, too? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support - This is how Muhammad is depicted almost everywhere. It is more correct to be shown Muhammad as he is depicted in Islamic culture, since it is the most prevalent practice. XoXo (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is not how we illustrate other articles. To make a special exemption here violates neutrality. Anywhere else that a contemporary portrait is not available, we use a historical one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Calligraphy most accurately represents the subject of the article in the way most common throughout history. Lwsimon (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

d) Image of a location

• Oppose. Not acceptable. Doesn't even make sense. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Not how any other ancient religious figure for whom no contemporaneous images exist are depicted. Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Useless as a means of identification. Just increases page loading times. Goodraise 04:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose because it's nonsense.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose For all the reasons above: what would it be saying to show a picture of a cave or a sand dune or the Grand Mosque? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support where the location is tied to the man's life, this is the best option for this article because all the other choices are: 1) not as educational and 2) not as interesting. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose A picture of a location cannot represent a human being in an article that covers a biography.--Aschmidt (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Not relevant for a biographical article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't merit being the primary image. --CapitalR (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Muhammad is not a location. —SW— ^express 14:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. A picture in the infobox should represent the subject of the article, not some related concept.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:32 (UTC)
• Oppose, silly. Kelly ^hi! 14:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Second choice. In looking through reliable sources (which I encourage commenters here to do), many illustrate biographies of Muhammad with an image of his tomb. This image would be appropriate. File:Mescidi_nebevi.JPG. --Elonka 15:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Silly nonsense. Why not put an image of Mickey Mouse instead? -- Alexf^(talk) 16:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: this looks more like a placeholder. The worst option of all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- nonsensical suggestion. cmadler (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose What kind of strange idea is that? --Voyager (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Niteshift36
• Oppose as per all above comments. A location isn't a man, and is inherently POV at that (as it claims to tie the location and the man together in a way according to the religion's traditions). What's next? A picture of the tree at Gethsemane for Jesus Christ, or a picture of St.-Paul-Outside-the-Walls for St Paul? St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support: per Alanscottwalker as well as a second choice to calligraphy. Suggesting image of the Mosque to be appropriate. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose not helpful. --Pgallert (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose PuppyOnTheRadio talk 07:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per just about every comment above, but especially Scottywong's statement that "Muhammad is not a location". The suggestion of such a thing should be a troutable offense... Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Last choice doesn't make sense. Here the only rationale would be because Wikipedia is censored.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am not concerned with what type of image of Muhammad exists in the infobox - be it veiled, unveiled or calligraphy, so long as all three exist in the article proper - but this is not an acceptable alternative. Resolute 15:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Welcome to the Muhammad article. Instead of showing you an image of Muhammad in the infobox, we are going to show you a random location instead! Toa Nidhiki05 14:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per the Tooth fairy precedent. _{where people are offended at this level, they have already disabled images in their browser} Penyulap ☏ 15:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support I project that editors and readers who are offended at this level have already disabled images from their browser, or should. Penyulap ☏ 15:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Putting a map where there should be an image is just nonsense. AndieM13 (Leave a message!) 15:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose non sequitur Neotarf (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. A cop out. Geometry guy 23:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Not acceptable. -- Laber□^T 08:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• oppose Wikipedia is not censored! a×p_de^Hello! 18:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. The calligraphy of his name is the most frequently-used representation. It is absolutely pointless to use a geographic picture rather than a representation in some form. Amandajm (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as absurd. Makes about as much sense as putting an image of Versailles in Louis XIV's infobox. Rivertorch (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support looks more informative than calligraphy or artist impressions. Audriusa (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• WTF? Bulwersator (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Not representative of the subject of the article, so not appropriate for an infobox. Anaxial (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Makes no sense, looks like placeholder. Superp (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Daft. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Nonsensical - David Gerard (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Not a clear representation of the subject of the article. JHS_nl (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• oppose - no context with articles subject. --Rax (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support as second choice if Calligraphy is voted down. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Inconsistent with the way Wikipedia treats all similar historical figures.—Kww(talk) 13:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose weakest solution. prefer no image to geographic representation.--VikÞor | Talk 14:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as primary image. Doesn't make sense for infobox. Might be okay to say that "file...." is the way this would be depicted for iconoclasts. Forbidding images ought to be discussed in the context of Mideast iconoclasm, not unusual for the area in the early 1st millennium. Student7 (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is worse than censorship It creates the impression that censorship is not taking place by having a placeholder image because the reader is accustomed to seeing images.--Benjamin 00:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Is this for real? Showing nothing would be better. --Seduisant (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose meaningless as it be no more informative than having a picture of the delaware river for George Washington. Gnangarra 23:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't have a strong opinion on the first three options, but this one clearly goes against WP:NOTCENSORED, as it can only be really justified on grounds of preventing offence. CT Cooper · talk 23:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - This one would just be downright confusing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - stupid idea. Thats like a picture of Tombstone, Arizona to depict the article Revolver. Weissbier (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Calligraphy is better. Thanks Weissbier for the laugh. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support, specifically in light of similar articles such as Baha'u'llah which have similar image disputes. The calligraphic representation seems valid as well. Peter Deer (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - doesn't make any sense to me, probably the worst option available. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - I can't even believe this is an option. Depicting a person as a symbol is one thing, but depicting that same person as a location? No. This seems unreasonable. Amarand (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I'm sorry, I can't justify using a location as the primary image in any biographical article.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 16:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose using a location would lead to us filling in all missing photos with home town photos, this is more odd than the other propositions around here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

e) No image

• Oppose WP:NOTCENSORED should not be compromised in the slightest
  Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. No. Doesn't make sense. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Images of Muhammad in the infobox may be considered too provocative. But his name in Arabic is redolent of devotional Internet art, which is not appropriate because Wikipedia is not a Muslim website. Plus, it can be argued that it is not very different in its message from creating an image of the word "censored" in Arabic and using that as the infobox image. Since we are not obliged to use an image in the infobox, using none is the best way of not pushing any particular point-of-view. FormerIP (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Not how any other ancient religious figure for whom no contemporaneous images exist are depicted. Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• An image should be displayed because Wikipedia should be consistent in it's articles about religious figures. Knobbly (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• If no image can be agreed upon, I wouldn't object to none being used, as long as others remain in the article body. Goodraise 04:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral --Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Again, this is what one would reasonably expect from looking at every other biographical article and it serves a purpose in identifying the subject. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; we have a variety of images to use - we just need to make a choice on what to use. Images are good. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose — Why no picture at all if even Muslims have a sign they seem to use in such cases, viz. the calligraphic sign we currently have in the infobox in en.wp.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, we have plenty of images that are appropriate so there is no justification for no image. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• The only acceptable situation when an infobox would contain no image is when no image is available. This is not the case with this article, so oppose.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:33 (UTC)
• Oppose As images are available, there is no reason we should not be able to use them. —SW— ^prattle 14:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support (Second Choice). As nobody knows how he really looked like, a picture of Muhammad himself wouldn't be representative so either a calligraphy or nothing makes sense. --Advocado 15:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are images created by Muslims intended for Muslim consumption in religious contexts; just because a proportion of believers are aniconic doesn't mean we would, for example, delete images of Jesus. Ogress _smash! 22:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: as long as there is a generally acceptable practice of depicting Muhammad with calligraphy, this option just don't make sense. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ezhiki. cmadler (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Just turn off picture viewing in your browser, if it disturbs you so much. --Voyager (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Just plain silly 18:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per all comments in this section, and all above comments advocating the same treatment of Muhammad as any other religious leader (e.g. with the exception of the supports in the calligraphy section). St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, notcensored. --Pgallert (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It wouldn't indicate quickly whether or not they had their self censorship visors down. Dmcq (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support and extend to all 'images' of people for whom there are not contemporaneous, factual images (eg. Christ, Moses, Buddha). I don't object to any image being used on grounds of the religion concerned, but because such an image is meaningless. eg. Christ is often depicted as Caucasian yet he was - by location - middle-eastern/palestinian. By all means include images in an 'art relating to...' article, but not where it suggests that it actually depicts the individual concerned. --AlisonW (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose PuppyOnTheRadio talk 07:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nope. Absolutely not. Because censorship is not cool. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Second to last choice... I'd rather have this than a completely arbitrary image of a place... which makes no sense... but this would be second to last choice.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC) NOTE: the only reason why this isn't the last choice, is because both this and the "location" image fail to have rational editorial reasoning, but pure censorship rationales. If we are going to be censored, I'd rather be honest in that position, which this is, than to have some random photo which is not only censorship but cowardice.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clearly a ridiculous option given the existence of numerous images that depict the article subject in some fashion. Resolute 15:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Censorship issue, reduces value of Wiki, not appropriate in the 21st century. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Second choice after calligraphy because it makes the point that we don't have a clue what really he looked like. To take a random example, there's no known image of George Green so his infobox is text only. 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) 14:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional oppose So long as it is not an image of a person. I project that editors and readers who are offended at the level of any image have already disabled images from their browser, or should. I've heard that it's any depictions of living things that are offensive, so images of places, and writing is cool, people, not so cool, Mr M, untenable. Penyulap ☏ 15:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Images do exist that can usefully represent the topic in an infobox. The selection of the image must be based on what is most encyclopedically valuable. The decision must not be influenced in any way by the offence that choosing any given image will cause. Thom2002 (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support But not for the reason you might think. It appears that there is no universally agreed upon appearance of Muhammad and depictions of him by those of the Islamic faith, who would be expected to agree upon such as a depiction, are verboten. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Very weak support. Infoboxes don't need to have images: if nothing else sensible emerges from this RfC, leave the image out. Geometry guy 23:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• oppose Wikipedia is not censored! a×p_de^Hello! 18:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jclemens and Errant. No reason to omit an image here. Rivertorch (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - even image of his tomb is a better solution Bulwersator (talk) 07:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Not standard practice for infoboxes where images are available; can see no good argument in favour of this. Anaxial (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose There are abundant images available. JHS_nl (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• support - info boxes don't need an image --Rax (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - use best available image. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per any other request for censorship.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 18:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Inconsistent with the way we treat any other parallel historical figure.—Kww(talk) 13:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• very weak support. better than geographic, IMO.--VikÞor | Talk 14:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia is not in the business of the accommodation or enabling of a shelterd exsistence. Thats what your parents, church, mosque, etc are for.--Benjamin 00:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't have a strong opinion on the first three options, but not displaying an image at all makes little sense when plenty are available, even if there is difficulty in choosing one. CT Cooper · talk 23:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• oppose every one oppose a void, imageless info boxes depict the need for an image we have those and alternatives Gnangarra 00:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support as there seem to be no consistent way to portrait him unlike Jesus who is generally portrayed in a consistent way. Images should of course be used in articles when appropriate. // Liftarn (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. None of the available imagery actually depicts Muhammad, they are merely artistic interpretations. As such, they don't add information to the infobox. I fully understand WP:NOTCENSORED as well as the "do not yield an inch" sentiment of many here, but I also do believe that putting an artistic interpretation in the infobox is pointless pointification. -- DevSolar (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think this would be the most astonishing option for your average WP reader. You learn to expect an image in the upper right corner. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Artistic depictions are not the same as a true likeness. The infobox should not include an image since there is no compelling reason to elevate one depiction above another. Betty Logan (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose silly. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 15:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose as I feel all notable figures should have images associated with their articles when said image is available. As there are options, I believe the best should be chosen and displayed. Amarand (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose catering to the most sensitive viewers is not a good idea - it leads to every group wanting its own take on WP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

If anyone wants to argue that the "most common image" is calligraphy, or veiled, or, anything - the counter should easily be that the most published image, globally, seen by millions, was that from South Park. I don't think thats what anyone wants. Maybe we should have a frame grab of Santa Claus. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

There is at least anecdotal evidence. While we all have heard of incidents where Christians flock to an apparition of Jesus or Mary, we never hear of Muslims flocking to an apparition of Muhammad. In the Muslim world, it is rather the appearance of an Arabic inscription reading „Muhammad“ that draws the throngs. Ankimai (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

• Conditional support for montage/collage of several images. Depiction do indeed vary and if we can show this, why not? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support montage, that's a good idea. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Not sure that I fully support this, but it could provide a good solution to a no consensus result. FormerIP (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• @ Scottywong ("SW") in d): Muhammad is emphatically not regarded as a "deity" in Islam, but as a prophet. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support. If there really are many radically different competing representations and no one is dominant, a montage is most appropriate. Dcoetzee 03:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see how that would fix anything. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment the montage has much to suggest it, but we ought do that for all personalities for whom no life-time depictions exist: Moses, Adam, Eve, Jesus, and nearly every other biblical figure, etc. would all have to do that - we cannot intellectually do a one-off just for Mohammad. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral as WP:NOTCENSORED. Mbak Dede (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

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

• Strong Support It is a matter of organisation of content. Joanakestlar
• Support, as this is the de facto standard for biographies in WP. Maintaining consistency makes our works a better, more reliable product. HarryZilber (talk)
• support its the standard --Rax (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no requirement to follow a de facto standard. a bit lower is less offensive, especially if 1a or 1b passes. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. Wikipedia is not censored. Besides, Inclusion of depictions of Muhammad is not considered to be a vulgar or obscene or an uncivil act by wikipedia standards. Wikipedia serves a broader range of audience than just Muslims and many of whom don't consider depictions of Muhammad to be a vulgarity. Hence, in this case, the offence is indeed in the eye of the beholder. Wikipedia editors do not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers.

  From time to time, editors insert additional disclaimers into an article either as text or as a template – for instance, "This article contains profanity" or "This article is not suitable for children" or "Spoiler ahead". While ideas like this have been continually proposed, the consensus is that they should not be used. In fact, all articles already have a disclaimer, linked at the bottom of the page and every other page on Wikipedia. Additional disclaimers in encyclopedia articles should generally be removed, and disclaimer templates should be removed and deleted. :) Brendon is here 08:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support as standard. Student7 (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support like Rax an the others. Weissbier (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose except for the calligraphy in the infobox. Unlike images that are real depictions of a person none of those we have has any real value to give the reader a realistic first glimpse impression of what he may have looked like, they do not even depict the spirit of the time in which he lived or anything else realistically. Pictures used in this article should have some relevance to the section where they are placed and not be used just for the reasons" we have nothing better" or "wikipedia is not censored". Richiez (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support as this is the standard for the Wikipedia product. As a reader, when I search for a notable individual, I expect their image to be near the top. As only figurative representations are available of this individual, I believe the highest quality, most accurate, representation should be made available at the top of the article. Amarand (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support if it is not in the infobox: if the infobox contains Arabic, the lead should contain a figurative picture, and if the infobox contains a picture, the lead should contain Arabic. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 13:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - it is equally WP:UNDUE to have a figurative representation of Muhammad in the lead as it is in the infobox. There are no "standards" that trump the contextual significance of something like this to the actual subject at hand. The fact that very few figurative depictions of Muhammad exist is meaningful which means that not seeing a figurative image in the lead is actually more informative.Griswaldo (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Richiez. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support, this is an article about a person, and its highest image should be an illustration of a person. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support or Neutral Mbak Dede (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

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

• Oppose An image of the Quran belongs here. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral - the above reasoning is extremely flawed, and tantamount to putting a picture of the Kaba in the infobox, or a picture of the New Testament or an Ikon of St John the Theologian for "Logos in Christianity". A picture of the Koran belongs in "Muhammad's claimed revelation" section, or whatever the equivalent is. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 13:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

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

• Support assuming this is below the fold, as are the nude images in the pregnancy article. 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. (Have changed my mind on disclaimers after reading what others said, but still support keeping images below the fold, as in the pregnancy article. Neotarf (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • 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)
• Oppose No known images are from Mohammad's life, thus are not sources, thus should not be in a "sources" section. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Guy Macon.Griswaldo (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

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

• Oppose. Arabia is a country. Muhammad was a person. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Guy Macon.Griswaldo (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

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

• This is best; illustrating a biographical account of the life is exactly what these images were created to do, and they work well. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• as above - well put. Edmund Patrick – confer 07:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support acceptable, incurs no problem.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Johnbod. The idea that anyone could call ancient illustrations of ancient history books of the subject's life, cartoonstrips (as below), is not a well considered or sourced judgment; Wikipedia also does not discriminate based on the "culture" of the artist -- this leaves bare the censorship promotion that they are too religiously "offensive." Such opposing objections are not supported by policy, either with respect to image relevance or not censored. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support; seems to me this is the first logical place for such an image in the article's body.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:34 (UTC)
• Conditional Support This makes sense only, if there is an instructional hatnote. --Advocado 15:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support this as well as 'depictions' section. One would expect illustrations here. No need to go overboard and stuff as many as we can in, though. AlexiusHoratius 16:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support—Seems the most relevant section for a biography to begin introducing images of the subject, previous sections are mostly context and preamble. GRAPPLE X 16:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It is reasonable to expect to see such depictions at this point in the article. scisdahl (t•c) 16:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Since depictions of life exist in Islamic art--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional support: only if not in Depictions... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support If the image depicts part of his life, it's only logical to have it in a section concerning his life. That's how we do it with every other subject and there is no policy-based reason to do it differently here. Regards SoWhy 13:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The image, unless of his corpse, most definitely depicts a part of his life. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an encyclopedia not a cartoon strip. An "illustrative" picture (the imaginings of a painter from another culture, a thousand miles and half a millennium distant from the events described) add nothing to the readers' understanding of the events. Nothing. In fact, the example in the section under discussion gets Muhammad's hair length wrong. "Illustrative" images add nothing but offensiveness to the article. Gratuitous offensiveness. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support This is about the person as a man. Dmcq (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support as equivalent to "anywhere but the top". The current article reflects a good balance. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• 'Support This is the section in which the figurative depictions have most relevance. Mathsci (talk) 08:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Makes the most sense to begin here. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Helps illustrate the story with beautiful art. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Seems an appropriate place, and far enough down the page that those not wishing to see a picture can navigate to the alternative bio. --Wavehunter (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional support, which means yes. Because no portrait exists, a picture of the subject's face is not obligatory to the article. Every picture that exists is an imaginative portrayal, not a portrait. I don't think such a picture ought to be forced into the article. However, because a great deal of fine illustratory material exists, I support its use, in this section, if well selected, and provided it isn't obstructed by some horrible box (which issue is not relevant to this discussion). Amandajm (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Johnbod and Dmcq. The most logical place. Rivertorch (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Seems the most logical place, all things considered. Anaxial (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support There are images available which illustrate a part of his life. Illustrations increase the readability and enjoyability of this encyclopedia, they will here too. Is inherent support for option (g). JHS_nl (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - if no hatnote or other image-removing option is used, I think this is a poor approach to take. I'd rather confine such images to the 'Depictions' section as a compromise solution. Robofish (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This is a logical place for them, where they are explained in text. Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 14:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Support. Depictions section is better, but this is acceptable. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - These depictions are only artists ideas. The current placement and captions show the reader where the ideas came from and when. Apuldram (talk)
• Support as the second choice after g) below. Ruslik_Zero 17:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. If the work was designed to illustrate an event in the life of Mohammed, this is the best place for it. If it's just a picture of Mohammed, "Depictions" would be the place. Dcoetzee 03:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - A logical place to start such depictions. CT Cooper · talk 00:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Simply because the lede isn't the place for images, and putting pictures of Muhammad into sections where historical background is given of the time before his birth is non-topical at best, and pointless provocation at worst. -- DevSolar (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - most logical place to post the first such depiction. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Anthonyhcole.Griswaldo (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Anthonyhcole. --JN466 01:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - This is the first section where it makes sense, to me, though I wouldn't be opposed to it being in a later section.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 16:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is an article about a person, so illustrations of a person should come before any other. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

f) In the "Depictions of Muhammad" section

• First choice, as this would be an appropriate location, and with the Depictions of Muhammad link, it can direct readers to a more elaborate article about the topic, if they are so interested. My recommendation for an image here would be this one: File:Miraj_by_Sultan_Muhammad.jpg. --Elonka 00:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Very appropriate. The offense caused to many of our readers by figurative depiction/s of Muhammad in this section is regrettable but they serve an educational purpose, and should stay, per WP:NOTCENSORED. Such images in the earlier sections add nothing to the readers' understanding and, per WP:GRATUITOUS, should go. Figurative depictions under later sections covering Western reception are appropriate, as they exemplify aspects of Muhammad's reception. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support acceptable, incurs no problem.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Best choice. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 08:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support most appropriate, considering varied user interests. Shariq r82 (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - makes sense.... Soosim (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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— ^prattle 15:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I misunderstood this originally, and didn't realize that this was asking about the first place the image appears. The first place the image appears should be wherever it best supports the article text. There should be no restriction on where such an image can be located. —SW— ^gab 04:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support for this section; seems obvious. If we're talking about first place it appears, would prefer life section. AlexiusHoratius 16:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support This is the natural place for images to first appear, and it strikes the perfect NPOV balance between illustrating this article like the one on Jesus on the one hand, which would fatally misrepresent the centre of gravity of Islamic art, and not showing any figurative images at all, which would be censorship of Shia and Western viewpoints. --JN466 19:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Seems like the most logical option here. Agree with 466 above. Very sound reasoning, good sir. Sleddog116 (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC) (Changing support to below. Sleddog116 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC))
• Support. Placing this type of image higher provides no additional educational or comprehension value, and fails to abide by the principle of least astonishment adopted by Wikimedia. Readers can reasonably expect to find images of Muhammad in this section that they may not reasonably expect elsewhere. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 01:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support: the best solution: both relevant and appropriate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Since no available image of M. will be an actual image of him, this is the most appropriate place. Earlier sections can use locations, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this as first use (note: it appears that some of the editors above may not fully grasp the question?): At any rate, this is an article on man's life; to limit images of that life to a tangential topic of "depictions" at the bottom of the article is censorship and bad educationally. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not possible to square this option with NOTCENSORED. FormerIP (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as location of first image. On my wide screen this short section comes 17 screens from the top of the article, and is almost wholly filled by the single image it currently contains. I don't think everyone is understanding the question here: it's where should the first image go, not which sections should have images. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support, only for images produced outside Islam Yeah. Dahn (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Most strongly oppose. This is PLAIN CENSORSHIP while trying to avoid the name, to segregate all images in to one section at the bottom of the article. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this question on principle. If there's going to be an anthropomorphic depiction, as all relevant policy says there should be, then it's not up to a plebiscite to determine where that picture is going to go. Let editors familiar with the article and its associated topics work that out, but this article is not going to be micromanaged by the community at large. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's appropriate to exclude figurative art from the lede because Muhammad was Aniconistic, and the most educational image we can present is calligraphy. But NPOV/NOTCENSORED still applies-- we can't confine images to the depictions section. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose I doubt this section should have any images at all. Ruslik_Zero 15:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support unlimited number of thumbnails at the end. Neotarf (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support This option correctly identifies the iconography of Muhammad as notable in itself but also of no direct historical value for the man, the subject of this article. This opinion has nothing to do with censorship; other articles with pseudo-representations might well benefit from a similar approach. Civis Romanus (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Cla68 (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Tepid support as distant second choice. I share the concerns of various editors (e.g., Alanscottwalker) who oppose this option, but I don't see it as a deal-breaker if the ultimate goal is a comprehensive, stable article. Rivertorch (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I think this would be the most reasonable place to include such images, although I don't strongly object to the other options. Robofish (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I oppose any restriction on displaying Muhammad's images. WP:NOSEE and WP:NOTCENSORED — This trivial issue is not worth a discussion. Muhammad's pictures should be used wherever it fits with the context. In an encyclopaedia, not sensitivity but verifiability along with the quality of information is what matters. :) Brendon is here 07:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support simply because these images do not have any direct historical value, nor are they common depictions. Other articles that only have images from many years after the subject died should do the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Seems like the most fitting placement. Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. As per Civis Romanus' comment above. LaTeeDa (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support as second choice to e. In "life" section is the most logical, but if not there it should be in depictions (i.e. not higher than life). --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - per Jayen466 and others. The fact is that depicting Muhammed figuratively has a very special significance to this topic. Figurative depictions have a very different significance than they do to any other "ancient figure" or "religious figure" topic. The best way for us to convey this to our readers is to put the figurative depictions in this section and to discuss them accurately. And Johnbod, that means of course that the first image will obviously be here, as follows from the support votes of others also.Griswaldo (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is an image about a person, and so a portrait of a person should be the first image. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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 ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 02:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

No, Although any interested user could probably start a new option re segregation (choice f)(2)). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

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)
• Same as e), yes. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Like any other article. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• as above Edmund Patrick – confer 07:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support acceptable, incurs no problem.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Same as e) yes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support Seems to be the most sensible solution.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support Per e). Images should be placed where they are appropriate - like in any article. Regards SoWhy 13:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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 ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support Again this seems like a sensible way of proceeding, just like (e). Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support Amandajm (two comments up) hit the nail on the head. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Also per Amandahm. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose in general. Just because images exist doesn't necessarily mean that they are appropriate to use. Sometimes using an image gives undue weight, and may mislead readers into thinking that the image is a standard or iconic representation, when it is not. --Elonka 21:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support same as any other article.New questions? 01:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support same as any other article on a medieval figure - if we can find images produced that illustrate events in the subjects life, it's best to use them to help reader's understanding. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Jayen466, Anthonyhcole and per my answers elsewhere (e.g. see f above). Segregating the figurative depictions to the one section on images actually conveys the topic better than not doing so. Muhammad is rarely depicted. That's a fact of history.Griswaldo (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Images should accompany appropriate text, as in any other article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 04:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. User:Amandajm a few comments above voices my own opinion perfectly. Many historical drawings are not pinpoint accurate and should not be presented as such, but they reflect the perception of a topic in another timezone. In other words, if an image is relevant and has added value, it should be included. If an image is not directly relevant or has little added value it should not be included. I believe this stance to be valid for all article's, as i do not believe in segregating article's into different categories based on "Offensiveness", as this is at its core, just an opinion. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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)
• Support, particularly if calligraphy is used in the infobox. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support, for calligraphy only DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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 ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support, for calligraphy only --JN466 08:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Just calligraphy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Just calligraphy. Veritycheck (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Neutral. The most important thing is that the image be relevant to the text it accompanies, not that it appear on the first screen. Dcoetzee 03:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Put calligraphy in the infobox, then a figurative image down in the "Depictions" section, and link from there to Depictions of Muhammad where the topic can be covered in more detail. --Elonka 21:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support, this is an article about a person, and so the first image should be of a person. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

i) Within the second screen

• It's appropriate to avoid depictions of Muhammad in the first screen so as to demonstrate how lovely we are towards users who might not wish to view them. But it is not appropriate to go any further in censoring the article. FormerIP (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• That sounds about right to me. Wareh (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with FormerIP. Interchangeable 18:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: this would make if spoilers (1a, 1b) are place, but the spoilers don't make sense themselves. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no such thing as a "screen" in HTML. We are not using dumb terminals. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

j) Within the third screen

• Oppose. There is no such thing as a "screen" in HTML. We are not using dumb terminals. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

k) Within the fourth screen

• Oppose. There is no such thing as a "screen" in HTML. We are not using dumb terminals. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

l) Lower down than the options given

• Oppose. Too vague. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

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. --JaGa^talk 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support acceptable, incurs no problem.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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 ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 05:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose. Wikipedia needs to decide this, not punt it back to be argued about with a vague "decision". --Guy Macon (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Double standard for Islam articles. This would require Wikipedia to reevaluate NOTCENSORED and how we apply it. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 22:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose principle. It can go somewhere that is "anywhere but top," but it should be due to content reasons, and not due to wanting to offend any particular group.--New questions? 19:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - "Where an appropriate depiction illustrates an item in the text" - it doesn't have to be an event. That is the whole point of an illustration - to illustrate what is in the text. Why should this be any different? This is not an article where Islamic rules or norms apply, it is an article about an Islamic topic in a neutral and secular encyclopedia. Neutral and secular encyclopedia rules and norms apply. --Nigelj (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

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)
• Oppose cmadler (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Most vehemently opposed as per all of my above comments and endorsements. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support per my rationale to support calligraphy. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support I've stated the reasons above in both the Instructional Hatnote & Calligraphy sections. Veritycheck (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Strong oppose The article quality is enhanced with images and improves understanding of the subject. Belorn (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOTCENSORED. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose WP:NOTCENSORED. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 22:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as images should be used to illustrate the subject of the article. // Liftarn (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose pictures are a keystone to a good article. Weissbier (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support Although many of us may consider Blasphemy to be rather medieval, it must be an important consideration when being inclusive. (And inclusivity is important to Wikipedia). Institutional blasphemy (which in many ways is what this RfC is concerned with) is tantamount to systemic hate speech. I am vigorously against censorship. Wikipedia is likewise opposed to censorship. However, the determined absence of representative images of Muhammad on the article page is not censorship, as much as it is an awareness of the views and beliefs of others, for whom it is blasphemy. I may not share the views of those who belong to the Abrahamic religions, but that doesn't mean I buy into any sense of responsibility for persuading them that their views are erroneous, damaging or wrong. I believe that Wikipedia IS very much involved in advocacy (eg a demonstration and promotion of the ability of the community to provide the best, most comprehensive encyclopedia of all time using a non-commercial model), but I do not believe that Wikipedia is involved in any advocacy that promotes one set of beliefs or views or convictions over any other. There similar issues that are less well-known than the depiction of Muhammad; for instance Strafgesetzbuch_§_86a and cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verwenden_von_Kennzeichen_verfassungswidriger_Organisationen, but I don't see anyone covering german wikipedia in swastikas, or even attempting to. The muslim community is vast and it's views should be considered seriously. I would prefer to have muslims edit and contribute happily to wikipedia than have them feel snubbed, excluded, and not listened to. Although General Comment 34, para 48 (UN Human Rights Committee) states "Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant." This is concerned with prohibition, which is something that I totally oppose. I think it's totally fine to have articles on wikipedia that do depict Muhammad, just the main article in question - and solely out of respect towards those who consider him to be the final prophet. Article 20, paragraph 2 of the convenent reads "Any advocacy [...] that constitutes incitement to discrimination [...]" and I believe that this is may be salient here. (20040302 (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC))
• Support Every supposed image of Muhammad is entirely fanciful; we have no remotely factual depiction available. An encyclopedia does not require purely fanciful imagery; for example, the Yeti article is undiminished by failing to include some "artist's impression of what a Yeti may look like". There is not even a historically-inaccurate-but-conventional iconography by famous artists, like the handsome bearded European Jesus of medieval painting. So no informational content whatsoever is compromised by omitting images, because they provide none. We can therefore accommodate the strongly-held wishes of a significant portion of the global community without compromising Wikipedia's educational mission at all. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose respect (certain) Muslim's religious objections through the hat note, not with image removal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. per not censored. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose no reason to treat this article any differently than we treat any other medieval figure. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose An article about magic is not an article in which the laws of physics no longer apply; an article about the Pope doesn't have to abide by his infallibility; this article is not subject to Islamic laws or teachings. People with strong beliefs are going to have to expect to meet people who don't hold the same beliefs, especially in a general-readership encyclopedia. --Nigelj (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. There is no good rationale for including a picture of Mohammad. It does not explain anything; there are no photographs or portraits made in his lifetime that would illustrate what he looked like. No-one knows what he looked like. And it is not useful for making the article attractive. Calligraphy is much more appropriate, because it represents the predominant way of representing Mohammad in Islamic culture. It is up to the people who want to include images to give a rationale for their inclusion, and I haven't seen that here at all. "No censorship" is not a rationale for inclusion. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - these images don't add anything to the article. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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 ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 01:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

Support It is important to recognise that the articles in which one or more depictions of Muhammad may make sense as illustrations will be re-organised over time. As such, it makes no sense to me to try to form consensus among editors upon which sections of these articles such illustrations should first appear in. zazpot (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

Agree with the point about calligraphy, but did you mean to type "L and N"? FormerIP (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I did. Comment now amended. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

"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)

Re: "If we open this pandora's box, then no pictorial information will ever be secure"; this is an example of the slippery slope fallacy. Either you trust that the editors of Wikipedia will, through consensus, make wise decisions or you don't. If you do, then the pictorial information in other articles will be secure no matter what we decide here. If you don't, then you logically should also not trust them to follow any decision we make here. Either way, logic dictates that we make the decision based upon what is best for the Mohammed page, not on assumed stupidity by future editors editing other articles.

Re: Telling the editors of the Mohammed page to "do whatever you think is is best", there is no agreed upon "best." Multiple people who are smart, editing in good faith, and who want what is best for Wikipedia have failed to come to an agreement, which is why we are having a binding RfC. Somebody is going to have to accept that the RfC went against them and stop pushing for what they still believe is the right content. Somebody else is going to have to be gracious in victory and not gloat. And a bunch of somebodies are going to have to accept that the RfC gave them part of what they wanted but not all. These decisions need to be made here and now, so we can settle this content dispute and move on. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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):

• The current number (though not necessarily the particular images) are about right. We normally illustrate a long biography with the most appropriate historical images of incidents in the life, where these exist, and there is no reason to do anything different here. The images are designed to illustrate biographies, and do this well. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• This is how we normally do things, so long as the images are historically and/or artistically significant, which I understand to be the case here. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• They should be allowed but not required. As long as it's below the fold and there's a hatnote to warn or hide these images, there's no need to legislate here. --JaGa^talk 03:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, Wikipedia may. The suitability of each image for the purpose remains up to the people writing the article. Wnt (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Definitely. Wikipedia should not refrain from using any means to educate its readers allowed by US law. If we start making concessions to individual groups, we'll have cases like this all over the place. Goodraise 05:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, WP:NOTCENSORED. 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) 06:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support As per Johnbod. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 08:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Yes as per Johnbod. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC) (In other words, this is relevant image use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC))
• Support per the standard procedure in any other non-stub article about a subject. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 11:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support The images add a lot to historical understanding, for instance the Dante. Neotarf (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support — It is up to the authors to decide which pictures are chosen and where.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support, these images exist and are encyclopaedically relevant so there is no justification to prohibit their use. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Johnbod and Thryduulf. The images are interesting and encyclopedic, so use them. --CapitalR (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. A good article absolutely must have appropriate images, and images illustrating the subject's life are definitely appropriate.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:36 (UTC)
• Obviously. The best images available happen to be narrative in quality. The alternative would seem to be that we should include depictions of Muhammad but avoid the best ones, which just seems daft. It's not as if narrative images are somehow more offensive to Muslims - in fact, the reverse is probably true. FormerIP (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - There is no rational reason why appropriate images should be disallowed from use in appropriate locations. —SW— ^squeal 15:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Johnbod sums it up well. AlexiusHoratius 15:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support—As FormerIP, these are not only valuable but less contentious than figurative depictions. GRAPPLE X 16:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional support - provided that the images serve an encyclopedic purpose (i.e. "interesting" images do not merit inclusion just for being interesting). Sleddog116 (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support—but only where really necessary. I think some interesting points are raised below in the "No" section and these should be taken into account by the editors as they make decisions about what or what not to include. I would support a decision by the editors to use fewer or no images if they found any of those ideas persuasive.Davidjamesbeck (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Johnbod. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - The perfect example is the image of the Black Stone. Several months ago, the image was in the article with virtually no context, so there was a proposal to remove it. Editors instead provided context for inclusion, so the image was retained. That is ultimately why we're here; either we're going to reassert that normal editing procedures are what will be used in this article (just like every other article in the project) or if we're going to make editors jump through quotas, ratios, hatnotes and "no pics til the 3rd screen" hoops. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Thryduulf. I don't think the argument that they serve no encyclopedic purpose is valid. If they do not manage to add anything to the reader's understanding of the depicted event, it at least provides contemporary depictions of said event, allowing readers to learn how previous artists handled those events. Regards SoWhy 13:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Tarc. cmadler (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per most comments, especially Tarc. This article is one of many. It is not special, except in being the target of pressure groups. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 02:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support especially in relationship to historical pieces of art which have cultural/historic value. Again a balancing act should be struck not to over do it, but yeah, this is exactly where images could be appropriate.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support As per Johnbod. The images used at present are from illuminated manuscripts of high quality and were created to make reference to the life of Muhammad and associated mystical narratives. Mathsci (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment this is standard practice and I am not convinced that the reasons given are enough to overturn that (after all WP:NOTCENSORED). On the other hand, Elonka does make a good point below that depictions of Muhammad are less common and less iconic than most comparable historical figures. Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia, and to my mind it depends on whether the convention that "A good article absolutely must have appropriate images" is a universal norm based on humans being visual creatures or a cultural expectation of a Western encyclopedia and therefore a standard that should be applied with care. I suspect the former but think that NOTCENSORED is a poor reason to rule out the latter. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Ruslik_Zero 16:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, this seems reasonable and encyclopedic to me, and views here will likely illuminate the previous question. Geometry guy 23:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support, There is a long tradition of creating these illustratory images. They are part of the history of Islam. I support there use. Amandajm (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support, as with all other articles. Reality is depictions are part of the history of Islam, as per above. Superp (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Yes, that would be standard WP practice, and I see no compelling reason to abandon that here. Anaxial (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Standard practice. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Images are used to increase the readability and enjoyability of this encyclopedia. Visual illustration of events is especially helpful and is used throughout other biographical articles. No reason why to deviate here. JHS_nl (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Any image that improves the usefulness of the article should be placed where it works best. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Yes - because Wikipedia is not an Islamic proselytising website that has to conform to the rules and regulations of Islam. Moreover, 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 actually matter. What matters is verifiability. Wikipedia is not censored. Thank you. :) Brendon is here 12:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Where the picture accurately depicts the events described in that section, it should be included, yes. I see no reason whatsoever why we shouldn't do this, as this is the normal process for every other article on Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 19:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Standard Wikipedia practice.—Kww(talk) 13:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Johnbod (per standard bio). Student7 (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The use of posthumous and historically inaccurate illustrations to depict the life of a historical figure is commonplace among kings like Harold Harefoot (the lead image there is an engraving dating to centuries later). In the absence of authentic illustrations, they are far better than nothing, giving both a visual interpretation of the events (reinforcing the textual account) and showing how at least one later culture interpreted those events. Dcoetzee 04:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support As per Johnbod, it is similar to other long biographies. 18:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Johnbod, Dcoetzee et al. There is no compelling reason to censor ourselves. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 19:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support: wikipedia is not censored, especially not for such a superstition. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support as judgement on what images should be used should not be based on sensitivities, given that this occurs in many other articles. CT Cooper · talk 00:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support As per Johnbod. -- DevSolar (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, though I highly recommend using the hatnote option 1b or 1a in conjunction with this. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, they should be allowed. No, they should not be mandated. This is a matter for editorial judgement of the article's authors. Use the hat note to respect religious opinions and allow leave the actual choice of images up to those who know the article best. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - no reason to treat this article any differently than we treat any other medieval figure. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Support - the Wikipedia uses the highest quality depiction of an individual available. I don't believe that a group should have the right to censor a particular depiction. Using the highest quality depiction available provides information to those seeking it, without obfuscation (a veil, a symbol, a location). If Muhammad was a person, and was represented in the art of the time, that art should be used. I also believe that where multiple versions are available, particularly where a photograph is not available, I believe the diversity of these should be made available, so that the reader can come to their own conclusions regarding the original subject. Amarand (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Johnbod (talk · contribs). This article should not receive special treatment; this is how similar articles are handled AFAIK. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 23:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Jonabod. This article should be the same as any other. While consistency is not something we should push for too much, to deliberately create an inconsistency just because there are external protests goes against the spirit of general editorial practice.--New questions? 23:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, Wikipedia "may", otherwise we are imposing a little bit of Islamic belief and law onto every editor and every future editor of this one article, which is unreasonable. Equally no one should pretend that these are news photographs of the actual event! If there is an interesting copyright-free image that represents something in the text, we are under no obligation to ask any religious leader for extra permission to use it in some articles and not in others. --Nigelj (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Opposing using images related to depiction per my rationale to support calligraphy. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• No, they serve no purpose but rather have the strong possibility to inflame. Veritycheck (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• No. They serve no purpose and are all non-educational fiction because they don't come from anyone who actually laid eyes on Muhammad. Images belong in the Depictions section and in the Depictions of Muhammad subarticle. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• No, per others and per my other answers. It is more informative to confine them to the depictions section with adequate explanation of the depictions issues within the cultural history of Muhammad.Griswaldo (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support — Calligraphy should remain the exception, e.g. in the infobox.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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 ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support as per WP:NOTCENSORED.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Isnt favoring one over the other by definition censorship?---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - this is not an article on calligraphic representations of the guy's name! --Orange Mike | Talk 01:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support - Per Orangemike and common sense. Toa Nidhiki05 14:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support A picture is worth a thousand words. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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. JHS_nl (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Reject the question - The question should not be which should be given more prominence. The illustration should be the one which is most relevant to the accompanying text. Apuldram (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Orangemike. Gracious! Are we going to have to "vote" Wikipedia-wide everytime someone comes up with a new depiction? (What gets me is that this was a "solved" problem for years up until recently. What a shame it got "unsolved" by somebody!). Student7 (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support per above. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Calligraphy is repetitive, and as stated, a single depiction of calligraphy in the infobox may give good balance. CT Cooper · talk 00:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - but didn´t you already ask this question? Weissbier (talk) 09:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Caligraphic rendering of one's name is not a common practice in most parts of the world where en:WP applies. Since it is common practice in the contect of Muhammad, one or perhaps two examples should be given (to show variations), but other than that, it doesn't help the article, which is not about caligraphy after all. -- DevSolar (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support a couple of caligraphic rendering is more than enough to gives an idea, particularly if they have a caption which explains what calighraphy is. The other images shall be of usual type: images, place, ect.A ntv (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support for same reasons as Ëzhiki. -- Richiez (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - as mentioned before, as a reader of the Wikipedia, I expect to see the highest quality representation available. I believe accuracy calls for images to be displayed in the following order: figurative-art (unveiled), figurative-art (veiled), calligraphy (with an explanation), locations (for context). Displaying anything other than an unveiled figurative image of Muhammad at the top of the article amounts to censorship, and the bending of the style of Wikipedia to suit a particular group of people. Amarand (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support, I could even see having a gallery that shows how depictions have changed over the years. Calligraphy shows no such potential. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

Oppose as per the last sentence of my comment in support of depictions. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 02:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• 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)
• Reject the question - The question should not be which should be given more prominence. The illustration should be the one which is most relevant to the accompanying text. Apuldram (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• How can we not make calligraphy, by far the most frequent depiction of Muhammad in Islamic cultures, the most prominent? Are we going to purposely give images undue weight just to thumb our noses at those who wish us to have no images? --Guy Macon (talk)
• For such a superstition: oppose. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. To my understanding, Calligraphic renderings of the name of Muhammad are more common than depictions, and Wikipedia should follow the sources in this regard. (If I'm wrong about calligraphic being more common, I'd be happy to change my vote.) I think the calligraphic should be in the infobox, but don't have any opinions on the number of calligraphic vs. figurative. (In my opinion, the infobox picture is enough to cover the weight issue.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. We would be violating the rationale behind other, long standing content policies by not making calligraphy more prominent. As I said before, WP:UNDUE anyone? This is by far the most common way to depict Muhammad. The figure is shaped by that fact as much as by anything else. This crusade to depict him figuratively is beginning to look more and more like cultural imperialism to me.Griswaldo (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

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)
• 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)
• Nonsense Yah, I don't think there should be a fixed ratio. It doesn't really matter.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)
• This situation is complex but questions like this are absurd Bulwersator (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Per Geometry guy. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Agree as per SnottyWong and Superp (although, if this passes, it is not to be taken as my abrogation of above !votes). St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 15:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. "Balancing" various types of depictions should not be the immediate goal. While we should include at least one of each major type of depiction, other than that the important thing is that the use is relevant to the text that it accompanies. Dcoetzee 04:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Some can argue that favoring one type of image over another in disproportion to their representation is an example of WP:UNDUE. I disagree. Images are not needed to be in proportion to how widely they are known or represented in sources―rather, the more important consideration is simply whether they are useful and helpful to the accompanying text.--New questions? 20:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• Just to note, "opposing this entire section" seems to be the same thing as the "Mu" vote.--New questions? 20:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Note that the board is considering revisiting the whole "controversial content" resolution. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)
• Too many illustrations, especially about events in the life, is a bit like proselytizing. Neotarf (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)

  dictats? We need to start tattooing genitals now? "Welcome to Jamaica, have a nice day"? PuppyOnTheRadio talk 00:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  diktats actually (or possibly "dicta"), but thanks for paying attention... Geometry guy 00:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  ...a harsh penalty... imposed upon a defeated party by the victor... Well yes, it would be. PuppyOnTheRadio talk 01:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• I think most English-speaking individuals visiting this encyclopedia would be more surprised by a lack of images than the other way around. JHS_nl (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• The Wikimedia Foundation made a very bad decision here with several unintended consequences. As we can see in this RfC, the thing that astonishes the least is whatever agrees with the POV of the person invoking this principle, and the most astonishing thing possible is someone not agreeing with the POV of the person invoking this principle. This needs to be scrapped and replaced with something that makes it clear that we are talking about the astonishment of the average visitor, not of the editor who is fighting for his content. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• While there have been plenty of depictions of Jesus over the millennia, they were once destroyed in Byzantium during an iconoclastic upheaval. The iconoclasts eventually lost and icons were restored. Having said that, moving pictures (known today as "films") portrayed Jesus until the 1950s or so, only from the back. Then some studio showed the actor's face, the world didn't end, and all later portrayals showed him like anyone else. Student7 (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Including these images sends a clear message that this article is written by non-Muslims for non-Muslims. I find that astonishing in an encyclopedia that proclaims itself NPOV and invites everyone to edit.--agr (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• The problem with the "principle of least astonishment" is that it forces us to get inside the heads of the readers in an aggregate sense. We can all agree that readers who look up Apple are going to be surprised to see images of penises. But will readers, in aggregate, be surprised to see unveiled depictions of Muhammad at Muhammad? Some may be, but readers are diverse, and no matter what we put in this article, somebody is going to be surprised. I believe the majority of readers will not be - in fact, I think even readers who are offended are usually not surprised, as many Internet resources on Mohammed publish such images. Dcoetzee 04:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• I would be more astonished to find no pictures. But this whole "least atonishment"-thing is rubbish. Just a fig leaf for censorship. Weissbier (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• No picture=astonishing for most readers. Picture depicting face=astonishing for most Muslim readers. M's name in calligraphy=not astonishing for most readers. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• I would be astonished to see no image on the Muhammad article, given that we have images on every other biography. In saying that, however, I also agree with Dcoetzee above in that the decision was problematic in that you cannot know how "astonished" someone will be for anyone other than yourself or others who have stated how astonished they are. The only way to know is to poll the population at large, and we are not about to base or content purely based on popular opinion (although it does certainly play a role, but not the entire role).--New questions? 19:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• This is an English Wikipedia, everyone would be astonished to find the slightest trace of censorship here. - Richiez (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• I am, as a reader of the Wikipedia, astonished to see calligraphy in place of a figurative image at the top of an article written about a notable person. I don't think we're ever going to satisfy everyone, and a good balance must be struck which keeps those seeking information satisfied, as that's what Wikipedia is all about. Amarand (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• I'm astonished we're even having this discussion. In an article about Muhammad, the lead image should be of Muhammad, not of Islamic calligraphy. Of course, we should explain that the image was not contemporary, but I hear one can put captions on photos now. Having calligraphy in the lead would be astonishing indeed, I'd likely think I typo'd which article I wanted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Once again, Johnbod has summed it up well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Johnbod and Goodraise. cmadler (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Mainstream sources avoid depiction and so should wikipeadia. That is NPOV. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• "[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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• "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." 'Nuff said. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Attempting to apply the image policies of disparate publications to Wikipedia is a doomed effort in general, as the editorial policies with respect to images are governed by many factors that have little or nothing to do with the secular perspective that an encyclopedia takes. The effort to apply it here is simply an end-run around censorship questions.—Kww(talk) 13:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Classic images seem best. While the article may "see also" to the controversial cartoons, they clearly shouldn't be in this article because they would be non-WP:TOPIC (for example). I wouldn't be interested in seeing anything but a Gilbert Stuart of George Washington, nevermind that Salvador Dali might have come up with a "real interesting" portrait!  :) Follow the same for Muhammad IMO. Student7 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose images I was invited by a note on my watchlist page. Depictions create bad impact Muslims find it rude to have them. It is not called neutral removing will not be censorship it will be decent. All decent sources use calligraphy so please remove all images. --Highstakes00 (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree with the principle that our choice of illustrations should reflect reliable sources. Presentation is the job of our editors, and image choice should be treated the same way as word choice - informed in some cases by sources but not determined by them. Moreover, closely emulating the choice of images from one or particular sources may (combined with other factors) lead to copyright violation, since this is a copyrightable creative choice. Dcoetzee 04:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Johnbod. Added volume should not give additional voices. Muhammad was pictured, is pictured, and will continue to be pictured - unless, of course, we bow to outside pressure, like most sources have to simply for economic reasons. This is the only time I will invoke WP:NOTCENSORED in one of my votes here. -- DevSolar (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• We should try to follow the sources as much as possible. In my opinion, this means taking a middle-of-the-road approach. I strongly support the solution of using a mixture of calligraphic, figurative, veiled and non-veiled images, with a calligraphic image in the infobox and an option to hide images. This satisfies the sources that use images and the readers who want to see images, as well as the sources that don't use images and the readers who don't want to see them. On a separate note, Wikipedia is a global project, and promoting a western bias isn't going to help us in the long run. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Imho, there is no rationale for trying to match the image-policy of reliable sources - rather the only criterion should be on ascertaining whether the images used (if any) are really representative of the person or not. For instance, though no one took a photograph of Jesus or Muhammad, images of the former are commonly recognized as such. The same criterion of popular recognition should be used in the case of the Muhammad article. Shaad lko (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Conventional sources were typically not created in the massively distributed manner in which Wikipedia is created. This left their editors/contributors/publishers much more susceptible to threats, and their content in turn more susceptible to timid/censorial editorial approaches to potentially controversial material. One of the joys of Wikipedia is that it is less susceptible to such pressures. Since clearly neither Islam itself, nor non-Muslims, have adopted a uniform policy about whether or not images of Muhammad should be made, it is appropriate for the article to reflect this by showing the numerous methods Muslims and non-Muslims have adopted, historically, in well-meant efforts illustrate information about him and his life. zazpot (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Printed sources are constrained by budgetary constraints on acquiring and printing images - we have no such constraints. If there are freely usable images of high quality, there is no need to restrict ourselves to only images used by sources that face different constraints than we do. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• I believe it is Wikipedia's position to be as unbiased as possible. This means that the entire range of images representing the notable person should be used, to illuminate from both sides of the story. Showing no images leans 100% toward the one side, whereas only showing the most realistic figurative representations shift things toward the other side. A balance would show a representative sampling of all available types of representations. Censorship should not be an option. Amarand (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

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))

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

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)

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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose this idea. Why, is this thing necessary?--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Current number 6 seems right given the article length and subject matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• No limit. Use as many as needed, so long as they're useful or interesting. --CapitalR (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 1–2 in the Depictions section. One should perhaps be the famous miraj image. --JN466 19:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose No quotas. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• '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)
• As much as stylistically reasonable, as per WP:NOTCENSORED.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• The current number is about right although not necessarily the images already chosen. Mathsci (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• No limit. There should be as many as are relevant to text. Pass a Method talk 15:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 1 or 2, more if discussing depictions, unlimited thumbnails at the end. Neotarf (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• No limit. There should be as many as are relevant to text. Span (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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_Jrb^talk 10:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• No set arbitrary limit - what a ridiculous idea - David Gerard (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• No quota - As many as are needed to illustrate the text and are available of a high quality. Apuldram (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• None — This debate has made me reflect on the parochialism of my own (Western) culture's impulse to depict individuals through images, even when those images cannot plausibly be considered accurate likenesses of the person in question. So what does a "figurative image" of Muhammad actually contribute to an article? Nothing of real worth; moreover, it tends to give a misleading impression to (esp.) young or naive readers who will not reflect critically on the history of an image. A further point: In Islamic tradition it is normative to represent Muhammad with a calligraphic image of his name, while it is unusual to create figurative images. Using the calligraphic image has the value of familiarizing readers with a historically and culturally significant symbol from Islamic culture. That seems more valuable to the typical reader than a figurative representation which can have only aesthetic or ideological value, not representational authority. To sum up, the only grounds I can see for insisting on a figurative representation (except in an article such as Depictions of Muhammad or Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy) seems to be based on trivial considerations unrelated to improving the encyclopedia. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 18:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, since figurative, narrative images, in general, existed long before Western culture existed, and exist in multiple non-western cultures. There is also, I gather a fundmental disagreement over whether narrative, figurative images can illuminate text, but that disagreement seems far outside a cultural construct and leans more toward a universal theory of education (where I take it either they do or they don't). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, short of settling on a universal theory of education — a task at least slightly beyond the scope of this discussion — I think you'll allow that we cannot assert that the use of figurative, narrative images is universally valued. Suppose, then, that we turn to the norms of the culture or ideology we are documenting. In Buddhism, the Buddha was represented figuratively as an ideal of male beauty, or else as an archetype of e.g. asceticism or contentment or some other concept. These images don't have any representational authority but they can tell us something about Buddhism if presented in context. In Islam, as I understand, the name "Muhammad" in calligraphy is symbolic, and I admit the same could be said of images that represent Muhammad as a flame, or as a human figure with a flaming halo. But the act of figuratively representing a prophet also, and more typically, constitutes a sin and a form of idolatry in most Islamic contexts. (This goes right up the nose of many typical Wikipedians, who find concepts like "sin" to be offensive, to the extent that we can't even write about it as a foreign or historical subject.)

So my concern is that, rather than improving the encyclopedia's coverage of Islamic topics through judicious use of images, we are scouring the fringes of Islamic tradition in order to find images that can be deployed to gratify our own idea of what images are supposed to be used for. When challenged, we get chesty about our liberty and rights. It's not the most elevating spectacle I've ever seen. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 19:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

That argument would have more purchase, if we were discussing the illustrations for the Muhammad in Islam article, which is an article arguably intended for "documenting culture or ideology." The article under discussion is primarily meant to document the biography of a man, who it is believed by history, lived some 1400 years ago, and had very eventful life, we are told. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Alan, we are using Islamic illustrations, and within the pool of Islamic representations available to us, we are going out of our way to make prominent use of fringe images rather than covering the bases of mainstream, culturally relevant imagery. That is something we don't do in other articles. --JN466 10:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No, we are choosing the most suitable medieval and early modern images from the small pool of elite manuscript images available, and avoiding later images from the time of printed books. This is exactly what we do for Western medieval political figures as well, and what we should do. Fortunately there is a much wider choice for Muhammad than for most medieval kings - look at the articles. Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Suitable according to what criterion? Presumably, as you stress the narrative nature of these images, you mean suitability for providing a pictorial narrative of Muhammad's life. And that is exactly the point where you graft a Western mindset on Muhammad, because, unlike Jesus, such pictorial life stories are not at all representative of how Muhammad has been received. If you don't trust me, trust Gruber. I know you have a high regard for her work. (Not that it matters much what you and I or Gruber think, in this overall Facebook-like avalanche of mostly uninformed opinion.) JN466 12:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, biographical accounts of Muhammad's life following normal historical principles, illustrated or not, are a very important and regular feature of medieval Islamic (and later) literature, in total contrast to Jesus, where medieval accounts of this type don't exist at all, and notoriously only a selection of incidents are normally described or pictured in the Middle Ages, not including most of the events recounted in the Gospels (see Life of Jesus). The case is exactly the opposite of what you say. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

How do you square that with the info from Christiane, below, which seems to say the exact opposite of what you say? JN466 23:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• No upper or lower limit. This is not MicroManagementPedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• 2,147,483,647. Oppose arbitrary limit. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 22:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Guy Macon. Don't overload nor limit. Just like any other article. Student7 (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Silly question. Number of images is a subjective editorial decision based on aesthetics (e.g. image density) and the value of the images, and is entirely irrelevant to the concerns that raised this discussion. Dcoetzee 04:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• As many pictures as necessary (compare other articles). --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• In perfect agreement with Dcoetzee Shaad lko (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• 3 maximum (figurative, not counting other depictions) to be reconsidered as needed - I'm seeing a lot of comment that folks don't understand why such a limit would be necessary. Having an image at all is the issue with POV-oriented Muslim editors, but the unfortunate side-effect of that is some editors seem to have taken WP:NOTCENSORED and used it to justify adding as many images of Muhammad as possible as a jab and then bring up this conflict to prevent the removal of any images, even excessive and redundant ones. In light of this situation, I think that a reasonable limit for the purpose of keeping the situation in-hand is prudent. I'd also like to note that the good article and featured article guidelines should take precedence here, I'm just putting forth a number that seems reasonable to me. Peter Deer (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Fully agree with Guy Macon, the questions are going into ridiculous detail. - Richiez (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• No quota - treat this article no differently than we treat any other article on a medieval figure - there are no quotas there, this is an editorial decision to be arrived at on the talk page of the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• No quota - I believe Wikipedia should display a number of high-quality images of the subject, particularly in relation to the subject's notability - which is high. A visual balance should be struck between images and words, which is something that the encyclopedia strives for in its style definitions anyway. With too few images, you are not representing the individual visually as accurately as you could, and too many images upsets the visual balance. Amarand (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• No quota - This is getting into a little too much detail now.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 16:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• No quota Per above. The correct amount is "as many as needed". Regards SoWhy 17:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, no limit. As many as are relevant to the article and otherwise pass image-use policies. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• This question is redundant with question 8. One or the other should be removed from this RFC. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

There should be no artificial quota on images

• Per my answer to the previous question. I'd prefer this RfC to produce governing principles rather than a locked-down version. -Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As always, rules should be dynamic to the needs of making the article encyclopedic. Peter Deer (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Seems highly arbitrary. Use normal editorial discretion (or perhaps subsequent RfC). --Cybercobra (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Agree - prefer binding principles to arbitrary numbers. Assuming this RFC confirms a strong emphasis to use images, will ideologically motivated people really hang around edit-warring over exactly how many? The editors managed to make a pretty decent article so far, and I see no reason to micro-manage them now. Wnt (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Why do we need it?--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota - the article should be treated no differently to any other article. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota Images (and other media--it's not impossible that we could have a video depicting Muhammad) are used to enhance content. At some point in this article, a map could be useful. At another, a picture of an object to explain in a picture what is difficult in words. At another point, it would be appropriate to show a piece of art. Explicitly stating a precise number of images is not useful for readers or fellow editors. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota — There should be as many pictures as authors think are useful.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. We show the number of images as is useful as decided by editors. If hypothetically some image is proved to be a fake or archaeologists discover some new unique stuff, then we'll probably include that, not hold another ArbCom RfC to adjust the quota. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• I think the result of this discussion, although it looks unlikely to produce particularly specific guidance, should be taken as consensus, and should only be overturned in the future with broad support at the article's talk page. I don't think it's reasonable to require an RfC for every future change to the images, but major diversions from what is discussed and agreed upon here should require some procedure to weigh the support for them. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 12:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota. Pointless and arbitrary. If the images are useful or interesting, include them. --CapitalR (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota, the number and nature of images that are appropriate will change as the article changes and as any new images become available to us. See also my response to Question 8. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota as per my comment on 'numbers' above Skier Dude (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota. Having one makes no sense whatsoever. Whether you have just one depiction or a hundred, it will make no difference to those who disagree with having them. So, if we use pictures, we might as well use as many as the article's needs require.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:45 (UTC)
• No quota. No need for one. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota—Should, for instance, the article be further split as it grows, or be left to grow further, then a fixed quota of images may end up being far too generous (and seem more like a picture gallery) or far too sparse, and neither approach is aesthetically pleasing. Image number should be allowed to shift organically as the article grows and shrinks so as to best fit its scope at a given time. GRAPPLE X 16:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota per answer to Q8. —SW— ^prattle 16:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota Tarc (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota - I can't really improve on what's already been said. Sleddog116 (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota per WP:CCC rationale. I see no reason for special exception here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota, period. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota. Per Anthonyhcole we should be seeking agreement upon principles to guide future editing rather than locking down a specific article version. cmadler (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota. The only even remotely rational reason for having an image quota (i.e. saying n images is OK, but n + 1 images isn't) is if we decide that n = 0. Which is well beyond the pale. How many other articles have set image quotas? ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota - No special exceptions. The problem here is that a fairly small group of highly-driven people are trying to create a special case outside of our guidelines and policies, which are themselves clear enough. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota, however -I agree it would be contrary to Wikipedia's policy and purpose to have a quota. But I hope editors give more guidance than they have, in both the previous question (Question 8) and the next question (#10). The RfC is meant to give the editors who will be "putting this to bed" for 3 years, your considered, substantial, and well informed input, please do so. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota, "We hold this to be self-evident". St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota whether or not to include an image in context should be an editorial discussion, not set numerically. A quota also does nothing to avoid offending anyone IMO. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota just be congnizant that images are controversial and that we should have a higher guide when answering the question "is the image necessary?" If it is, include it. If the article can get by without, be more willing to let it go.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

• No quota Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota - And this should be applied to every article. There should be no image quota on any article, period. Toa Nidhiki05 14:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota - the editing community will find the appropriate number of images to properly illustrate the article, in the normal way. The introduction of a quota would be a form of censorship. Thom2002 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota Whatever fits. Neotarf (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota - No special exceptions. A group of highly-driven people are trying to create a special case outside of our guidelines and policies, which are themselves clear enough. These images exist everywhere, in books, on websites, in films and in art. Welcome to the world. Span (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota. The emphases should be on relevance and quality. Those two factors should determine quantity. Rivertorch (talk) 07:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota - it is ridiculous to even raise this as a question - David Gerard (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota - if an image is available and useful it should be used Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quot.... Oops! I just hit my arbitrary quota on comments to dumb ideas. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• No quota - the article should be treated no differently to any other article.--Nemissimo (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• No quota —Kww(talk) 13:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Moot. It's quite apparent by now that the respondents to question 8 are not just going to "decide on a number of images" - number of images should be determined by subjective editorial decisions over time, not by decree. Dcoetzee 04:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• No quota - Given that the appropriate number of images will vary in the articles' development, no it isn't useful. CT Cooper · talk 00:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• No quota given that we do not have such a practice on any other page.--New questions? 19:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• Reasonable Quota - The article is frequently disrupted by the addition or removal of images. Right now it is extremely hard to remove images that are excessive or redundant, and the addition of new images is the source of a tremendous amount of conflict. Because of the extremely political nature of this, particularly considering the very public Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and its representation in the media, I think measures ought to be taken to address the situation. Peter Deer (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• No Quota - A quota is a form of unjustifiable and needless restriction on editorial freedom, and the article should be treated no differently from any other article. Period! (Click here) Brendon is here 17:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support See my "slippery slope" argument above. Also, to impose an artificial quota would be to adopt to make life needlessly difficult for future editors who may decide to expand, contract or otherwise re-arrange the article. zazpot (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• No quota - treat this article no differently than we treat any other article on a medieval figure - there are no quotas there. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - The only quota should be reflected in maintaining a healthy visual design balance. Wikipedia's editors do a great job of breaking up article text with supporting images. Let's keep that tradition, and keep the encyclopedia balanced across all articles, with no exception. Amarand (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• No quota - I think common sense can ensure that there aren't too many images.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 17:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• No quota per comment on #8. Artificial numbers are never a good idea when it comes to editorial decisions. Regards SoWhy 17:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional discussion of question 9

Why do we need a quota?--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

I'm not arguing with that! Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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

• Support We don't want to be doing this again soon! :) I hope there is no quota. Student7 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

• Supporting this for now, seems reasonable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• --Aschmidt (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Per common sense. If the article changes we must not be hamstrung to an inflexible arbitrary quota as that would inhibit our improving the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• The future active editors of this article would have more educated opinion on the question then the whole community. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• If there is need for more/fewer, then so be it.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• This seems like the most reasonable choice, particularly given the three-year term. Amarand (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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

• I agree also. cmadler (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• 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)
  • That doesn't make this not a bad idea - David Gerard (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The participants in question 8 are not going to come up with a number of images, nor should they. Questions 9 and 10 are moot. Dcoetzee 04:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
            • 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)
              • 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)

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)

• 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)
  • It doesn't matter to me how any religious group feels. An encyclopedia isn't about protecting feelings, it's about verifiable truth. I know that certain Christians are offended by certain scientific ideas (evolution, etc.). Does that mean they should be censored or semi-censored based on feelings? No. Who is being forced to read Wikipedia? The strongest argument against placing photos or limiting them is that (supposedly) most reliable sources don't put them. I don't know if that's a strong enough argument. Showing depictions of Muhammad isn't really violating an NPOV or giving undue weight to anything. Pictures are used to augment or enhance the content. Are there ANY other articles where depictions are not shown of someone for the supposed reason that that it's not NPOV or undue weight is given? There's no doubt that images violate certain people's feelings and/or religious beliefs. If Wikipedia wishes to censor for political reasons, then fine. I don't think it's a good idea, though. Doctorcherokee (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Principle of neutrality, censorship vs. Muslim-appeasement

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

When distinguishing between black and white seems hard enough, be cautious because it's likely that you are going blind. Muhammad's pictures should not be treated any differently than any other picture. The argument is not about effectiveness or the contribution of the pictures but the principle behind wikipedia policy not-censored(as you read on, you'll likely find out that arguments based on the effectiveness of the pictures are actually immaterial to the present discussion).

1. No amount of chicanery should be sufficient to obscure this distinction.
2. As editors, we shouldn't waste too much of our time thinking whether an image is adequately contributing to the article (because usually they do and if one picture doesn't other editors are there to replace it with a better picture), all we should have to make sure is that the picture doesn't vitiate the quality of the article or in other words, the picture should be related to the topic (hence, an article pertaining to Muhammad should contain images of Muhammad).
3. Legitimacy of Prohibition on depictions of Muhammad is questioned by Muslims themselves and is claimed to be not founded in Islamic law. Wikipedia need not lend credence to this demand which is itself unsettled/illegitimate within Islam.
4. If one finds even the otherwise decent depictions of Muhammad to be unavoidably offensive, it is possible to configure the browser to not display them. That way, the undisturbed or unconcerned readers get to keep their freedom of accessing information and any sensitive reader who finds it disturbing will also be able to keep his/her sentiments intact without affecting others. (click here for further discussion about this)
5. And we should spend even lesser time figuring out whether the provided information is going to hurt somebody's sentiments.
6. People must learn how to adapt to sanity and the reality (i.e. information supported by reliable sources) as opposed to making whimsical demands. The reality shouldn't need to adapt to the wishes and sentiments of people.
7. Also, pictures do sometimes say a thousand words.
8. It's about providing editors with the freedom to explicate or enhance or even adorn an article by images they deem fit.
9. To say that, “it's not adequately contributing to the article” is not a credible rationale, it's an evasion, an excuse, an inane equivocation at best. "Adequate" is a relative term.
10. 'It's either generically allowed or generically prohibited. There should be no special treatment for any religion (be it Islam or anything else).' We also serve audiences who are not muslims. But this is not a perfect place for discussion about a GENERIC change in Wikipedia interface.
11. Like I've been reiterating everywhere, Wikipedia is not an Islamic proselytizing website nor is it affiliated with any particular Islamic organization (as far as I know). Wikipedia doesn't admit of expurgation of reliable information (pictorial or otherwise).
12. There should not be a ban from the policy-makers or ArbComm on this issue as it will intrinsically undermine the principle of neutral and equal treatment of relevant information regardless of what creed they are related to.

:) Brendon is here 14:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC) [last edited by Brendon is here 15:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)]

Thank you, Brendon. Your sermonette has helped me understand how the motivating concern for many participants in this discussion comes from the need to nurture a sense of embattled collective identity. As you plant your "No pandering to Islam" flag on the soil of Wikipedia, your real quarrel is with WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 18:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Four different-sized fonts, italics, bold script, and a multicoloured signature are no substitute for a good argument. Additionally, you’re operating on a false pretext if you believe that all editors who are against the inclusion of images of Muhammad, or are seeking as a minimum to provide a respectful hatnote, are Muslims. Finally, the fact that others don’t share your opinion doesn’t make them blind panderers, nor does it imply that they haven’t understood you. There is no need to reiterate. Some of us simply don’t agree with you. An RfC is an instrument for ALL editors to voice their views. Thanks for yours. Veritycheck (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• I hope that nobody is under the impression that what we do here will satisfy the large number of IP users and new accounts who have politely asked us to remove all images of Muhammad (and who we have excluded from this discussion), or the far smaller group that tries to make the same point with violence. Neither group wants fewer images or a hatnote explaining how to not view the images. They want the images to not exist, anywhere. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

See, I'm not looking for friction here.

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

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

@ Macon

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

From the WP:Content Disclaimer:

1. Articles may contain audio, visual, or written representations of people or events which may be protected by some cultures.
2. Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, human anatomy, or sexual acts.

It doesn't get any clearer than that. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 13:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC) [last edited by :) Brendon is here 07:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC) used {{quotation}}]

"May" not "must". No compulsion here. Policy doesn't tell us what we have to do here. Neither do mullahs. Or bigoted ratbags. We decide, in a civil discussion among ourselves. The fundamental question is, to what degree should we take account of the feelings of our millions of Muslim readers on this article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"Policy doesn't tell us what we have to do here. Neither do mullahs. Or bigoted ratbags."
-No. Policies do give us a clearer idea of what the boundaries are or in other words, what we can or cannot do. Please don't obfuscate this simple issue.

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

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

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)

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)

Quite right. I've amended my comments above. Thanks. —SW— ^chatter 04:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Amen Reverend Good Father. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 01:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Music is also offensive in Saudi Arabia, at least in public. Neotarf (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The main issue here is that in most cases the offence (umbrage) is taken rather than given. I take offence to a lot of things. I take offence to some group of people's surreptitious efforts to undermine my freedom of expression. I even take offence to the incessant and gratuitous claims of offence. So what? I don't want pages removed from wikipedia just because it hurts my sentiments. This is all about Islamic hyper-sensitivity, isn't it? Instead of making ourselves sensitized to every second thing the others do or want, should we not be willing to think rationally?

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

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

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

"This is all about Islamic hyper-sensitivity, isn't it?" No, it isn't. What it is about is that an encyclopedia should convey knowledge rather than perpetuate ignorance. So if we are using Islamic images, we should show the typical ones, the ones that have widespread cultural significance. Figurative images of Muhammad do not generally speaking have that widespread cultural significance. They are exceptions. Many people don't know that, and don't care. But it's not the job of an encyclopedia to enable people to remain ignorant, or to present a minority viewpoint as though it were the mainstream viewpoint. --JN466 10:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

JN466, while I concur with some of what you have written, I don't see any necessity to notify me that "an encyclopedia should convey knowledge rather than perpetuate ignorance." because I've myself cogently asserted that in various parts of this page. "Figurative images of Muhammad do not generally speaking have that widespread cultural significance. They are exceptions." — this statement is not really relevant since we don't modify or restrict information based on cultural significance. Besides, if we had to count cultural significance of every bit of information we publish here on wikipedia, we won't have had any wikipedia. Thus, I think I'll have to just repeat myself and write, "The main issue here is that in most cases the offence (umbrage) is taken rather than given. [Since offence, in this case, is in the eye of the beholder] I take offence to a lot of things. I take offence to [..] the incessant and gratuitous claims of offence. So what? I don't want pages removed from wikipedia just because it hurts my sentiments. This is all about Islamic hyper-sensitivity, isn't it?" (I'm now even more convinced that it is.) :) Brendon is here 19:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

@WBrendon111, please don't use overly large bolded text in discussions. It's quite distracting, and gives others the impression that you think your opinions are more important than theirs. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

No offense at all. It's really not a big deal to me, and I hope my comment didn't make it seem that way. In my mind using large bold letters falls somewhere along the lines of WP:SHOUT, which again, isn't a big deal, but can be annoying to some. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I must tell you that sometimes shouting is indeed an impolite thing to do.(hopefully, I won't shout from now on) But then there are times when shouting is absolutely necessary or a good thing to do, albeit that must be done without hurting anyone's ears :) Brendon is here 12:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

• Not everybody comes into Wikipedia via the Main Page. Many come in via a Google (or similar) link. Martinvl (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Exactly... the previous suggestions of having a link at the side in the "toolbox" area is a much better one. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 10:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    • We have a main page? PuppyOnTheRadio talk 07:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

"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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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 ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 05:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 06:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

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 ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 06:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 01:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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 ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 02:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

Agree with JN466 on the point that Iranians are very open to depiction of Muhammad.Farhikht (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --JN466 09:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

I recall that you were instrumental in preventing that. --JN466 20:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. We were at an agreed version (that looked pretty much like the present version), largely brokered by User:Resolute, until FormerIP turned up rejecting that very hard-won consensus and insisting the proposal be put by way of an RfC. [7] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 03:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

"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 ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 03:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

We use such images because we presume they are actual paintings of the rulers' faces, don't we? This is not the same situation as here at all. If there were thousands of other, more iconic images of these ancestors, images that are widely distributed and generally known, and which have the same informational content (or the same lack of misleading content), we would use these culturally significant images first. --JN466 10:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No we don't! We have as little idea of the actual apppearance of most Early Medieval rulers (saints etc even less) as of Muhammad's. Just as in Muhammad's case, later medieval artists used conventional features they thought appropriate. It is exactly the same. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Christiane is aware I have posted this material in Wikipedia, and she has the link to this page and section. In addition, I cc'ed Elonka on our most recent communication. JN466 00:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but that you may have informed Gruber in another e-mail where her e-mail has been quoted on Wikipedia talk does not necessarily mean that she agrees with it. I don't know what the term "to cc someone on something" means. Thus I don't understand how Elonka being "cc'ed" results in Gruber to agree on quoting from her e-mail here, --Rosenkohl (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Since Gruber still has not clearly confirmed here that she agrees in having the E-Mail posted, I have now commented out the e-mail for the time being, --Rosenkohl (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely bizarre. Christiane has seen this posting and says she prefers to contribute like this, in a consultative role, rather than becoming an editor herself. What exactly is the problem? JN466 01:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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.

• The claim that the ban on depicting Muhammad and other prophets is an absolute principle of Islam is...refuted by history. Many portraits of Muhammad have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers. - Amir Tahiri, Wall Street Journal.

• The Muslim world abounds with magnificent images of Mohammed. While some Muslims object to these well-known and widely distributed depictions, there has never been any large-scale furor over them for the simple reason that although they depict the prophet, they do so in a positive light. - Reza Aslan, Slate.

• Censorship in the West bolsters the moral authority of leaders in the Middle East to censor their own citizens. Many Muslims want the same freedoms as everyone else to debate, criticise and challenge their religion. - Munira Mirza, Spiked.

• So, if there is no universal prohibition to the depiction of Muhammad, why were Muslims universally appalled by the caricatures? They weren’t. And those that were, were driven by political zeal rather than theological fervour. -Keenan Malik, Göteborgs-Posten.

• There is some truth in the Western critique that Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons reflects a cultural mindset against artistic expression, although I would suggest that this resistance is a modern development and not inherent to Islamic civilization or history. - Kamran Pasha, Huffington Post.

• Yale also cut from the book images of the prophet meant to illustrate the history of the depiction of Muhammad in Ottoman, Persian and Western art. Sunni Muslims observe a prohibition on depictions of the prophet — but since when has Yale? - Mona Eltahawy, Washington Post.

• As a Muslim, they (the Danish cartoons) offend my feelings and beliefs. But if Muslims want to live and coexist with other religions, other philosophies, in a non-religious space that welcomes everyone, they must be prepared to be shocked occasionally. Like religion, freedom of expression is sacred. - Soheib Bencheikh, Grand Mufti of Marseilles, Le Nouvel Observateur.

FormerIP (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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

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

• Oppose - under no circumstances we should only yield an inch in this matter. It would open the door for any kind of fanaticism and other people wo want to stop education. Weissbier (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Obviously we shouldn't disregard anyone's opinion just because their argument is not very compelling. More compelling arguments will persuade more participants and receive more weight. That's how consensus works. Dcoetzee 00:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, though I understand where you're coming from. NOTCENSORED is a very weak argument here (as I've mentioned above) and from reading many of the comments in previous sections, it seems to be the preferred argument of many of the more opinionated and bullheaded editors here. NOTCENSORED is not a good reason to include offensive material, especially if less-offensive alternatives exist, which they do in this case. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many users - myself included - have cited WP:NOTCENSORED as a reason not to have hatnotes warning the reader that the article contains pictures of Muhammad and/or hatnotes instructing how not to see them. Many other users have said that WP:NOTCENSORED is not relevant because a warning is not censorship. In response to a post by Guy Macon, I elaborated (2012-03-27, 22:04 (UTC+8)) as to exactly why I thought NOTCENSORED was relevant, including invoking the "spirit" or intent of the policy, which, I admit, is harder to quantify than the letter. However, I wonder whether I (and others citing NOTCENSORED) should have placed more emphasis on WP:DISCLAIM. I still strongly believe that the spirit/intent of NOTCENSORED clearly implies that we need not and should not have such hatnotes, but WP:DISCLAIM codifies that spirit unambiguously, stating that we should not have per-article disclaimers, and explaining why not (including, but not limited to "Wikipedia is not censored"). As with all guidelines, and indeed with rules, DISCLAIM allows for exceptions, but personally I do not think an exception is justified for Muhammad. As I previously mentioned, I believe that the issue is not about censorship, it is about whether editors should decide what might offend some people. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

James AM statement cogently identifies the issues, including the weakness in the censorship claim with respect to the proposals. As the proposed hatnotes do not contain commentary or opinion, only facts and options they do not fall afoul of the anti-disclaimer guideline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The hatnote text does not contain opinion, but the existence of the hatnote is an opinion (that this article contains "offensive" material). As to "hatnotes ... do not fall afoul of the anti-disclaimer guideline", of course hatnotes "fall afoul" of WP:NODISCLAIMERS, which is unambiguous: "... additional disclaimers into an article ... the consensus is that they should not be used". Mitch Ames (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No. Hatnotes are used all over the pedia; as they do not disclaim (like these proposals do not disclaim), they do not run afoul of the disclaimer guideline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The question is, is this kind of hatnote all over the pedia? Do we have any other main space page with a hatnote that specifies how to view the article without images? If we are to use this kind of hatnote, then we ought to use it consistently, and not single out this page as a special case.--New questions? 02:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, please let us know why we're considering putting a hatnote (advising how not to view images of Muhammad) if it's not to avoid offending some people. The proposed hatnote might not mention "offence" (or variations thereof) but I've yet to see any other reason for its existence. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Immaterial, we need not assume, and we don't, why readers do what they do with information. They could have 1001 rational and irrational reasons or no reasons, at all. It's their life. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If we're not making any assumptions about our readers, why are we even discussing putting a hatnote on this particular article at all? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose obviously citing WP:NOTCENSORED or any other guideline could be used as a means of simply dismissing the other's argument without actually addressing it. This is something that is regularly taken into account when people make arguments that do not actually prove their point. However, it would be wrong to suppose that all citations of WP:NOTCENSORED are without merit. The principle usage is to argue against "we should do x, y, or z because this will satisfy/not offend certain groups of people." Those kinds of arguments should be immediately dismissed because that is what WP:NOTCENSORED is about, and those are the appropriate times to cite it. However, it should still be kept in mind that it is not an argument for anything by itself - merely that it is an argument for dismissing (quite rightly) arguments for the the exclusion of something (or inclusion of disclaimers) on the basis that it would offend people less.--New questions? 19:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm prepared to admit that I have used 'censorship' in my contributions on this page without being as specific as I should have been. I don't think I'm alone either. Upon reflection, I was thinking of a form of over-conscious self-censorship, not external censorship. However I think that WP:CENSOR is drafted broadly enough to encompass both of these forms of censorship. Whether or not I was being sufficiently clear about whether I meant external censorship, or a kind of over-active self-censorship, should not have a huge bearing on the validity of my comments. Of course we have many internal discussions about whether a piece of content is appropriate, or valid. The question is whether these questions are judged on purely encyclopedic criteria, or in accordance to some wider set of values. I argue that the criteria should be restricted to the former (plus legal issues that pose an existential challenge). I suspect that this distinction is in fact at the heart of the debate. Thom2002 (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• STRONG SUPPORT Too many people have just been using this argument. WP:NOTCENSORED is not an argument for inclusion. By this logic why don't we uploads 1000s of TB of porn onto Wikipedia??? and Ugly pictures of politicians Like this one. But, Wikipedia has some logic. Unless censorship is the issues WP:NOTCENSORED is not a logical argument. Most people are just using WP:NOTCENSORED hysterically therefore we should ignore them The Determinator p t c 17:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• I fail to see why adding a hat note to help readers realize they can turn off images is a "form of censorship". Nothing I've read on this page has come close to convincing me it is. Thus, I feel opinions that just say WP:NOTCENSORED without any support for why that applies should be given very little weight. (Which is probably the way comments that just state a policy without explanation should always to treated, not something unique to this RFC.)

Also, I agree entire with Balloonman's eloquent arguments. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Censorship is not merely the "suppression of information" but also applies to any kind of indication of selectivity that can aid in the suppression of information―for example, by applying a rating to it, or saying "this page is more suited towards adults" at the top of the page. Having a hatnote on this page without having it on every other page is almost the same thing as applying a "rating" to the page, a distinction that could be seen as censorship in one sense.--New questions? 06:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it’s not. Censorship is suppression as per the Wikipedia article on censorship and the dictionary.com entry on the word censor. One cannot make people apply their views on what should to be done regarding to censorship to things that are not censorship simply be declaring the non-censorship to be “censorship”. You have to deal with the merits of the case. Logically analysis can’t be cut off by incorrectly declaring the hatnote to be censorship. One could still argue that a hatnote imposes a stigma that should not be permitted, but that’s different then going to a censorship analysis. Another issue is whether a hatnote on a Muhammad article would be an unprecedented situation. Turns out there’s an least one situation where more is done than the hatnote proposal. In the John F. Kennedy autopsy article, the most detailed photographic depiction of the head wound (and the only color photo) is not viewable in the default setting. A reader has to click on “show” to view the photo. In contrast, the hatnote proposal here would keep all images available in the default setting. Readers would have to take an affirmative action to hide the Muhammad images from their view. For those who believe that a blanket, end-of-discussion WP:NOTCENSORED situation applies to a Muhammad article hatnote, logical consistency requires one to take the view that the Kennedy photo should be shown without any caveats. The only way one who is aware of both situations can oppose the Muhammad hatnote proposal but support the more restrictive Kennedy photo practice is if one rejects a blanket view and favors a detail analysis regarding injuries, religious offense, etc. --JamesAM (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that applying ratings to certain articles is not the same thing as censorship?--New questions? 20:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

+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)

Are there sources that that shows that calligraphic representation is in majority use outside books and texts (like paintings, movies, theater)? Belorn (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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

No, this article is not about Muslim Iconography, nor is it about Muhammad in Islam, those are different topics. This article about Muhammad's life. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it is about Mohamed, not his life.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 08:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, by focusing on his life. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Saying that it's not about Muslim iconography is no excuse for putting undue weight on a minority viewpoint from Muslim iconography. In my analogy, if you used an image of female Jesus to illustrate the Jesus article, you could equally well argue that the Jesus article isn't about Christian iconography. But even though it's not about Christian iconography, it's not supposed to mischaracterize Christian iconography in the process of giving us information about something else. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think much of it, in this article, is iconography? That characterization is unsourced and from what we do know untrue. It does happen to fall within the category Islamic Art that illustrates biography but not iconography. Moreover, nothing in the article represents any of it as iconography (Muslim or otherwise) in fact the opposite is true. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not about iconography, and neither is my objection, really, I just used that word in replying to you.

The idea that Muhammed may be depicted by images is a minority opinion among Muslims. By presenting a lot of Muhammed images created by Muslims, the article puts undue weight upon this minority opinion. The opinion doesn't have to be the subject of the article in order for its portrayal to be undue weight.

If the Jesus article showed five pictures of female Jesus (or even one, without labeling it as unusual), would you claim that that's okay because the article's not about iconography? Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The obvious difference there is that there are few, if any, extant historical examples of Jesus depicted as a woman, whereas there are many examples of Mohammed depicted as a man.

Also, I don't think that you can appeal to what the majority of 21st century Muslims feel is permitted as the basis for an NPOV argument, because the idea that we should style the article as a majority of Muslims would style it breaches NPOV in the first place. FormerIP (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There are not many examples of Mohammed depicted. There are few. You're trying to count absolute numbers instead of considering proportionality.

And I can apply the same argument to female Jesus. "If we style the article as a majority of Christians would prefer, we are breaching NPOV." Your reasoning would completely negate undue weight, since any attempt to avoid undue weight could be argued as expressing a POV that favors the side given the most weight. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in the article, or how the images are used misrepresents them, so the claim that they do is not based on NPOV, it is based on an interpretation of religious prohibition, not based in the article. The images in the Life section are not even noted, in the article as Islamic art, because that information is not pertinent to how they are actually used. They are also not represented as "common." The objection to them is therefore based on prejudice against them, by not even looking at them in context. Wikipedia does not discriminate based on the identity of the artist. It is not censored by religious prohibition. Every image is unique. Every image is correctly and pertinently identified. Every image is relevant. Wikipedia regularly uses such images in historic biography, in fact it is a point in their favor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This should really all be on the Muhammad images talk page, but while we're talking about it the Byzantine Emperor's portait is a later legend, analysed in an article somewhere by Oleg Grabar - as I'm sure Christiane Gruber points out. There are indeed continuous figurative images in Islamuic art, most surviving ones being on pottery, but there are no known authentic (from the life) or early (within ~500 years) images of Muhammad, and indeed very few images that can be regarded as portraits of anyone until later than that. Johnbod (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was Johnbod who moved this section to here, afaik. I originally posted my edits above higher to the top of the project page, because they perhaps had a higher chance to be read there, and actually they are intended not as comments on the article "Muhammad images" but on the "Background" notes of this project. I'm not sure if you want to say that Heraclius' image of Muhammad did not exist. A story being a legend doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong, and I don't see that Gruber claims that the image did not exist. However, we still have verbal description of Muhammad's physical appearance, which are ascribed to his contemporaries, --Rosenkohl (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

5:1 is enough to pass RfA with flying colors! When one counts Muslims who are, dare I say it, enlightened enough to expect to see a neutral article instead of a hagiography on Muhammad when they look in an encyclopedia (just as Christians must with Jesus, or Jews with the Exodus, Moses, or Hasidim with the Lubavitcher Rebbe), I imagine the margin is great enough to pass RfB! St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 15:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no doubt about how this RfC will close, that doesn't mean that it will close in the proper manner---it is just proof that most people don't understand or care about what NOT CENSOR means. They use it as a blugeon to silence views they disagree with. And rather than finding a solution that is a win-win solution---we are going to cower behind a platatude to "prove that we aren't censored." (And yes, we have had people say that we have to prove it.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to prove it, we just have to be it. FormerIP (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want a rationale, I 'd say that actually it is about showing that we are not censored. FormerIP (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

• 1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If that is the case, it is absolutely possible to provide a thorough and comprehensive article that contains no images.
• 2. Wikipedia is a game where anonymous geeks seek to wield power over countless real-world individuals, including the power to cause gratuitous offense. If that is the case, well, duh, Wikipedia Is Not Censored. Joe Bodacious (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Types of representation

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

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

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

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

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

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

A painting created 600 or 1000 years after the subject's death only tells us something about that particular tradition of art (and note comments above). It tells us nothing about the subject. However, Muhammad is for example frequently depicted symbolically as a rose (see example), and such rose depictions are sometimes found at the end of the Quran. Same with different types of calligraphy. That is the mainstream part of his visual reception. --JN466 09:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No. That's not true they educate about events in his life. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about specific paintings about the specific subject of Muhammads life. In the generic form, we have all from Cave paintings to Egyptian hieroglyphs, both include incredible amount of knowledge beyond simply tradition of art. On some historical people, the only information we have is the preserved images of that time. The tradition of art can sometime hide what parts are relevant, and which one is not, but the information is there for those that can see through it. Belorn (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

To both of you: fanciful paintings created 600–1200 years after the death of the person they are depicting are educational about themselves, but not about the subject they purport to be depicting, or events in his life. They are educational about an aspect of the subject's reception – and in this case, it must be said, very much a fringe aspect of that reception. JN466 12:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Not only do I disagree with you but the medieval historians who put them in writings about the subject's life disagree with you too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No more so than fanciful figurative art created 600-1200 years after the death of the person they are depicting---especially when we lack a solid conventions on how we should depict him. Images of Jesus are meaningful because we have a strong artistic tradition that illuminates how he is portrayed. I can look at a piece of art that I've never seen, and often identify the character because of those conventions. Islam didn't develope those conventions. Except for in the form of metaphorical imagery.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Using an convention is not art, and conventions are not educational. Art means to invent something new, hitherto unseen. An artist may use an convention due to a certain personal habit, belonging to a certain traditional school, or having to comply to the expectations of his audience, perhaps even without knowing that she or he is using the convention. So using a convention means just to repeat a learned technique. Conventions may be used in certain genres of religious art, however Wikipedia is not a religious community or enterprise. Apart from articles about a specific genre, Wikipedia ist never using an image because of the convention to which it complys, but because of the individual ideas which the artist has expressed in the design of form and content of the image, or because of the object itself which has been depcited.

Of course there are informations about how Muhammad supposedly has looked alike. For example there are verbal description on Hilyas, some of which are allegedly going back to his contemporarys.

After all, the older artists are, the more likely they know a fact about how Muhammad looked like, which may have been lost till today - except in the image they painted. Acknowledging the artwork of our ancestors is not only respectfull, but also scientifically necessary, --Rosenkohl (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Representation of Muhammad in visual arts

If one look in areas where one would normally see the use of an image (paintings, movies, theater), do we find calligraphy representation, a figural picture, or simply nothing at all? Belorn (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The subject of Muhammad is NOT ‘an area where one would normally see’ an image of him at all. Your argument is like comparing apples and oranges. That is, no doubt, the reason why this RfC was needed.Veritycheck (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean that paintings, films and theater avoid the subject of Muhammad? The List of films about Muhammad article do hints that movies made in the middle east do not use plots with Muhammad as a character (true, false?). Is this same for theater in that region? (true, false?) Christian theatre has a long history of using religions themes, but the section History_of_theatre#Medieval_Islamic_theatre do not mentioning it. Instead of dismissing the question, could you try explain if paintings, movies and theater either do a) avoid Muhammad as a subject overall, b) use calligraphy representation when ever there is a need to mention Muhammad, or c) use a figural representation. It should not be too complicated to give a plain answer to. Belorn (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Muhammad is "in" films, but tricks are always used to keep from actually showing him (many are shot from Muhammad's point of view, such as the animate "The Last Prophet" and the famous "The Message"). Hardliners say any depiction of living creatures is forbidden, although there's still a thriving film industry in the mid-east. Muhammad is oft a subject, but never depicted (except maybe his hands). Theatre is non-existent in any form of Islam I am aware of. I know nothing of Shi'ism that I did not learn on the internet. (Real-life knowledge of Shi'i to the average Sunni: "they're mushrikun and kuffar, of course".) To answer the question, you find nothing shown, but figural representation strongly implied, so the closest still-life shot of Muhammad would probably be "veiled". But, nevertheless, this is not Islamopedia or Christopedia or Conservapedia to cater to religious sensibilities, so how Muslims wish to depict or not depict Muhammad does not matter.St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 13:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You're going too far there. Our article on Jesus will show Christian images just because of their number and because of due weight. Same here, we will include Islamic imagery -- except that the weight figurative images of Muhammad have in Islam is very different indeed. --JN466 09:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't think JohnChrysostom is the one who going too far when he says, "this is not Islamopedia or Christopedia or Conservapedia to cater to religious sensibilities". Try to understand the inner meaning here. Wikipedia has a set of policies for what? Is it so that whenever people demand the policies will be abjectly bent and twisted or outright broken to accommodate the inane demands? :) Brendon is here 11:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

For the article as a whole, I agree. The fact that we have historical images and that some of them are historically notable, makes the images noteworthy. That being said, having an image in the lead which is contrary to the way that Mohamed is typically portrayed is UNDUE and does misrepresent his portrayal. While I do not believe that the "Muslim" perspective dictates how Wikipedia operates, the lead should set the proper tone mirrored in the historical record. By putting Caligraphy we impart to the reader the fact that images were not the norm.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

What about other articles?

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

You have to distinguish two groups of complainants.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then it clarifies the meaning further

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

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

A Sense of the Consensus

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

• There's strong consensus that figurative images of Muhammad are welcome in the article.
• There's strong consensus that while the the 'most iconic depiction' might be calligraphic, NOTCENSORED prevents us from complying with a general prohibition against figurative images.
• There is substantial support for a hatnote informing readers on this page about WP's NOTCENSORED policies as they apply to this page .
  • But there is also substantial opposition too-- (equal or greater than support)-- to such a hatnote as a violation of journalist neutrality or the WP:NODISCLAIMERS guidline.
• There is substantial support for a "toggle images" feature.
  • There is substantial opposition to enabling the "toggle images" feature on only one page. Commenters cite selective implementation as contrary to NODISCLAIMERS or NOTCENSORED.

Based on this I predict a future where:

• Figurative images of Muhammad are permanently welcome in the article.
• Calligraphy is "top image" for the foreseeable future, with the understanding that it is chosen through normal consensus editorial decisions about informativeness. At this point, it's "informativeness", not "reader offense", that is the consensus justification for using calligraphy as top image.
• The "toggle all images" feature does not have consensus when applied to one and only one article. It appears to have consensus when applied to all articles, which is the ideal solution anyway.
• Similarly, a hatnote reminder of WP:CENSORED does not have support when applied to only one article. In future, it may be possible to achieve consensus if objective criteria for "shocking" can be determined, but a single lone exception to NODISLAIMERS is not supported by consensus current. --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

In summary - the existing page is fine; I think this is about right. But even though fewer new comments are coming, the rfc should run its full course. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I see neither how the Rfc is about finding "the most iconic" picture, nor a strong consensus that this most iconic picture was calligraphic, --Rosenkohl (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• My own sense of the consensus is that the existing page is mostly fine. The calligraphic image in the infobox (as currently) appears to have consensus. There also appears to be consensus that providing some depictive images is appropriate, if they appear farther down in the article. "Farther down" appears to mean either the "Life" or "Depictions of Muhammad" sections, with opinion split between those two sections. There is also a strong opinion that too many images may be giving undue weight to such images, though there is no consensus on what "too many" means. It may mean we should thin out a few of the other images in the article. Which doesn't mean delete them, but just to keep a sense of proportion and balance, and move a couple over to Depictions of Muhammad. I do agree though that we should wait and let the RfC run its course. --Elonka 16:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think relative majoritys would constitute a consensus, but the Request is not closed for new comments yet. Also, according to my counting, there is currently a clear majority for an unveiled depiction in the infobox, --Rosenkohl (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Oh dear, the words that one has to bite around here...the former me would have risen to this bait in a heartbeat, but that former me also almost got topic-banned from this area. So...I will just say simply that IMO those who wish to retain the images do so because of a sincere belief that they make the article better, and that the removal would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the subject. I'm sorry that you remain unconvinced by that and seek alternative reasons for the calls for retention. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually the discussion has opened up a bit on these points, and was extensive in the arbcom case & on the images talk page. Actually we only use 6 of the 70 images on Commons. That the images do not represent authentic likenesses of the historic figure was made clear in the background section at top. What has been missing from those who oppose the images is any recognition of, or arguments dealing with, the fact that the situation here is exactly the same as for most early medieval biographies, which we invariably illustrate with whatever medieval images are available, usually far fewer than here. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I made comments noting that I believe a visual depiction of events in Muhammad's life contribute both to our understanding of those events (reinforcing the text) and of the culture who created the artwork depicting them. I believe the educational value is clear. In fact, if such images did not exist, I would not object to a user uploading their own illustration of events from the life of Muhammad - such a practice is non-existent today on Wikipedia, but illustrated historical works are sold and I believe they promote effective learning. Dcoetzee 00:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not precisely measurable but the relevant educational value of an image clearly varies from instance to instance. In a section on the early life of Muhammad, an image depicting an event described in the text helps the reader to visualise and remember the narrative, but adds nothing relevant to the text. The same image in a section on Islamic depictions of Muhammad would be highly relevant to the text, and such a section should have as many examples as it can comfortably accommodate, because each is worth a thousand words, on the subject of art history. In the earlier situation, where the image serves only to aid memory and beautify, does that benefit outweigh any disaffection we may cause in some of our millions of Muslim readers? I don't think it does. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This is crabbed view of visual education. Muhammad was born and came to adulthood in a feuding, clannish, polytheistic land. The image of the clan men in the pre-Islamic, Kaaba educates about that on many levels. He had a claimed revelation, which is the central fact of his life. The image used educates about that on many levels. He went to war. The image used, educates about that on many levels. He united the (formerly feuding divided people) by proclaiming the revelation (launching the entire world into a new stage of history). The image used educates about that on many levels. (As for the religious prohibition, that is discussed extensively elsewhere but for Wikipedia's audience (which in the words of the Foundation report) is aimed at a modern secular society, it is not pertinent.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You [Anthony] have expressed this view many times (complete with helpful examples of "useful" engineering cutaway drawings as I remember). The trouble is that one thing this RFC (which I think you encouraged) has convincingly demonstrated is that few editors agree with you. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Johnbod, Argumentum ad populum is no argument at all. Alan, I didn't follow that. You seem to be saying the narrative images do add something to the reader's understanding of the text they illustrate, but you're not saying what important relevant information they impart. It seems to be begging the question but perhaps I've misread you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Anthony, I've tried. All I can do now is emulate the ancient prophets: 'for he who has eyes, let him see.' (I do appreciate that you have moved off your more absolutist prior declarations). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Denying any value to narrative images, as I have in the past, was hyperbolic and lazy. I often stressed their "adding nothing to the readers' understanding of the topic of the section they're illustrating" but too often didn't bother, because I can't think of an elegant way of saying that, and just went for the simple "they add nothing." It depended on who I was addressing, and how much of their attention I thought I had. But actually, because the value these images add to the sections they illustrate is so minimal compared to the value of a relevant exemplary or diagrammatic image, or compared to the offense they will cause millions of our readers, "they add nothing" is very close to the truth. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

— WP:IMAGE

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

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

I did it because I wanted to make it clearer on the closer which are issues where "we don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows". I proposed 1b, and the amount of opposition it's gotten makes it clear to me 1b doesn't have consensus in its current form and thus needn't be a major point of contention going forward. (also, I totally forgot we had 2 more weeks left, for some reason thought we were almost done) --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

While I don't like the 30 day rule for most RfC's as they effectively tend to come to an end within about 2 weeks, this is an exception. When we are dealing with an RfC that will be used to determine the policy standard for years to come, we need to let people enter the discussion without a "consensus" being formed.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 01:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no "30 day rule". The bot removes RfC from the list after 30 days but that's purely housekeeping, not some kind of recommendation on how long an RfC should run. It's entirely OK to have an RfC that runs 5 or 7 days. I don't know how an arbitrary housekeeping bot's timer got turned into something that people think is policy. Gigs (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh I agree... but the number of times that I've seen people go to AN asking for an RfC to be closed only to be shot down because 30 days hasn't passed is ridiculous. All it takes is one person to say, "No it needs to stay open"---even if there is no meaningful discussion. Look at Fae's recent RfC. This RfC, however, because of its nature and unprecendented consequences, needs to be open unfettered for as long as possible.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree that no RfC needs to be open for 30 days. In the mediation it was proposed that this one be open for two weeks. (By me, I wanted a time limit to among other things, avoid the when will it close drama). That did not gain consensus (using the bot timing rationale, among others), instead, as the instructions for this RfC above state, it will close on a date certain (but not two weeks). This should definitely not be treated as binding precedent for any other RfC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• I fully Oppose this section. I don't think this is the right time to make any sort of predictions or guesses. One week is adequate to sway the pendulum hard enough to shock the present majority. This sections sends out a wrong message with its existence itself. I wholeheartedly concur with user:Alanscottwalker's comment on this.
• Also I would like other editors to pay heed to User:johnbod's important remarks. :) Brendon is here 06:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that your "sense of the consensus" is incorrect on many issues. Let's just let the closer(s) figure out the consensus, shall we? No need to try to influence them. —SW— ^speak 18:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

• I concur that the RfC should conclude before this process takes place. On a process note though (I don't know much about RfC), it would appear likely that at the end of the time period there will be still be quite a weight of opinion on either/all side(s) of many of the questions. I'm sure this is not unusual. Who will attempt to 'call' the consensus, and what if they determine that no consensus has been reached? Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask these questions but I would appreciate any help. Thom2002 (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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

"A Sense of consensus..

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

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

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

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

Good summary. I can't see any other way to read the consensus here, and it's consistent with both WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:WEIGHT. Perhaps further comments will come in that sway things. But this isn't a section to argue the point. It's to summarize the weight of the discussion, which the initial comment does successfully. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I find your great belief that unbiased content creators exist to bringing a smile to my face. To find an content creator who is unbiased to what he creates, would be like finding a person who is completely unaffected by the social environment around him. This is why concepts like consensus and democracy are tools not only used to make decisions but also to create an objective view of a subject when all who speaks are by definition, being human, biased. Belorn (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• On the one hand I am delighted that we have the opportunity to share in this process democratically; on the other hand, discussing Muhammad in this way is downright mentally exhausting. I strongly dislike censorship, and believe that Wikipedia should stick by its guns, and maintain its editorial integrity by keeping each and every single article in the encyclopedia useful, balanced, and visually appealing. I wonder if people realize how many people-hours have been expended in this discussion/debate, and how much of this energy could have been better spent directed toward the improvement of the product? Having said that, I feel it's my civic duty to weigh-in whenever censorship and silencing rears it's ever-present ugly head. Not voting - not discussing - is not an option, unfortunately. I just wish in this day and age, we didn't have to beat this metaphorical dead horse. Sadly: Amarand (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• If something on WP may offend you, you have numerous options: if it is only pictures: set up your browser to not display them; if it's text: look at other web pages. An encyclopedia is here to inform an inquiring mind, not to cater to closed ones. There's enough here that offends everyone in so many ways; reminds me of a quote about a new dictionary: a vary prudish chap commends the author of a dictionary on not including offensive words in it, to which the author replies: "my good sir, it surprises me that you would know where to look to note their absence." Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of the Discussion in the First Place

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal:

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

Why and if So, what's the solution?

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

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

Problem:

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

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

— WP:NOTCENSORED

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

Quoting User:Mitch Ames:

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

More specifically:

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

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

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

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

To make it clearer:

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

This "image toggle" or "toolbox" or whatever that is being proposed is utterly redundant and gives undue weight to the controversial side of argument spectrum because a permanent image-toggle in the left-hand toolbar as an option to hide images, will unavoidably reflect a specific point of view and can be seen as an impetus towards self-censorship from Wikipedia itself. That is not helpful.

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

1. People with an account on the Wikipedia website are able to use features of the wiki software to disable the display of specific images or sets of images, such as the "bad image" list.
   
   
2. Once you have an account, you can disable the images on a specific page by changing your personal settings at your CSS page. This allows you to avoid images that offend you without affecting other users.
   
   
3. Here is an example file addressing content preferences with regard to depictions of Muhammad aimed at moderately strict Sunni Muslims. It's an example. Individual content preferences may vary.
   
   
4. You can selectively block content by using a web filter program. Freely available examples include Privoxy, SafeSquid and DansGuardian. Once you have installed such a program, you can exert fine-grained control over what content is received by your web browser.

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

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

Support for this proposal

• Weak Strong support (moving to strong after clarification issued). I have above supported a universal hatnote - essentially an extension of the current function to make it easier to find for the uninitiated. Like, in the left-hand toolbar. Just not on any one article. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 17:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

"Tolerance" (actually, "Intolerance in the name of tolerance") seems to be the idol of the age. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 10:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation is wrong. It's quite the contrary to what you say, if somebody has configured his/her browser or the preferences to hide specific images (which offend their sentiments) then (s)he won't have any fear of visiting the Wikipedia and thus it would actually expand Wikipedia's audience range. And yes, Wikipedia is inflexible when it comes to their policies. Should it not be, not even for its own policies that are majorly responsible for the flow of information? Does Islamic demands to deprive other non-Muslims of the right to see relevant images in an article reek of tolerance? I don't think so. I don't think Wikipedia has to pander to or pamper the intolerant demands of Islam. :) Brendon is here 18:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Brendon, I think we may have naturally gotten my wires crossed. While we have initially proposed an article-specific hatnote, the feedback from that has suggested that an article-neutral toolbox link is far more popular.

I understand the confusion, there's been a lot of ideas floating around. At this point, I think image toggle has to be "article neutral" (all articles) and "less intrusive" (toolbox, not hatnote) . --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• Support My previous opposition was due to completely misunderstanding what this proposal was about, that it was somehow about adding a new feature to create a new "personal no-show image list feature" or something like that, which did not already previously exist. I agree that absolutely no change should come about as a result of this RfC, following the philosophy that the Muhammad article is not any special article that deserves to be treated differently. Given how this RfC was indirectly a result of a external pressure, to suppose that anything should come about a result of external pressure from people who are offended at anything in this encyclopedia is antithetical to being an encyclopedia.--New questions? 20:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• support There's no good, NPOV reason to treat images of Muhammad differently than any other form of image that causes great offense. Some Orthodox Jews for example may be unhappy that we have photos of women at *at all*. Aside from apparently some vocal complaints, everything is working fine. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Opposition for this proposal

• The page WP:NOSEE should be deleted. It does not belong into the project name space. It can't be the purpose of an encyclopaedia to help their readers to censor themselves, or to help institutions (Christian Schools, Madrasahs etc.) to hide content for their members. Any user is free to host CCS function in their own user name space, and share it there with other users, but definetly not in the official project space, --Rosenkohl (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Uhh, why? —SW— ^converse 12:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Why what? --Rosenkohl (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"It can't be the purpose of an encyclopaedia to help their readers to censor themselves, or to help institutions (Christian Schools, Madrasahs etc.) to hide content for their members." —seriously? That's your reason? I presume you have confused "the natural freedom to choose to not view images" for "universal image-toggle" (which I disagree with).

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

1. It's not a "purpose". It's an option.
   
2. Just as anybody has the natural option to close/avoid wiki pages or articles as he/she wills, they have another option to exclude images too. Isn't that a good thing? Somebody doesn't have to eschew the whole page/website in order to avoid seeing certain images (which they find unnecessary and/or offensive anyway).

I'd say it expands Wikipedia's audience range. It does not bar any body from visiting the wikipedia website just because he/she doesn't want to view some specific images. You cannot force any information on to someone. Thus, it presents an alternative. That's the idea behind that option. :) Brendon is here 16:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why educating users on how to use CSS to customize their viewing preferences is problematic in any way. —SW— ^speak 18:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The use of CSS ist explained e.g. at Help:Cascading Style Sheets, and particular education on how to exclude images by CSS can be included there, or explained on an own help page. However, the page Help:Options to not see an image on the other hand does not educate on the use of CSS only but gives an overwiew over a wide range of options to hide images, such as configuring the browser over using the mobil edition, applying filter software, using filter proxys, or exclude imgages from the so called MediaWiki:Bad image list. Wikimedia lately even seems to employ their own community Iman, since the page directs its readers to "an example file addressing content preferences with regard to depictions of Muhammad aimed at moderately strict Sunni Muslims", and I'm eager to see the filter lists aimed at e.g. intermediate strict Pastafarians, the neo-liberal Jucheist, post-jihadist Shariaists, or strictly moderate Teetotallers. But seriously, users have many "options", e.g. do a head-stand oder or drink coffee while reading Wikipedia, but it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to help their readers on making head-stands or brewing coffee. Of course you cannot force reading an encyclopaedia on to so someone, but expanding the audience range by showing different encyclopaedias to each group of visitors would put an end to one universal mandatory edition for every reader, --Rosenkohl (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, totally missed your point. What were you trying to say? Are you trying to say that we should not give the readers any option to choose to hide images as they might deem appropriate? If so, then be notified, it's not really up to wikipedia, that option is naturally available to any and all readers and as an encyclopaedia dedicated to transmitting all kinds of information wikipedia's responsibility is to let others know about this option too. So to wrap it up, are you against individual freedom to ignore images of wikipedia and then in favor of censorship due to some needless and utterly inconsiderate demands based on people's fragile sentiments and religious beliefs, depriving all other readers (most of whom don't mind seeing images) of the opportunity to see the otherwise very decent images? :) Brendon is here 16:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia should not, and can't anyway, give the readers any option which they already have on their own. You are perhaps confusing an encyclopeadia with advice literature, see WP:NOTMANUAL:

>>Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes.<<

Wikipedia should not insult the technical intelligence of School directors etc. by even offering them advice on how-to block pictures for their students. Are you for the freedom of religious communitys to ignore images of wikipedia and then in favor of offering help to self-censorship due to some needless and utterly inconsiderate demands based on people's fragile sentiments and religious beliefs, depriving all other readers (most of whom don't mind seeing images) of the opportunity to see the otherwise very decent images? ;-\ --Rosenkohl (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Your "What Wikipedia is not" page says:

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

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

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

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

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

So, everything you said totally went over my head.

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

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

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

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

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

That gives me the impression that you believe that "to let others know about this option too" was part of the encyclopaedic mission of transmitting information about real objects by describing them — but I didn't say that Wikipedia must help its readers by providing unencyclopaedic information in shape of articles also. And please stop picking on the phraseology. A "how-to guide" is what it is.

As a side note, I'm not aware of a dead guy from 7th century Arabia who in his life time would have told others not to depict him — but is that point in the favor of the proposal of an image toggle in the left-hand toolbar? I think, it's all the more reason against the credibility and for the gratuitous nature of this phenomenally redundant and unfair demand.

"as far as I understand an encyclopaedia, transmitting information about real objects by describing them is different from giving helping to read or write articles" — rightly said, as far as you understand an encyclopaedia. That's your perspective. Go bring it up in the talk page of WP:NOSEE.

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

— WP:5P

So, I guess you need to be a bit more coherent about your proposal. Brendon is here 09:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, not I did make a proposal, but you did. Actually I fully agree with the part >>The Solution: If you don't want to see any media content especially images you may hide them as "inappropriate for you"<<. What I do disagree with is the page WP:NOSEE in its current form. But if I understand you correctly, having the page WP:NOSEE is an essential part of your proposal. I had tried to explain some days ago somewhere above why the page WP:NOSEE as part of the official "Help:"- or "Wikipedia:"-namespaceis fundamentally unencyclopaedic, --Rosenkohl (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"What I do disagree with is the page WP:NOSEE in its current form." - Bring that up in the talk page of WT:NOSEE. Here, it is irrelevant whether you agree with WP:NOSEE or not.

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

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

Brendon is here 23:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I think that this might at least be somewhat good if it at least addressed the issue, which is that they are not offended at seeing the images, but rather at the fact that the images are being published.--New questions? 20:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"they are not offended at seeing the images, but rather at the fact that the images are being published." — I understand your point (Your username seems a little odd though).

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

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

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

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

Hence, in this case, the offense is indeed in the eye of the beholder. Wikipedia editors do not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers.

That's exactly why this option is all the more relevant for showing that one cannot meddle with Wikipedia policies, if some few people are really offended they are welcome not to see those images. But they, at any moment, cannot demand a special treatment or concession or modification of long-held Wikipedia practices and policies to appease their hyper-sensitivities predicated upon religious tenets.

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

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

Comment

• Comment. We're getting way off the topic of the RfC here. This is not a proposal for a content filtering system. There have been plenty of those - see e.g. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)/Archive_5#I_want_to_chew_the_fat_re:_medical_photos, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_78#NOTCENSORED_and_content_control, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_24#Content_ratings and of course meta:Image_filter_referendum. You want to visit WP:VPR or idea lab if you have another one, but read the old ones first to get an idea of the position of consensus. Dcoetzee 21:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"We're getting way off the topic of the RfC here." - I couldn't disagree more. It's very very relevant and important to note that the proposals for alteration to Wikipedia interface that are raised in this page are all unneeded since there is an option to personally choose not to see an image (which might not seem so offensive to other readers) as opposed to asking the website to deprive every other reader of that opportunity to see that image. An intelligent man Regular visitors to Wikipedia (be they secular or Christian or Hindu or Buddhists or even Muslims who may find it objectionable to a personal level, but do not expect everyone else in the world to cater to his/her view) will certainly expect (won't find it excruciatingly offensive) to see portraits/depictions of Muhammad in Wikipedia article about Muhammad just like in any other biographic article. For editors, it would be hypocrisy to knowingly exclude such type of pertinent images when they know that these images exist. These images give us an idea of how a culture saw (depicted) that man, Muhammad. It is every bit as relevant as this RfC. :) Brendon is here 09:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I find your all-encompassing blanket statement utterly distasteful. That you propose every 'intelligent man' must agree with your personal opinion of expecting to see depictions of Muhammad in this article is, quite simply, untrue. There are countless intelligent men and women who believe that such images do not serve a place in an article of this nature. I am one of them. Numerous other editors who share my opinion have come here to express theirs. The fact that people disagree with you does in no way make them any less intelligent. Ironically, believing otherwise calls your own intellect into question. Your line of reasoning is not only dangerous and deplorable, but is neither constructive nor conducive for any discussion seeking to elicit differing opinions such as is the case with this RfC. I urge you to let everyone speak their mind without insulting those with whom you do not agree. Veritycheck (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"That you propose every 'intelligent man' must agree with your personal opinion of expecting to see depictions of Muhammad in this article is, quite simply, untrue." - then suggest to me what adjective should I have used? My mistake, I should have written any intelligent or foolish man would expect (at least won't be shocked) to see depictions of xyz in an article about xyz along with other relevant information (be it about Muhammad or Jesus or Moses). What general people would be surprised to see is an exception to that rule of "equal treatment to everybody regardless of class, creed, color". What general people would be shocked or, rather insulted, to find is special concession for Islam due to Muslims' sensitivity. If you find the principle of equality to be distasteful too then I could not care less about what according to you is not distasteful. I think you must be aware of the phrase "soft bigotry of low expectation" (note:I am not saying you or anybody are bigots). People would be shocked to find that here in wikipedia. To expect that wikipedia will cater to or bow down to rules and regulations of Sharia will be shocking. And as a matter of fact, I find your comment mildly distasteful too. So what? I'm not asking anybody to block you, because you didn't break any policy of Wikipedia(I think). Same goes for images in Wikipedia. :) Brendon is here 13:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Update - After giving it a thought, I rephrased that specific line. Sorry if it hurt you! :) Brendon is here 13:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Having talked to people on all sides, I think the controversial sticking point is whether it's appropriate for us to collect data on specific images that are considered "shocking". This data is not just biased-- it is bias itself. There is a very legitimate debate over whether collecting this information is "NPOV facts about reader bias" or whether it's a violation of NPOV itself.
  I feel like we can "neutrally" collect information on irrational human bias, but even I recognize that consensus will not bear that. In a way, I'm actually comforted by all the NOTCENSORED voices that I would call "militant NotCENSORED" vs "Libertarian Noncensored". The former group does not want any compromise with censorship however minor, while the latter group wants to empower 'self-censorship'. I'm in the latter group, but I'm outnumbered, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
  The solution is to add an image toggle to all articles and call it good. I wish I could give my older Muslim fellow-humans a gentler intro to uncensored culture, but even a disclaimer is proving to be controversial. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"The solution is to add an image toggle to all articles and call it good." - No that's not the solution, that kind of extra-leniency, sufferance or submissive thinking with regards to the unreasonable, unfounded (and gratuitous?) demands that contravene several valid policies of Wikipedia, is actually the problem. Anything else is a minor issue.

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

The point is that an image toggle for all articles would have utility outside of this specific dispute. It could be used in any situation where the user is uncomfortable with seeing the images they're looking at, perhaps because someone is shoulder surfing or they're at work, or it could be used to save bandwidth. There are already features like this in most browsers, but they're not very convenient. Dcoetzee 06:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"The point is that an image toggle for all articles would have utility outside of this specific dispute."
— Are you referring to a "hatnote"? If that's what you are indicating here, then I'm behooved to let you know that it will be superfluously disruptive. And all that for what? Only to appease some religious sentiments! Your proposition arguably defies all policies of wikipedia. Whatever gratuitous umbrage is taken(it's "gratuitous" because people who object to images have done nothing really to logically vindicate their demand's merit or worth for this extremely discriminatory treatment), it must be treated at a personal level, hence a step that will impact on others isn't possibly a solution. :) Brendon is here 11:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added my support for an image toggle to be in the left-hand toolbar (on Vector skin, I don't know about others), universally, and my strong and adamant opposition to any image- or article-specific image toggles. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 15:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

John, I fully understand where you're coming from (and I see your point) but, I seriously don't think that people's redundant sensitivity is worth an image toggle in the left-hand toolbar. If some few readers cannot adjust themselves with the otherwise innocuous or harmless arrangements and practices of wikipedia because of their religious commandments, then it's not Wikipedia's responsibility to indulge those demands. (They must take necessary steps to avoid seeing those images as opposed to asking wikipedia to take down or hide those images which will eventually be superfluously disruptive)

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

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

I strongly agree with Brendon111. Permitting to eliminate images it's equivalent to introduce "a specific point of view". No to offending images just as to offending words. Every faith has to be respected, but no to every form of religious or political arrogance. Wikipedia is not mandatory. --Pigr8 (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't read all the stuff up there, but just the last paragraph, so my agreement doesn't extend to any offensive concept there exposed.

Actually, I support the universal toggle in the left-hand toolbar, as it would be useful for Reformed Christians in articles on Jesus, teetotallers in articles on alcohol, people with PTSD who read about something that might trigger an episode, nudity or pornography in articles where someone just wants to learn non-visually, etc., as the current image-hiding options are either universal full stop and designed for bandwidth-saving (the ones built in to the browser) or really fucking hard to figure out where they're at or how to activate them; I still don't know how to block specific images or articles of images or classes of images on Wikipedia, and I was a damned information security consultant! So, a universal toggle for images in the left-hand toolbar, under "toolbox", near "expand citations" or "what links here", can do no harm, but can cause benefit. It's not even related to Muhammad; this was just an opportune moment to bring it up. Thus, it should be implemented. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 22:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read the following carefully, John. You might be stepping on to a deadly trap which will do more harm than good.

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

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

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

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

Arguments about obscenity, lewdness are completely a separate issue.

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

All the "arrogance" and dysfunctionality is entirely on Wikipedia's side. How many people in this pitiable collection of polls have managed to express their views without using totally unnecessary pejorative language? You know, I actually applaud the people who merely quote the lamentable "NOTCENSORED", as they have at least refrained from sharing their possibly-offensive opinions. Reading this page just shows how dark and hypocritical Wikipedia can be.

We are talking about a central tenet of someone's faith regarding an image on their central prophet- it's not even a two-sided matter like creationism - ie where language and weight can suffice to explain the two positions - there is an image that many religious people find offensive involved here, and we are deciding whether and how to show it.

Also, in my experience Wikipedia has always dealt with these kind of issues topic by topic - to claim otherwise, as people have been, is just nonsense. This is anything but a uniform encyclopedia. Anyway, like the usual 99% of sane people, I refuse to vote in this poll - but will say here that I do not find images of Mohammad "welcoming", I find them unnecessary and religiously inflammatory. There are a billion Muslim people in this world (no matter how many would accept the image or not) - it's not just some cult. People (including the complete children who edit Wikipedia) simply have to learn to respect the positions of others. I can see a toggle image ability, along with the images near the main controversy text as at least a compromise (though compromises are rarely good things in my opinion) - but it will be interesting to see if anything will happen out of such a mess. Best of all could be an Images of Mohammed subpage, though no solution will satisfy the controversy-lust and sheer bias of those who demand that it should be the page's avatar imo. I would suggest another simpler poll on the chosen solution - you might get a few more sensible voters that way.

I just want to add that someone above has talked about introducing Muslims to "uncensored culture". I find it a bit creepy in a strange kind of way. I don't think the world is remotely interested in Wikipedia being a soup containing everything it possible can. It would be a toxic stew riddled with flies. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

@Matt,

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

But, I think you should read the following:

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

— WP:5P

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

— WP:NOTCENSORED

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

"Logical fallacy" - give me a break. Quoting a policy (NOTCENSORED) verbatim to prove a point is just ridiculous when it to someone who has not only questioned its value on this issue, but questioned its very worth on Wikipedia. You write, "Supposedly millions of Muslims offended"? I think your condescending choice of language betrays you every time you put finger to key on this matter. By the way, my name's 'Matt' not 'Mark', it appears just above the start of your comment. Maybe you could try looking at your comments before posting them? Hope this helps, Matt Lewis (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Btw, regarding your second policy quote - is it really me who is pushing a bias here? Certainly there is policy somewhere that will always back the likes of you, and this is what I mean when I say that Wikipedia is designed for biased people. It's basically a bottomless pit designed to be emptied into. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment Quoting a relevant policy where it is especially applicable, I would say, is not "ridiculous." Also, we are not a uniform encyclopedia, but neither should be consider treating this Mohammad page as a special exception. Pages should not be considered exceptions simply because they become the focus of vast amounts of external pressure or because external petitions exist. Also, as a reminder, comments that focus more on the issue are more constructive than comments on the commentator.--New questions? 16:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, amongst the general silliness, he told me to "read it" when I'd very-clearly given my opinion on it and surrounding it. If you think that is clever I would say that you do not realise how 'disruption' can be judged on Wikipedia - it does actually go a little deeper than simple black and white AGF - or beyond all Wikilawyering in fact. The endless repetition and quoting of policy can wear the readers down - I forget the specific names of them, but there have been plenty of WP:'s written for that kind of 'debate'. I'm not comparing anything to my own comments, I'm just stating a fact - and you in linking arms with him are just doing exactly the same thing: misreading, mis-assessing, and Wikilawyering around the outskirts of someone's point. I've seen it all a million times. It's just one of the things that makes debate on Wikipedia such a headache for almost everyone. There are quality 'Wikipedians', there is just not enough of them to balance this kind of debate. The scales have always been imbalanced. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"I'm not comparing anything to my own comments, I'm just stating a fact" — all I can see is the evidence to the contrary. Why are you so upset, calm down a bit. Your comments don't seem to be conforming to WP:AGF at all. Hence, my suggestion to you would be don't comment until you relax. Brendon is here 10:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Matt, I see here that you tremendously lack good faith. And you wrote,

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

And I find your opinion immensely abominable. So what? Do I want you to get blocked from wikipedia? ;-\ Brendon is here 11:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the genuine improvements in Wikipedia over the years is that admin aren't so quick to block at the demands of such obvious dime-a-dozen wind-up merchants any more. Unfortunately they can't limit the amount of toe-bouncing editors either. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Entering this conversation late, and knowing no Wikipedia rules except that "there are no rules" I would say that pictures of Mohd. are unimportant to the quality of the article about him. To my knowledge, (not extensive) there are no pictures of Mohd, except those done hundreds of years later. We have no idea what Mohd. looked like. So, why not delete in the "Mohammad" article all the artists conceptions of Mohd. in favor of an authentic picture (if one exists) of a 7th century Arab and title it, "A seventh century Arab. The dress and demeanor possibly reflect the appearance of Mohammad." That would make the article about Mohammad himself more authoritative and informative.

And then, all the artist's conceptions of Mohd. could be moved to the "History of Islam" or "History of Islamic Art" articles. That doesn't exactly solve the problem, but it perhaps moves it to less controversial articles. Smallchief (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"pictures of Mohd. are unimportant to the quality of the article about him." — I don't agree. I don't, as a matter of fact, think that it's a sufficient reason to remove the images, either. God is not consistently depicted the same way throughout history, but we somehow found a picture to use without controversy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

— WP:IMAGE

Matt, I would like you(i.e. not mandatory) to read the primary contention of this proposal above. You are missing the whole point behind the policy WP:NOTCENSORED. Thank you! Brendon is here 13:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That's enough now Brendon. I've said enough times now that 1) I do not myself agree with NOTCENSORED 2) It's not all encompassing 3) It's abused and misinterpreted anyway. And obviously MOS guidelines will always be more specific - and I am suggesting that the MOS you quote needs expanding. The whole point of all this is to discuss options (not adhere to any "primary contention of the proposal"!) - and not to beat people down with specific text, pretending the people actually discussing them cannot read. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment If you do not agree with NOTCENSORED, you can go to Wikipedia talk:NOT to seek to get it changed. It is all encompassing. All policies are abused and misinterpreted, but that does not invalidate the policies themselves.--New questions? 20:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"That's enough now Brendon." — No, I don't think it is enough, Matt. You need something more. Tone yourself down a notch please. It doesn't seem exactly compliant with WP:AGF policy. Like I've told you earlier, Wikipedia is not mandatory (albeit, I don't want you to leave). If you are inherently opposed to the idea of "no censorship solely based on religious sensitivity" then I think RfC is not an appropriate place for you to meander about and recklessly spray your inapposite, unbecoming and rather impertinent views all over.

As User:New questions said, you ought to spit your counter-productive, witless abhorrence regarding WP:NOTCENSORED policy on its talk page, not here. You have to go step by step. Here, it is only disruptive. Brendon is here 13:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Brendan

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

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

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

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

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

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

I respect your approach, Anthony. I really do. However, I don't concur with you that much.

"Brendon, we are not at the mercy of any policy here. This forum is large and diverse enough, and the issue is unique and focal enough, for us to make decisions based on the good of the encyclopedia's mission, rather than on strict adherence to precedent. If ever there was an IAR situation, this is it." - I strongly disagree. What are you trying to prove here? Are you saying that we have to make an exception in this case and just take down images in order to avoid offending some sensitivities?

This is not where we really need to "Ignore all rules". It doesn't necessitate indifference towards all the pertinent Wikipedia-Policies.

"the higher level of discussion occurring here, to the question of what best promotes the projects' common mission" - this RfC is not the right place to talk about that. The topic-name is not "Discussion about the probable changes in Mission statement" it is "Discussion about Muhammad images". Others who are not interested in "Muhammad" but could have taken interest in the new discussion, will miss out on an opportunity to comment on this issue.

"you assert that in an encyclopaedia, sensitivity of the reader doesn't actually matter. This principle seems to underlie most of what you push here" - Like i said earlier, in an encyclopaedia, not sensitivity but

1. verifiability,
2. fidelity to the true nature of information in representation and
3. the quality of information

are what count.

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

"Of course this point has been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere, but I wonder if you can bring a fresh perspective to it by explaining why you think that is the case." - fresh perspective? Why do you assume that presently the opinions which are scattered throughout this RfC, are not sufficient?

"reader sensibility should be subordinate to educational value" - YES, I agree!

"If you could avoid chanting policy, like a fundamentalist clings to religious diktats, in your response, that would help things enormously" - It's your opinion. I don't share your views. I think Wikipedia policies are not to be opportunistically disregarded whenever it seems convenient nor are they negligible. On the contrary, I believe here they are all the more relevant. That's why they are there in the first place. To give editors a good Idea of the mechanism and bounds of Wikipedia. And I also implore you to focus on content rather than picking on minutiae of rhetoric and phraseology.

"large proportion of editors here argue that" - Firstly, who knows how large?
And secondly, simply positing that a large proportion of editors argue in favor of something, doesn't necessarily make it the right thing (Fallacy:Argumentum ad numerum).

And don't worry, if that "large proportion of editors" form the majority it will reflect here in the RfC. I hope this helps. I am not looking for dispute here. Brendon is here 03:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

We ignore all rules to improve the encyclopedia. If improvement cannot be demonstrated, then there is no reason to ignore any rule. The chief assertion here is that it would improve the encyclopedia for being more sensitive to moderately strict Sunni Muslim readers, and that it is of no value on the Mohammad page. Now, I would say that former should be of no issue, and the latter has been thoroughly contested. There are many things that would be sensitive to moderately strict Sunni Muslim readers, but I do not think we need to do those things. It could be argued that this is the most prominent and fundamental among the things that would be sensitive to moderately strict Sunni Muslim readers, and that they are a large portion portion of this population, but the key point is that they are not the entire population, and it would be against NPOV to acquiesce to the demands of any group, even if they are 30% of the world population, and it does not matter if it is just one or a thousand demands. The reason why we should not make an exception here to NOTCENSORED is to uphold NPOV, and NPOV is one of those things that are not negotiable, not subject to any exceptions under ignore all rules. This was made explicit from the very beginning of the encyclopedia here.

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

--New questions? 06:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Are you saying that we have to make an exception in this case and just take down images in order to avoid offending some sensitivities?" Have to? Ummm no. Consider? yes. Again, your response is based on the false axiom, "sensitivity of the reader doesn't actually matter." I invited you to explain that nonsense proposition, not just assume it in your answer.

• "this RfC is not the right place to talk about that." Don't censor me. "That" is precisely to the point of this RfC.

• "If anything, anything at all, clashes with these pillars ... then I think it's better to reject that thing" The pillars serve the mission which, inter alia, is about open access to all human knowledge. Unnecessarily putting images on a page that repel a large group of readers works against that aspect of the mission. What's called for here is subtle discernment and discretion; a sensitive and informed balance between access and freedom of expression.

• "Why do you assume that presently the opinions which are scattered throughout this RfC, are not sufficient?" That's not my point. I'm, to put it bluntly, telling you you have brought nothing new to this discussion, but you have added such a wall of text that you are effectively stimying pertinent discussion. Just my opinion.

• New questions, thanks for reciting acronyms and policy at me. You cite NPOV and simply assert that heeding the sensibilities of our readers in this case, where it won't impact the educational value of the article, will naturally impact NPOV on the article. Go ahead, assert it. But nobody's going to take you seriously until you can show it's so in this case. The whole point of this RfC is to arrive at a version that respects our mission, partly embodied in WP:NPOV, and our readers' sensibilities. We're all (I think) agreed that, where these two can't be reconciled, the mission trumps reader sensibility.

You both seem to be blindly (by that I mean without any discernible rationale) advocating that we ignore the offensiveness of our content. You're entitled to do that, but you would help your cause if you could give one good reason. You are both conflating the dubious prescription, "sensitivity of the reader doesn't actually matter," with NPOV. They're not the same. It's perfectly possible to produce encyclopedia articles that don't unnecessarily waggle penises, gore or pictures of Muhammad in our readers' faces. You're confusing an extremist libertarian/autistic stance toward offensive content with our mission to inform, and you're failing to see that the former diametrically, in this instance, opposes the latter.

Please don't read my withdrawal from this conversation as agreement with anything you may say next. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Correction: moderately strict Sunni Muslim people think that it is offensive. To suppose that it is offensive in the first place is to favor the one POV already. In fact, to suppose that anything is offensive is itself POV.--New questions? 08:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Does the sensitivity of the readers matter?

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

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

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

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

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

I couldn't agree more with Belorn. Very logical. Very, Very logical. I salute your realistic and very intellectual comment. Thank you! :) Brendon is here 20:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't like to see logic abused like this. It seems to me that you have a destination and have drawn out a path to it here - doing that is entirely unscientific. You've concocted a spurious 'logic v's Wikipedia addressing sensitivity' argument that to me is just bunk. And it's just nonsense to give a set of options like that.

• Wikipedia is supposed to be built on per-article consensus (ie where the interest and - hopefully - expertise is), not all top-level and simplistic Law, like some Orwellian fascist state. Why else are there so many caveats and clauses, inc the ultimate 'break all rules'? Without sounding too 'French', Wikipedia is written in human language - it can perhaps never be 100% objective (and frustratingly hardly ever tries to be linguistically - it's full of the most basic and dodgy 'appropriation = fact' calculations). Wikipedia is about communication and readership - it's about presenting the most accurate and fairly-balanced information, to be read by potentially the broadest possible group of people. For heaven's sake please, nobody tell me that isn't true.

• To actively prevent any article being read by the most amount of people (as you and some others are effectively doing) can very easily be called censorship itself. To claim that clicking on a picture to see a picture (and potentially people could do just that) is "censorship", is absolute and utter nonsense. To suggest that using some common sense (as happens all over Wikipedia) will open doors to 'mayhem' all over the encyclopedia is insidious bullshit. Guidelines can make things as broad or specific as you can envisage them and make them, and nobody cries foul when they do just that.

"To claim that clicking on a picture to see a picture (and potentially people could do just that) is "censorship", is absolute and utter nonsense." - No, it is not nonsense. Any act of suppressing relevant information (pictorial or otherwise) amounts to censorship at least to some extent. A "hatnote" in Muhammad article would be nothing short of giving special credence to Islamic tenets; as a matter of fact, "Universal image toggle" reflects a specific POV (namely POV of the offended people) and will be seen as an impetus to self-censorship by Wikipedia itself. None of these is the goal of Wikipedia.

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

I've suggested this idea/guideline change on talk, and will probably just go ahead with it at some point (not here - it's too long now I feel, but elsewhere), as nobody has expressly objected. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Doing my best at keeping good-faith in mind while reading that, but this comment will have to show if it worked. How is it that the basic suggestion; changes to Wikipedia should be based on rational arguments, in any way resulting in Wikiepdia turning to a Orwellian fascist state? It sound crazy, so please, provide some detailed explanation on how one can reach that conclusion. Please use pictures, or if you prefer calligraphy :)

Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project based on an openly editable mode (Wikipedia:About), so yes, Wikipedia can be described as presenting the most accurate and fairly-balanced information, to be read by potentially the broadest possible group of people. The way it manage this, is by being a web-based free-content encyclopedia. I do not think you actually meant to use the word "potentially", but rather, want Wikipedia to be: A encyclopedia read by the most amount of people as possible. No, this is not the goal. Had this been the goal, Wikipedia would encourage soapboxing, Scandal mongering, Opinion pieces, social networking, and newspaper articles as all those would increase the number of readers. Wikipedia is explicitly NOT out to get as much web "hits" as possible, but rather to be a encyclopedia! I rather have a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project than a non-offensive, image-less and perfect work safe site with all white empty pages with no text, no image, or content! I don't think that is actually what you are suggesting, but the amount of hyperbole being brought around in your comment surely suggest it. (as for show/hide concept, my comments will be made there and not here) Belorn (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Try this for AGF you moron: you just based your entire above argument on me "not really meaning" to use the word "potentially". Jesus. Matt Lewis (talk)

Moron? (I don't know about Belorn, but I resent your way of talking and find it truly uncivil) Why do you have to be so uncivil and personal, matt? Brendon is here 21:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note on NOTCENSORED/AGF paradox

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

"Has anyone noticed how people so keen on...ignoring people's "sensitivities".." - Who is keen on (i.e. needlessly in favor of) ignoring people's sensitivities? It is not intentional. If "sensitivities" bar the flow of information then only it can be ignored.

"can be particularly sensitive over 'AGF' being broken?" - If you are referring to me, then I must say, I'm not "sensitive" about the contravention of WP:AGF. I'm just suggesting you a better approach, that's all. Brendon is here 20:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The question is, whose sensitivity, and who decides what is offensive? Offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder; something is offensive only in someone's point of view. To presuppose that anything is offensive as a basis for any action is to actively favor someone's point of view.--New questions? 18:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Right you are! Brendon is here 20:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't be so ignorant of basic Wikipedia policy - this is not about 'predisposing' anything. Wikipedia works on reliable sources - which here must show that sufficient offence is taken. The weight given to the sources (and what they actually say) should be decided by various policy and consensus of course if needed.

Obviously no one is arguing over the amount of Muslims who would rather the image wasn't shoved under their noses! NO reliable sources out there are claiming that the amount Muslims taking offence isn't real, or is 'exaggerated' etc - it is a clear cut fact that a significant number of Muslims do not wish to see an image of Mohammad.

The only 'opposing' position is entirely the 'POV' of certain Wikipedians - namely, that the offence taken by Muslim people must be actively ignored by Wikipedia, rather than simply worked around with no bother to anyone. They base this rude and encyclopedia-narrowing position on supposed 'principles' extrapolated from NOTCENSORED. All the other arguments they've used to back themselves up are just meaningless waffle (as if misusing NOTCENSORED isn't bad enough - there is no way it was intended for point-making and controversy-creating, all in the face of offending people unnecessarily like this). Matt Lewis (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

@Matt

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

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

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

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

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

I think all of us ought to learn what the word "Policy" means. Brendon is here 21:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Brendon - image choice is only "censorship" in from your embittered viewpoint: to most people it is just an extra step to see a 'forbidden' image that causes many people offence (or visa versa if the less preferable approach is taken). It could be said that you are censoring the fact that images can simply be chosen to be seen - by constantly claiming it is censorship to "hide" them. It could be said that you are censoring the entire Mohammad page from those who see the image as forbidden - because clearly you have a problem with them being religious.

So who is doing the censoring here? Wikipedia pages are intended to be viewed by the broadest possible readership while keeping their value intact. It's perfectly possible to do that in this case, but you just don't want it to happen. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I've got some serious reservations about this line of thinking. First you say, "Wikipedia pages are intended to be viewed by the broadest possible readership" then you annex, "while keeping their value intact." - You are wrong again, Matt. You don't even realise that the two criteria are contesting criteria and cannot coexist in some cases (e.g. where offensiveness of a reliable content is cited as a sole argument for the removal of that content).

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

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

Reply to Matt Lewis: Reliable sources can be a good way of finding out the points of views that certain people hold. However, even if a thousand reliable sources say "group X says that something is offensive," it only shows that it is group X's point of view; it does not prove that it is "absolutely and objectively offensive," if such a phrase means anything at all. By the way, the offense taken by Muslims is not ignored; it is duly noted in the relevant articles. However, to do anything policy-wise on the basis of a point of view is to favor that point of view.--New questions? 20:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The suggested guideline change is on Sensitive religious imagery - ie images that are forbidden to certain people and would stop them reading the article. It's only being suggesting because its an easy remedy that doesn't harm anyone - it's not censorship in any form.

Offence is always described as being "taken" - who on earth calls it an absolute value? If there is proof that sufficient offence is taken, and we know that it stops people from reading the article, the only question to ask is; can that be rectified without losing the value of the page? It can - easily.

The fact that the Mohammad articles explain why the images are forbidden to many people simply makes it even worse that those articles also force people to encounter them. It is just so needless, and the articles only do it because it satisfies the POV of people who demand it does so - on at best a misguided principal (a bad reason), and at worse their filthy prejudice. Without guidelines Wikipedia always falls at the edit table. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It is also a clear cut fact that a overwhelming majority of Wikipedia readers do not take offense to those images. This is also not the only minority group feeling offended by something. It is a clear cut fact that some do not like nudity. It is also a clear cut fact that some takes offensive to violence, grafically describe in articles like Torture and Riot. And why should only images be effected? Sections like criticism on articles about politicians offends a real large group of people. This also a clear cut fact. Should we not include a HIDE/VIEW with default hidden to sections like that? If the goal is to not offend any verifiable offended group, then there is a long list of places needed to be fixed on Wikipedia. Alternative, we could just "fix" this page and say this one should get an exception because. Belorn (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comparisons are simply odious here. A guideline like the one I propose focuses on forbidden religious imagery, and how it should be chosen to be seen. It doesn't have to go anywhere else - in fact, whether similar guidelines should happen elsewhere or not is totally irrelevant. The idea of floodgates opening is insidious in the extreme. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you are making a "suggested guideline change," comparisons are very relevant, although since you narrowed it down to "religious imagery," Belorn's comparisons are a little off the mark. Still, by narrowing it down to "religious imagery," that is a supposition that religious images ought to get special treatment different from other kinds of images. Such special treatment inherently favors one point of view, that religious images are somehow special.--New questions? 21:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Having a guideline on forbidden religious imagery does not somehow treat other images unfairly. Look, any issues surrounding other images are issues with those other images - MOS:images can have as many sections as it needs, as do all MOS guidelines. If you read my proposed text it is an entirely specific and recommended action, and even allows for article-specific consensus. And it's all linked to choice. It's not censorship, it's just standard encyclopedia building. Show me one without extensive compilation guidelines - you won't find one. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Without a good rationale to single out religious imagery other than "it causes offense," it does treat other images unfairly, especially since other images can also be considered offensive just the same way as for religious imagery.--New questions? 23:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And who judges what is sensible and what is not. Who judges what is offensive and what is not? Who can so boldly (and fallaciously) claim to speak for the "most"? No one. It's absolutely needless. The proposal above sums it up. Brendon is here 18:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

We make judgements about what is offensive all the time. See Wikipedia:GFFENSE. By including images that are merely decorative, but which we know exclude a large number of readers who would otherwise have an interest in the article, we are slanting the article away from those readers' viewpoint, which is an effective form of censorship.--agr (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. By placing a 'forbidden' image under someone's nose you are essentially making it impossible for them to read the article at all. I do think it's worth having a specific guideline here though, esp as it can refer to per-image toggle graphics (in an 'off' state), which presumably is possible to do. Wikipedia is just too inherently inclusionist to never show things like this at all imo. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

People can view the entire website with images disabled. It is not very difficult to do so, as most standard browsers have such a feature.--New questions? 23:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

How kind of you to allow them that. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That is correct. People can already view the entire website without images. So no further measures are needed.--New questions? 03:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Which is what the above proposal is all about.

"By placing a 'forbidden' image under someone's nose you are essentially making it impossible for them to read the article at all." -

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

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

Just going to cite what Wikipedia:GFFENSE say, with my own added markup.

Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. and: A "typical Wikipedia reader" is defined by the cultural beliefs of the majority of the website readers (not active editors) that are literate in an article's language. Clarifying this viewpoint may require a broad spectrum of input and discussion, as cultural views can differ widely.

If you can provide verifiable proof that a majority of the readers are offended, and that the solution you are providing a equally suitable alternative, then and only then do Wikipedia:GFFENSE encourage the actions being suggested with Calligraphy and removal of the images. Any form of disclaimers (hat notes are a form of disclaimers) are still explicitly said to not be used. Belorn (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:GFFENSE treats images differently. "Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, Wikipedia does not prefer the most offensive options merely to "show off" its ability to include possibly offensive materials. Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship." Here we have multiple options: calligraphy, veiled images and unveiled images. The images most offensive to Muslims are not necessary for this article, they are merely decorative. And there is no requirement for "proof that a majority of the readers are offended" in the text I quoted.--agr (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The "merely decorative" argument has been explicitly and categorically rejected by many who have participated in this RfC. The images are included because most editors over the years feel they are directly related to and supported by the text of the article, and their removal world make the article a poorer work. Tarc (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that say the images depict what Muhammad actually looked like, quite the opposite; so, yes, they are just decorative. And yes, in general, decorative images are valuable and not including them can make an article poorer. But excluding a large body of potential editors who have a strong interest in the article does much more damage to the article's integrity, in my opinion, than any of the proposals on the table here. Wikipedia:GFFENSE suggests balancing such concerns, not taking the most extreme position. --agr (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The ancient devotees (Muslims themselves) who drew/used these images for illustrating biographies of the prophet, found them educational (as do majority of editors commenting here). So, the idea that they "add nothing" is refuted by the material itself. And it should not come as a terrible shock to see portraits of Muhammad in an article about Muhammad, should it?

Also, the pictures do show how that one part of Islamic culture viewed or depicted him.

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

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

In fact, editors are allowed to decorate their articles with pertinent images and all they should make sure is that the images are treated in a proper encyclopaedic manner. Brendon is here 00:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for the claim that Muslims (who were not "ancient" btw) including figurative depictions of Muhammed in manuscripts did so for "educational," reasons? It is safe to assume that they had reasons to add the depictions, but to assume that it was consciously in service of "education" in the sense of what we're trying to do here in a modern encyclopedia is not something you or I can do. So where are your sources? To anyone who knows a lick about Muhammad as a cultural/historical figure it does actually come as a shock to see depictions of him in an article about him. In fact that's the very point of arguing against using these images as educationally distorting. I hate to say this but Brendon your perspective appears to be filtered through a narrow cultural (and historical) imperialism, through which apparently you assume that only your particular Western, modern version of reality is sensible. In fact much of this discussion reeks of the same and it's a down right shame. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Your questions are as irrelevant and as inane as the question "do you have a reliable source (reliability is sometimes subjective also) claiming that Muhammad was even a human?" (Do I need to elaborate more?)

Is it not obvious why they drew Muhammad's portraits?

And why are we now talking about primitiveness of images anyway, I thought we were talking about the relevance of offensiveness of images. What does it matter if it was 8th century or 9th century when they depicted Muhammad? While depicting any other historical personality we don't ask these questions because they are not pertinent. Regardless of the age of these images they are depictions of Muhammad by Muslims themselves. Muhammad is constantly depicted even today.

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

Narrative images illustrating sections on mythical or historical events add (1) prettiness (2) an aid to visualization and memory and (3) examples of historical styles of depiction - a subject utterly irrelevant to the sections they illustrate. Does that value outweigh the disaffection they cause? I believe it does not. Adding images that are both of little value to the section they're illustrating, and offensive to many readers, works against this project's mission to make knowledge as widely available as possible.

Brendon asserts that sensitivity of the reader doesn't actually matter, so even miniscule educational value outweighs our non-existent concern for disaffecting our readers. But the notion that sensitivity of the reader doesn't matter is deeply irrational and dysfunctional, so employing it as an editorial guiding principle needs to be thoroughly justified. Can you do that? Can you explain why an encyclopedia should pay no attention to the offensiveness of its content Brendon?

This RfC was ill-conceived. The root question has always been, Should we take account of offensiveness and, if so, under what circumstances and to what degree? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

We should not take account of offensiveness, since offensiveness is always subjective. Unless, of course you can find a way for something to be "objectively" offensive, which I do not quite believe to be possible.--New questions? 13:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"But the notion that sensitivity of the reader doesn't matter is deeply irrational and dysfunctional" - I can sense some abhorrence and undue acerbity in this apparently illogical and overly-simplistic comment.

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

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

That's absurd. By the same logic civility is "subjective" so lets get rid of WP:CIVIL. In fact even "vandalism" is subjective, requiring editors to make a judgement call about how someone's edits are affecting the project and perhaps more importantly making a judgement call that those effects are themselves unwanted, so let's get rid of WP:VANDAL. What we do when we make decisions here is by its nature "subjective." The "that's subjective" argument holds about as much water as the Sahara.Griswaldo (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that the civility policy is one of the more problematic ones for being so subjective (and it definitely has caused a ton of trouble in the past due to this subjectivity), but I won't get into that. I think that "vandalism" is often objective enough. In any case, given how subjective policies like civility are often a cause of trouble due to their subjectivity, I think that introducing even more subjectivity is not the best way to resolve problems.--New questions? 14:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You've missed the point entirely. 'All of our policies are subjective and enforcing our policies is also subjective. What we can accomplish, and hopefully do most of the time, are versions of subjectivity that are held by most of the people in the community. Indeed that's the very nature of democratic rule within any community. But common understandings don't make things "objective." So the fact that offensiveness is subjectively experienced and/or has to be subjectively adjudicated is not an argument that in itself has any value. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

@Griswaldo,

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

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

"Offensiveness" may or may not be a relevant reason to present a subject matter in one way or another but it has nothing to do with subjectivity. That's my point. So if you are trying to argue against offensiveness as a relevant reason then find a sensible argument. That's all I'm saying. "It's subjective" is nonsensical for the reasons I've outlined already. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think, I'm confused. Are you saying that “"Offensiveness" ... has nothing to do with subjectivity”? One thing may be offensive to you though I do not find it unsavory, that's subjective. I'm quite certain that you're saying something else.

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

You are confused but I don't know how many times I can repeat the same thing before you understand. Of course offensiveness has to do with subjectivity but ... here's the important part ... SO DOES EVERYTHING ELSE WE ADJUDICATE HERE. This means all policy is subjective. What I said is not that offensiveness isn't subjective, but that the subjectivity of something is not a logical reason for dismissing it as a basis for policy or more generally for acting in some way or another (which is what you are trying to do). You are the one citing "subjectivity" as a basis for arguing against offensiveness and that is nonsensical. I'm not repeating myself again. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No, not everything is subjective. This sort of generalizations are not very conducive. And also, coherence helps.

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

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

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

Permissibility of Images of Muhammad in Islam

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

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

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

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

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

Most of what is mention in there is not relevant to the discussion. Interpretations of Islamic law are not the point and they never have been. There are two primary objections to the use or more fairly overuse of figurative images in the entry.

• The use/overuse of figurative images is WP:UNDUE in the sense that it doesn't accurately represent the Muhammad we know from history because it uses very uncommon ways of representing him. It is also anti-educational because of this, since it presents a distorted picture of Muhammad.
• The use/overuse of figurative images is offensive to many Muslims who believe that it is against their religion to view such images.

Neither of these have anything to do with the accuracy of someone's interpretation of hadith. The first argument is based in historical fact and the prominence of one image tradition over the other. The second argument is based on what contemporary Muslims believe. Ankimai can say that their beliefs aren't based in Islamic law as much as he wants but that doesn't change the fact that they are offended.Griswaldo (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"Interpretations of Islamic law are not the point and they never have been." - You're trying to misguide people again by muddying the issue.

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

Your first point about accuracy of Muhammad-images is incoherent gibberish which have been addressed multiple times in this very RfC (in the above section too). I won't repeat that.

"many Muslims who believe that it is against their religion" - It's not Wikipedia's responsibility to cater to the unsubstantiated, irrational demands based on false beliefs.

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

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

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

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

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

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