Talk:Muhammad

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article, and removal of pictures without discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images will be reverted. If you find these images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display them; for instructions, see the FAQ. Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images.

Important notice: Wikipedia's Muhammad FAQ addresses some common points of argument, such as the use of images and honorifics such as "peace be upon him". The FAQ represents the consensus of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read the FAQ first.

---

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Image archives 1, 2, 3, 4 Mediation Archives Request for Clarification/Muslim Guild Statements Clarity discussion/Refining positions Ars' final archive The rest of the mediation by Ars Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive Index

Need clarification

Hi folks, just asking for a clarification here: " and after eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, his followers, who by then had grown to ten thousand, conquered Mecca." In this instance, does "conquered" refer to a violent event, or is it meant in the spiritual sense? Thanks, Duagloth (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How would one conquer a city spiritually? Arrow740 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Willing conversion, capturing the hearts and minds of the people. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

They knew they had no chance so they surrendered. There were some forced conversions, however. Arrow740 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Duagloth, the conquest of Mecca was peaceful. Muhammad asked two or three persons to leave Mecca before he enters it unless they convert (what Arrow is calling forced conversion). --Be happy!! (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources actually differ. One source says that everyone in Mecca converted to Islam, "willingly or unwillingly," while others indicate that this was not the case. It is more certain that there were twenty or so holdouts who were killed when Muhammad took over. Arrow740 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

it seems clarification is required. The word conquer must not be used here, and its unaccurate. When Muhammad peace upon him started telling people about Islam, he was fought by people because it asked for justice and equality between poor and the rich. the Rich didnt like that and started their voilance and tortures on everyone that became a muslims. suprisingly people still converted, and the tortures only increased.which caused Muhammad and his followers to leave THEIR OWN COUNTRY,LAND, MONEY, HOUSES AND OTHER BELONGINGS, and they only cared for their believes. Muslims and those who tortured them came to an agreement to stop any fights, but it was voilated by the Mekkah people, and as a result Muslims went to Mekkah to regain what is actually theirs. even though they muslims were stronger, all those who tortured them in the past were forgiven. In islam there is not such thing as forcing people to be muslims, so those who converted done it on their own. they might have done it for their own reasons, but at the end it was their desicion. So conquer is when a person takes a land that doesnt belong to him, take it by force, and oppress its people. not return to your own house after you were forced out of it, and forgive those who actually hurt you and fought you for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.40.174 (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

'Conquered' just means that Muhammad assumed control of Mecca, the Kaaba etc. It doesn't imply a great deal of violence, though some did take place, most notably the list of individuals to be killed on sight. However, there was much less violence than in other battles, thus 'conquest' is more appropriate than 'battle' or 'raid' in this context. This is also the word used by Al-Tabari (volume 8, page 160) in the headline of that very chapter. The term 'Gazwa' (a raid led by Muhammad himself) is of course appropriate, too. There were 27 of those recorded, and many were significantly more violent than the conquest of Mecca. I think 'conquest' is a nice, non-offensive term that describes events appropriately. Sources: Ibn Ishaq, Al-Tabari Henrik R Clausen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.57.133.219 (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Captured" seems like a better synonym, with less baggage. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

why cant i edit this page ?

last time i heard every one was allowed to edit wikipedia, what happened to that ? this is sad. please explain the reasoning behing this.

--digitalSurgeon (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Roughly speaking, persistant vandalism of the page has forced us to disabling editing for anonymous editors and new accounts. Accounts older than four days can still edit normally. Although sad, it's truly necessary, feel free to peruse the history to see what's happened when protection has been lifted. WilyD 17:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The page is fully protected now (i.e., not even fully registered ordinary editors can edit), presumably because of a petition currently circulating against Wikipedia protesting the inclusion of images. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The page was fully protected due to the edit warring over the images. Nakon 21:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fully protected because editors keep coming in and removing the images, changing them, or just in general creating a ruckus. Jmlk17 21:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So it was, I'll change the template. WilyD 21:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So the page is only editable by those in favour of upsetting Muslims..? If its been protected why hasnt a version that does not depict his picture be protected?

Because we're not censored, and no page exists that is censored. Jmlk17 01:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Because we only have one version of an article and the consensus of the editors here is that the pictures should remain in the article. --Fredrick day (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Because we're not censored" - But are happy knowing that Muslims are deeply upset by it, and have also removed their privilages of removing the image. To be fair its a page about Muhammad; the picture's do not educate the visitors about him in the slightest bit. Not what I thought wikipedia was about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.106.104 (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Until recently, neither I nor any other non-administrator could edit the article either. Additionally, I find the images to be very relevant and useful.--C.Logan (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of sites our there that will willingly censor and cave into demands for it. But Wikipedia is a site that does not do that... no one is forcing you to view the pictures, and as we are not censored (again), we do not have to cave into demands and outrages. It's what makes us special. Jmlk17 01:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not about caving into demands. There's no need to be defensive about all this. Just need to be a little sensible. The bottom line is, that the pictures "do not add any value" to the article. Rather it has already upset over 80,000 muslims who have petitioned against it. Further to this you have removed their privilages of removing material that is irrelevant to who Muhammad was.

(od) Actually, I find the images highly relevant, and informative. Historical depictions of Muhammad are notable, and belong in an article discussing him. Resolute 02:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In what sensible way are they relevent? They obviously do not look like him. He (Muhammad) obviously did not want depictions of him. There is NO relevance and NO extra knowledge on him is gained. "belong in an article discussing him" - with the protection of the article in favour of those who are happy with upsetting the Muslims, I fail to see the discussion as you have described. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.106.104 (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

They are relevant in that they depict how Muslims viewed Muhammad. Your modern desires to have the images removed do not trump the historical value of them. As far as protecting the article in favour of those that are "happy with upsetting Muslims", it is your decision to view the article, any offence is yours alone. Of course, while you may choose to convince yourself that this is some kind of anti-Muslim stance, I note in the edit history that vandals have attacked this article numerous times when it was not protected. The protection works both ways, and has helped prevent petty vandalism aimed specifically at upsetting Muslims. Resolute 15:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In the way that no one knows what Muhammad would have though, and that they are in for educational purposes. End of story. Jmlk17 08:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"In the way that no one knows what Muhammad would have though," - theres something quite not right about the grammar there. "and that they are in for educational purposes" - like I said, in what sensible way do they educate the reader about who Muhammad was?. "End of story." - Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.106.104 (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason why the picture shouldn't be included given that historical pictures of Jesus are included.TCPWIKI (talk)

historical pictures of [[Jesus]] are included? Is this relevant in this case. Did anyone ask for the removal of pictures of Jesus(PBUH).

No, but that's part of the point. Jmlk17 06:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

But if the was a large number of people who we're upset by it, they would and should be allowed to remove it. I believe called democracy, not freedom to insult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.106.104 (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is, first and foremost, not a democracy- of course, what you seem to be claiming doesn't appear to have direct relevance to the concept in any case. Wikipedia has rules, and operates by general consensus. One of our foundational rules is that we do not censor images or text though it may offend some individuals or groups of people. Ever. Consensus has determined that these pictures are of value to the subject, and have great historical relevance as well.

This is a secular encyclopedia, and therefore religious considerations do not play a factor in presentation. These are images created by Muslims with the intent of depicting Muhammad. They are what they are, so I fail to see the bitterness over a non-Muslim encyclopedia displaying images pertaining to the subject.--C.Logan (talk) 10:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy and neither is the United States. Learn some history! The United States is a democratic republic and is not a nation governed by mob rule, it is a nation governed by the rule of law, one of which states that we have freedom of speech. The image has a right to be posted and you have a right to complain and Wikipedia has the right to deny. Lunchboxem (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)lunchboxem

• snip*Consensus has determined that these pictures are of value to the subject, and have great historical relevance as well.*endsnip* - Consensus of a few who are happy to insult Muslims verses the conses of the hundreds of thousands who have already expressed their disapproval. *snip*and have great historical relevance as well.*endsnip* - Maybe the history of paintings, but it has little relevance to the topic of Muhammad which the article is about. Bearing in mind that Muhammad did not approve of any artform depicting him. It is understood by Wikipedia that this upsets Muslims very much. Responding with those who do not wish to see should not come here is weak. It does not take a genius to work out that a large proportion of visitors to this page are Muslim, it is a large proportion that Wikipedia are willing to upset, knowing that its against what Muhammad and Islam teaches, with material that has no relevance to the article. Wiki has protected this article in the name of protecting against vandalism. However, it appears that that the piece that is being protected has been vandalised in the greatest way. *snip*so I fail to see the bitterness over a non-Muslim encyclopedia displaying images pertaining to the subject.*endsnip* - you just have to look atthe number of people who are upset by it to understand. you just have to look into what Muhammad said about depictions about him to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.114.50.132 (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, sorry you're upset, but honestly, these relevant and artful images are here to stay, and in a non-censored website, they have no right to be removed. Jmlk17 18:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a solution. Could the pictures be on a different page (linked). Something like Muhammad(Pictures) - This article could discuss beliefs about images of Muhammad as well as the pictures. It might be less offensive and (I feel) reduce the dispute about this article.

use of "to conquer"

Don't do this please. You r not alloed to Draw Picture of Muhammad (PBUH) Please Rempve them Adnan (ISB) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.177.146 (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 212.116.219.107 (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Irfan

You are not "alloed" to tell us what is allowed and what isn't allowed. Most of the world isn't Muslim, doesn't want to be Muslim, and would fight if Muslims tried to impose it on them. Get over it.Scott Adler (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure we are, wikipedia is not an islamic encyclopedia. We don't follow islamic law. Zazaban (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You dont have to follow islamic Laws to give respect to others' feelings. and to what laws do u really follow ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Censorship is different than respecting others feelings. Should we delete the article on Masturbation or anal sex because the subject matter is often considered offensive? No. And about the laws; I am an anarchist, so I don't suppose I do follow a set of laws. I don't find them to be useful or justified. Neither is censorship. Zazaban (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think, you are missing the point Zazaban. I suggest you get yourself more educated on the prophet Muhammad, before posting comments.

^^^ This is hilarious. I actually almost because a muslim once, and joined an islamic forum. Not to mention the huge interest I have in religion. I've read the entire history of Muhmmad's life several times for god's sake! I suggest you get yourself more educated on Zazaban, before posting comments. Also, how on earth am I missing the point? Could you be willing to explain that one? Zazaban (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think, you are missing the point Random Anonymous Person, I suggest you get yourself more educated on the website Wikipedia, before posting comments. JuJube (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that.--C.Logan (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If one looks into the English translations of the Sirat, the works 'fight', 'battle', 'raid' and 'attack' are used more or less interchangeably, and it is described in detail how the Muslims conquer settlements and share the booty (as per Sura 8). 'Conquest' is an appropriate term to use, and is surely less aggressive than the terms 'raid' or 'attack' used in the scripture. Avoiding 'conquest' would constitute undue whitewashing. References: Ibn Ishaq & Al-Tabari, tables of content. Henrik R Clausen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.57.133.219 (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Is full protection necessary?

Is it necessary? Most of editwars seems to come from new accounts or IPs. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

A number are coming from sleeper accounts as well though, hence the full. :) Jmlk17 23:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, blocking such persistent accounts seems to a better choice because after expiration of this protection, the edit war may resume again. Those accounts have to learn that like it or not, they are a pushing a minority view. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll reduce the protection to semi for a while and see what happens. If the edit warring over the images resumes, I'll reprotect. Nakon 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it as well. Let's hope it works! Jmlk17 00:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand, since many editors are editting the images, then obviously there is a quite enough number of writers who want these images out... isnt this the purpose of wikipedia. Or those images are so important to stay that you even violate the whole reason wikiperdia was established on.

Anyone is free to edit Wikipedia... constructively. This whole removing the established, purposeful, and relevant image thing isn't constructive. Jmlk17 04:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> Since people refuse to talk on this talk page, and continue to remove and revert the images out of the article, it has to be fully protected again. Jmlk17 07:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

By your logic, since there's quite a number of editors who seem to think the Earth article should be replaced by "Mostly harmless", we should go ahead and let them. JuJube (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, remember that wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy, but a ... fact-ocracy. NPOVarchy. Whatever. Those are the principles on which WP was founded on - principles trump concensus.--Wikinterpreter (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see any "factual" resemblance of the images to Muhammad. Not that he allowed anyone to make drawings of him. In fact the images on this article have no purpose other than upsetting the Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.106.104 (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you are upset. But that alone is no reason to remove the images. Jmlk17 08:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well if you've read any of the above, it is not that alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.106.104 (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The images aren't here to upset Muslims. They are here because of their historical relevance and the related educational value and relevance to the subject which they possess.--C.Logan (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Appearance of Muhammad

Any idea how one can incorporate this kind of information to the article [1]? in a table with the subtitle "Appearance and Manner"? --Be happy!! (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My question would be - is it necessary to include such a level of detail in physical description in this article? It is fairly long as it is. ^Avruchtalk 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the appearance information seem to be interesting especially when we have reliable sources talking about it. Some readers might be interested to see how Muhammad looked like. That would in part address some of the objection made above regarding the informativeness of the drawings.--Be happy!! (talk)

I'm not sure how - I would much rather see a visual depiction of his appearance than try to imagine it based on written descriptions. Not the most neutral of descriptions in this case, either. ^Avruchtalk 00:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is important to have these descriptions, because these descriptions are more valid and correct, since it came from people who actually saw the prophet. While the depiction, no one can be sure of its truthfullness since, non were drawn while he was alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince charming456 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And we know that how? JuJube (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

you will find that documented in all the Islamic books talking about the prophet peace upon him. the same description is everywhere. no one has changed or added to it a single world. that is verified scientifically. You may refer to any book talking about the descritpions of the prophet, and make sure yourself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 (talk • contribs) 18:39, February 3, 2008 (UTC)

It may be "documented in all the Islamic books..." and so on (and I would be interested in seeing how you scientifically document that not one jot nor tittle has been altered), but what remains is that images of Mohammed were made, both historically and in contemorary times. I understand that displaying these images may be offensive to some Muslims, but you are in a free forum here. If you do not wish to be offended, then do not come. As long as the facts are correct, then they may be displayed. The depictions exist, ergo they may be displayed. There are MANY depictions of Christianity (and Christ) I find offensive, but in a society with freedom of speech and freedom of expression these depictions cannot be censored (nor would I want them to be. God is bigger than that). Indeed the highest command of Christianity is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I do not wish MY speech to be censored or restrained, and hence I must respect others right to say what they will (with obvious exceptions, "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre). MY faith is not damaged by what OTHERS say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.198.192 (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

FAQ improvement possibility.

Even though it seems that nobody even bothers to read the FAQ, it could certainly be a bit more solid and developed. We've gotten a few arguments which, while still utterly flawed, are semi-common and deserve a clear response (lest others follow in these same footsteps).

There are, I think, some fundamental misunderstandings between the resident editors and these concerned visitors. Notice, for example, the difficulty found in grasping simple concepts such as "illustrative depiction". Notice one of the poorest and yet most prevalent argument: that the images are "incorrect".

The FAQ touches on these arguments, but it could certainly do much more. Let's not let this plague of topics and repetitive posting go to waste- incorporate some of the discussion into the FAQ. Perhaps it would be best to start with an introduction which explains- generally- the concepts of "depiction", "neutrality", "censorship". After this introduction, a presentation of the common arguments/questions would be appropriate. I hope somebody agrees on this; the FAQ is a nice tool that we can turn to, but it's only moderately effective at this point. Improving it will save everyone quite a bit of time in the future, as all major arguments will already have a clear response.--C.Logan (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Want me to give it a try? Maybe I should try it anyway... Be bold and all. What do you think? -- RaspK FOG (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by all means.--C.Logan (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

pictures, wikipedia servers

Since Wikipedia servers are located in Florida, does that mean if someone proposes an initiative in Florida to ban pictures of muhammed from being shown and it passes then Wikipedia would have to remove thier pictures no matter what the consensus is?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.251.11 (talk • contribs) 04:33, February 3, 2008 (UTC-6)

no, the proposition would have to be passed into law, and that would never happen. Zazaban (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not at all how it works. That would be complete and utter censorship, as well as a free speech issue. Jmlk17 10:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The servers aren't all based in Florida, and the company is now incorporated in California. Still, if California tried to pass such a law it would get knocked down pretty quick in federal court. Good thought though. ^Avruchtalk 14:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

First amendment, anonymous genius. JuJube (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, JuJube. I was going to say that... haha. нмŵוτнτ 16:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to play the Devil's Advocate here, but say it was actually passed into law. Then what? --64.173.240.130 (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It would mean we're now living in a police state, and wikipedia would probably already be gone. 132.170.160.115 (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends on whether the foundation is willing to spend money on a court case they could win with ease - they might, they might not. We'd have to see. WilyD 16:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the foundation would even have to do anything. Civil Rights groups would do the work for it. Courts would immediately squash the law as unconstitutional, both as a violation of the right to free speech, and on the separation of church and state. There isn't a politician in the US who would want his name associated with a bill that would be unconstitutional. Resolute 16:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A new suggestion

I have a new suggestion. The page Muhammad redirects into a disambiguation page like this [2] in which two versions of the article are presented. One with images and the other without images. The editors can then choose the version they want to see. This is not censoring because the readers can simply choose their preferred version. It will not set a precedent for say pornography pictures because those who get offended by the pornography pictures are not very likely to visit the related articles while those who are Muslim are likely to visit Muhammad, so the very higher chance. So it can not serve as a precedent as such. Furthermore, it will not really be a fork because the two versions differ only in terms of the images. In fact, we may be able to recall the same article with a parameter showing the choice of pictures being shown or not being shown (just like templates can receive parameters)--Be happy!! (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am against this idea. I understand what you are saying, but where would we draw the line? This could easily start a precedent where we have a censored and uncensored version of Wikipedia for everything potentially offensive. What's next? An article explaining pornography without images because someone might get offended? I'm not trying to compare the two, but I hope you get where I am coming from. Jmlk17 10:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is where we draw the line: If many editors visit an article while not expecting to be exposed to an image causing "shock, disgust, or revulsion", then that should be avoided without any prior notification. This is like the R-rated notice at the beginning of films, or other such notices that are common. When an editor visits pornography articles, by virtue of doing that, he should however expect to see something of that sort there and no prior notice is necessary. I think this can be made more precise if needed. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure how others feel about the issue, but at the time I see no problem with the possibility of "warnings"- we have them already, I believe, for plot information and the like. Of course, I'm speaking of warnings which would be placed on the page itself. The inclusion of a warning or note on the page (as is the case on the Bahá'u'lláh page) is hardly objectionable.--C.Logan (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If we can place the "warnings" before people actually see the images, that would be great. If they are further given the chance to choose one version or the other, that would be better. This way everybody would be happy. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How is it NOT a content folk? This will never fly because of the precendent it would set. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Placing this here due to edit conflicts:

It is really up to community judgment whether or not this would count as a violation of WP:POVFORK. Additionally, this will still likely set a precedent: other articles with "offensive" imagery would have a prior case for the justification of "censored" forks being created in those instances as well.

These are all simply patchy solutions to a problem which exists only in the minds of a particular group of users- a group which, as has apparently been evidenced, misunderstand policies and concepts which drive Wikipedia and other encyclopedias as well (no offense to Aminz, who is clearly trying to provide productive solutions to satisfy all parties).

I am no veteran of prior discussion on this issue, so I can't say I am familiar with the original arguments "for" and "against" the inclusion of these images in the original discussion (which led to the current decision). Therefore, I am unaware as to whether or not anyone has elucidated on Muslim concerns with both articulation and familiarity with policies (and a thorough understanding of opposing arguments). The current posts, sincere though they may be, are entirely useless as they do not understand the requirements placed upon editors and/or the founding principles of this encyclopedia.

I personally do not quite understand the stigma with images in the context of an encyclopedia reporting in the interest of neutrality. I see images which may seem offensive to me, but I do not object to the right to intellectual interest and freedom. I can separate, in my mind, that which I believe and must ascribe to and that which is apparent and which, quite simply, is "out there" in the world. Because I feel this way, it is difficult for me to agree with requests for removal out of "respect", as it appears quite clear to me to be an infringement upon my own personal rights and upon the rights of other users who aren't obligated to abide by religious requirements.

There are two possible solutions for bridging this apparent gap in thinking: first, that we utilize the most recent discussions as a guideline to expand the FAQ. This will save us a great deal of time in the future, as I feel that if the FAQ reaches a point where it can truly "speak for itself", then we will have more time to devote to actually improving the article. Second, I feel that a user who may understand the concerns of these users should address the issues with policy in mind; for example, Aminz or any other user who may themselves be more familiar with these concepts may wish to point out which arguments should be discarded completely (being indefensible in the face of policy) and which should be given due consideration (preferably because of the possible flexibility of policy rather than due to the personal feelings of the user).

I suggest this latter possibility because it will improve the FAQ itself, and because I worry that, as I have noted above, there appears to be a mistranslation between the (largely "Western") editors here and the anons/new users so concerned with removing the images. While I feel that "no censorship" is a policy we should abide by without compromise, I also feel that we should be respectful of the concerns of others (no matter how many times arguments are heard and how "straw-grasping" they may seem to us) and should be certain that we answer all concerns so that, if even by a remote chance, one might leave the discussion with a sense of understanding as to why Wikipedia is so staunch in keeping the pictures, and why (despite what our underlying suspicions may cause us to believe) no one is intentionally trying to anger or offend anyone else.

The freedom we cherish in the Western world can be a double-edged sword, to be sure- but the risk is worth taking. We do not censor material, and if the integrity of the site is to be preserved, we will never do so. Let's keep in mind why we're here, and make sure that the uninitiated may understand why as well.--C.Logan (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Arguments about offensiveness etc. aside, there is another argument that doesn't really wash. That is the contention that it's not an accurate reflection of its subject. It's quite clear that we aren't attempting to depict the topic, but rather show how he has been depicted in tradition. The contention raised by myself and others during mediation was that the tradition of depicting Muhammad, while it indeed existed, was itself not highly prevalent in Muslim hagiographic representation or veneration. Thus, to prominently place several depictions is too overt, too flagrant, and unbalanced. It's an overstatement of a relatively minority tradition, and this is where IMO WP:UNDUE comes into play. I have no problem with two depictions (for example) in the article, one in the depictions section, and another which illustrates a significant event like Isra/Mi'raj. To me, that's a balanced representation, and while this issue was debated for months a number of us saw this as the middle way between incendiary picture-spamming and censorship, as well as being based upon sound understanding of policy. Perhaps this perspective can be revisited, and hopefully result in a more stable article in the long run? ITAQALLAH 17:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Zazaban (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

But why would it? Who's turned up asking for only one image to be presented? nobody. It wouldn't solve a thing. --Fredrick day (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's still a good idea regardless of whether it would help in this catastrophe. Zazaban (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick, I think a lot of people feel offended because of how overt it is in the presentation. To be frank, it just looks like it's calculated to offend, and I can understand why many people who may be more 'moderate' would instantly feel provoked when barraged with a string of depictions (which itself is an unbalanced representation). I might also note that many of those who had strongly 'opposed' any sort of images during the mediation were indeed willing to accept images in the article so long as they weren't of the kind of overtness we see now. ITAQALLAH 18:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe Itaqallah has a valid point. I read some comments comparing the depicting of Muhammad with the depicting of Jesus, this is unfair. I believe the depicting of Jesus is a common practice in the Christian history, unlike the depicting of Muhammad in the Islamic history. So putting 3 pictures in the article is an overstatement of the practice. (Imad marie (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

It is not the purpose of the article to adhere to Islamic practice. Even if Muhammad was never depicted by Muslims - which is not the case - it would still have no bearing on the article. Wikipedia is not bound by Muslim law or tradition. TharkunColl (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read what he said, or did you just write a knee-jerk reply? Zazaban (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said it was, TharkunColl. ITAQALLAH 19:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

To be frank, I have to disagree. There is nothing "overt" about the number of images in the article as it stands, and removing one or two to placate special interests will not resolve the issue. Rather, it would only serve to inflame it, since "hey, we got them to back down this far, press harder and they will cave altogether!" Three depictions of Muhammad in an article of that length is adequate, if not under-represented. The goal here is not to reduce the "overtness" of the images, but to bend the will of a secular community to that of a religious belief. And that belief, as presented here, is "remove all images". Disagree strongly with that argument. Resolute 00:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not focus on the cynicism in your post, I certainly have no intention to "placate special interests" in my appeal to neutrality and balance, and I fully understand what NOT#CENSORED means. If you truly believe I'm being disingenuous here, then please be forthright about it.

For the record, we are talking about four depictions, all prominently positioned in the top half of the article (even moreso before Aminz had recently diffused the redundant Overview section). Our neutrality policies refer to non-text features of an article as much as they do text features. Prominence, placement, number, general presentation. These all have an effect on the balance of an article. As a historical tradition and art form, depictions of Muhammad weren't nearly as prevalent as other forms venerative of Muhammad, calligraphy for example. There's nothing wrong in representing that tradition in this article with a few pictures. I do see something wrong when this tradition is given undue focus, is heavily over-stated through excess in both representation and prominence, and I think it misleads the reader in suggesting a greater historical prevalence than can be afforded by reality. ITAQALLAH 19:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the overtness of the pictures has been discussed and we agreed that the images shouldn't be overt/out-of-place, nor should we include them simply for aesthetic value. Here was the thread, which I think is applicable to this idea of undue weight for nontraditional art; perhaps it will save us time from discussing the same things over. The conversation on this begins at 20:54, 14 January 2008 with me (Rosywounds). -Rosywounds (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree ;putting 3 pictures in the article is undue weight, and it gives the impression that it was put with the deliberate intention of offending Muslims. (Imad marie (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

It is highly unlikely that three small images were added with the intention of offending anyone. They are there for educational and historical purposes, much like almost any other image on Wikipedia. As a comparison, there are no less than eleven depictions of Jesus on his article. I would suggest that three images here is not a case of giving undue weight. Resolute 19:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It is really difficult for me to assume good faith; the depiction of Muhammad is really rare in the Eastern and Western sources as well, and it is not included in other encyclopedias, so why do some editors insist on including the 3 pictures? and in the introduction section of the article?! (Imad marie (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia:NEO says avoid using neologisms that have not yet caught on widely; I believe this should apply for the images too! this article has been used to published rare and unknown pictures to most of the readers, I wonder if it was done with the good intentions. (Imad marie (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Two logical fallacies are evident in your response.

The Strawman Fallacy: the argument against non-widespread neologisms exists to protect readers from linguistic conundrums. An example would be to happen across a phrase that bears no real meaning, since you just came up with it.

The Argument from Ignorance Fallacy: you assume that these images were just put up, or otherwise seem to criticise them from a point of ignorance; the images are kept up because of their artistic and historical value, since they are medieval artistic depictions of Muhammad.

Defacing them, putting them under "curtain," and so on, is against the principles of Wikipedia, just as censorship is an acceptable fact in many countries. You should examine whether our good faith cannot simply abide by your demands. -- RaspK FOG (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Rosywounds, I hadn't seen your comment. ITAQALLAH 19:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I just thought that the points mentioned in that conversation are applicable here. -Rosywounds (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolute, I don't think that is a very fair comparison. The article on Jesus doesn't include an Ethiopian depiction of Jesus, for example. Ethiopians, after all, have had a Christian presence longer than most Europeans, and they historically depict him as East African (Black appearance). All of the art on the Jesus article caters to traditional Western views; in fact, all non-Western art on Jesus has been given its own separate article. -Rosywounds (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a situation that can be corrected if a suitable image can be found. The point remains, however, as the use of images depicting Muhammad have been minimalized in this article compared to that of another historical religious figure, disproving the argument of WP:UNDUE. Also, WP:NEO very obviously does not apply, as an image is not a word or term, nor would a several century old image qualify as "new". If you want to push for a change to WP:NEO, feel free to initiate that discussion on at WT:NEO and try to build consensus. That being said, if you can provide a more "mainstream" image of Muhammad, I would be happy to insert it into the article for you. Also, pleaseassume good faith on the intentions of the editors who added the image. Unless you can show that the images were added with the intention of offending you, I would have to say that their additions were made with the intention of improving the encyclopedia. Resolute 16:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice to all those who wish Wikipedia to remove pictures of Muhammad

Please place your requests for Wikipedia to remove pictures of Muhammad in this dedicated page or they may be removed. TharkunColl TharkunColl (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: if this is the page now in use for these particular topics, we may want to change the banner near the top which explains that no changes will be made without discussion on this page.--C.Logan (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

most people are never going to read it - it would actually make more sense for the rest of us to leave this page to the "please remove" crowd and do all of the real work on a sub-page. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, this may be the case if the reaction to the FAQ is any indication.--C.Logan (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this notice to the bottom where I suggest it remains, so that everyone sees it. TharkunColl (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to TharkunColl: I'd reverted your removal of the "a new suggestion" topic, because I feel that this is a topic which is mostly productive and should not be included along with the rest of the "request" posts, which are typically by anonymous or new users with little or no knowledge of Wikipedia policy. As far as I can see, this is not a "request" which would justifiably need to be moved to the new page for such posts- doing so would "drown out" the points raised by Aminz, because I can't help but feel that this new page will be one that is afforded little real attention or concern (though one can't be blamed for this attitude considering the route the discussion has taken).--C.Logan (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

though the images are not yet removed, but i have to thank everyone who took the time to participate in this discussion. Those who are in favor of the removal or not, I thank everyone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 (talk • contribs) 06:48, February 4, 2008 (UTC) (UTC-5)

There is no "yet" my friend. Jmlk17 11:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have moved your page to Talk:Muhammad/images whic is the original title under which we did image discussions. I'm sure you realize what you were doing when you called it "censorship requests" but our goal is to make this a manageable issue that does not clog the talk page, not belittle the people making these requests. gren グレン 17:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

NOTICE about image discussion

Any new sections below this point which rehash the same issues about the images of Muhammad will be moved to Talk:Muhammad/images leaving only the header and a note about this move. Any discussion placed under that header will be summarily removed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a political debate forum so rehashing this issue is detracting from work on the article. Serious sections by established editors will be kept upon consensus.

For an example of how this will be done please see the section below. gren グレン 22:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Image solution

Discussion of the use of images is going on at Talk:Muhammad/images. This section has been moved there and can be found at Talk:Muhammad/images#Image_solution. Any new posts to this section will be removed. gren グレン 22:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A reminder

This talk page is apparently linked in many places on the Internet, due to discussion in many Islamic forums. As a result, there are many people here of sincere faith but who are not Wikipedians and do not understand our policies and the reasons for them. Please be nice to these people. And if you are a person of faith here to argue your case, please do us the courtesy of listening to the reasons for the content policies which are in place. If everybody treats everybody else with respect, even while disagreeing, we may be able to persuade some of our new friends to stay and help counter systemic bias. And if not, at least we will avert another PR disaster. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 23:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User:DragonflySixtyseven

How come you were able to edit the page and add your comment, when the rest of us can't? TharkunColl (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Because I'm an administrator. DS (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • More to the point, we do have a similar disclaimer in our article on the Ba'hai prophet Baha'ullah. Let's be fair. Let's reach a compromise. We're all mature people, yes? DS (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

But if a page is protected, by editing it you are surely breaking the rules? TharkunColl (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, Administrators may edit fully protected pages. Such edits are typically done in an attempt at defusing a situation, which this one was, or in accordance to consensus reached via discussion on talk pages. And before you ask, consensus currently is that the images stay. Resolute 01:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The addition is certainly good. Maybe we should wikify the uncovered face part so that it becomes blue and becomes more noticeable. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. To what would you suggest it be linked? DS (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. What about this: Just a suggestion.

There are two artworks by Muslim artists which portray the face of Muhammad uncovered further down in this article.

Regards, --Be happy!! (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think the disclaimer is a bit wordy. I would suggest "This article contains images of artwork portraying the face of Muhammad. These images are used for historical context." I think saying "respectfully" sounds a bit like pandering, but that's just an opinion.Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe I suggested this idea before and someone told me disclaimers are not allowed on Wikipedia and should be removed if they are noticed. Perhaps they were misleading me, but that was the response I received. -Rosywounds (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a disclaimer. Is it? It seems to be a simple note.--Be happy!! (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly knowledgeable in rules over this, but here is the thread on it. This was the response I received:

...I do not know whether or not it is a violation of censorship policy, but perhaps we could include a warning of these images at the top of the page on Muhammad? -Rosywounds // We can't include a disclaimer at the top of the article - Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. The article is already covered by Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, which says Some articles may contain names, images, artworks or descriptions of events that some cultures restrict access to and Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. --Hut 8.5

Perhaps the responder was mistaken, also. I don't know. -Rosywounds (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Jmlk17 has bolded the note, so it is clear now. I appreciate addition of this note greatly. If someone gets offended by the images can know about this and avoid reading the article. Great! I have personally no more objection to this. Thank you very much. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So do we now put disclaimers on all articles that contain images some might find offensive, e.g. group sex, vulva, penis? Pairadox (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have written about the distinction above (e.g. those who get offended by those are unlikely to visit those articles etc). We will discuss the issue if it comes up. Since it hasn't come up yet, it is unlikely to come up in the future (i.e. a huge number of people who get offended by pornography decide to visit a related article and start complaining)--Be happy!! (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems as if it is the best temporary solution for the time being at least... Jmlk17 02:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If you go to the article on "penis", you expect to see a picture of a penis. However, many Muslims would not expect to see a picture of Muhammad in the article about Muhammad. That's the difference. DS (talk) 02:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

They would if they came here because someone told them there were pictures of Muhammad in the article.144.118.202.163 (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I am unhappy with how much of this current brouhaha has been handled, so I've made an informal complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Heavy-handed admin behavior at Muhammad, if anyone's interested.—Chowbok ☠ 02:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, Talk:Muhammad/FAQ has been deleted. I have recreated it, but I suspect that it will be deleted again quite swiftly. Zazaban (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fellow admins:

• Please: Do not edit this page while protected
• Please: Follow process when deleting pages from talk namespace

Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

As I've recommended in the Talk: Muhammad/images, take the images dispute to Wikipedia: Arbitration and get a ruling. I'm neither for 'or' against the images being kept. I'm more concerned about this article becoming a 'Holy War' site. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The Committee wouldn't accept a content dispute that has no conduct elements for them to decide. They don't make content decisions or set policy, so they couldn't really help here at the moment. ^Avruchtalk 02:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the consensus on this article concerning the images? Keep or Delete? GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's keep. It's always been keep, but a large number of people who have never used wikipedia before have swarmed this page because of [www.thepetitionsite.com this] Zazaban (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The best course of action here may be to start an RFC somewhere on the images. Arbitration would be premature before other methods of content dispute resolution are attempted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that will help. Most of these people have never used wikipedia before and will not know about that. Zazaban (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I still recommend trying ArbCom. If they reject the case, then start blocking editors who go against the consensus (if 3 blocks fail to get the message across? a lifetime ban for the editor should be invoked). GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and there is no policy reason to block an editor for arguing for or against these images in a talk page, especially when everyone has remained civil. The article is fully protected, and likely will be indefinitely, so there is no edit war to stop either. Resolute 02:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant the reverters, not the arguers. Those who keep their disputes to the discussion pages are acceptable. It's those who revert against the consensus, who need reigning in. GoodDay (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's frustrating for innocent editors out there, who have to content with a 'locked' article. GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a real shame too, I can see this being fully protected for more than a month, even a year. Zazaban (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

But there are really no reverters. For most of the time the petition site has been an issue the page has been protected. I think we could use to unprotect it and see what happens for a while. Reverting removal of images every once and a while is not that big of a deal. Although, it was protected for some other reason if I'm not mistaken. gren グレン 03:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

An admin tried dropping the protection down to semi yesterday, and that lasted about six hours before it had to be fully protected again due to edit warring over the images. All in all, this article has been protected in some form for two years now. The longest it had gone without any kind of protection was about a month in 2006. Given the current popularity of Wikipedia, I would bet the six hours it lasted yesterday is the high mark... and that was with editing by anons and new users still disabled. Resolute 03:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed. It only looked like three vandals in more than that many hours. That's not bad at all... at least, I don't think it's a high enough rate to justify protecting the page. I didn't see any edit warring. It's all vandalism since these are new users violating a general consensus--at least, the consensus not to just arbitrarily remove the images. I am not fully sure why it is protected... gren グレン 04:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Anytime the page is unprotected, randoms and sleeper accounts come in and continuously remove the images. Jmlk17 04:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

But the sleeper accounts are finite and can be easily blocked. How many of them do you think exists? --Be happy!! (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to drop it down to a semi-protection. One can expect some initial "bounce" of vandalism but I'm just going to block people who start edit warring to remove the pictures without getting consensus. Filing an ArbCom case is useless, as is an RFC; the only thing I think that will work here is the good 'ole cluestick. --Haemo (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's worth a shot I guess... Jmlk17 04:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll be watching as well. At least we have plenty of eyes on it. Resolute 05:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, get ready for the tempest. Zazaban (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is always going to need a level of protection - that's just facing reality - most of the people removing the images are hit and run who don't hang around long enough for policy to be explained to them. The other pragamatic reality is that however much we want to cite policy for keeping those images, this is now as much about Weltanschauung as it is the rules of this place. I don't think the images can be removed without causing a massive schism in the community. sorry that's not very helpful or positive sounding. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but honestly, the images will never be removed. All we can do is keep with the policy of allowing whomever to edit (semi-protect the article), and keep vigilant. There are numerous editors who keep an eye on the article, so any vandalism or removal or the images is quickly fixed. Jmlk17 10:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, semi-protection is the best way to go (and full protection when needed). Going the ArbCom route is alot of fuss & probably a waste of time. In agreement, semi-protection/protection is best. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Media Coverage

Wow, this image controversy has just gotten substantial media coverage here: New York Times - Wikipedia Islam Entry Criticized. --Hdt83 ^Chat 08:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow indeed. I'm surprised that a note was made specifically on Aminz's proposal. I also enjoy this touch, though I am uncertain of the factuality of it (although it does come from a professor of Islamic history): "The idea of imposing a ban on all depictions of people, particularly Muhammad, dates to the 20th century." This appears to contrast with what many of the anonymous users come here to claim regarding the treatment of such images throughout history.--C.Logan (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but that will probably get written off as "slander" eh? :) Jmlk17 10:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, yeah, they mentioned my proposal "The site considered but rejected a compromise that would allow visitors to choose whether to view the page with images".

It feels kind of good :-) --Be happy!! (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To C.Logan; The ban dates to the 20th century due to te huge development in the media, not for any other reason, before the 20th century those pictures were something marginal and its exposure to the muslims we so limited to a few people. However we must say again that Muhammad (PBUH) himself refused to have such pictures or statues for himself, so the taboo roots back to the 6th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazem adel (talk • contribs) 11:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

well, quote their expert then: Paul M. Cobb, who teaches Islamic history at Notre Dame, said, “Islamic teaching has traditionally discouraged representation of humans, particularly Muhammad, but that doesn’t mean it’s nonexistent.” He added, “Some of the most beautiful images in Islamic art are manuscript images of Muhammad.” The idea of imposing a ban on all depictions of people, particularly Muhammad, dates to the 20th century, he said. this is pathetic. Islam has been going for 1400 years. They've had their jerks, and they've had their wise men like everyone else. This "depictions protests" nonsense is 20th century Islamism, period. All these zealots are achieving is reducing their rich heritage to an annoying or mildly amusing travesty. dab (𒁳) 19:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I attribute most of this to globalization though. It is not impossible to create a philosophical argument against the pictures within a population that finds those images objectionable using say Joel Feinberg's "principle of offense". The same argument would not apply in other communities though. The root of the problem is in globalization as well as the fact that the English language has become the scientific language for all nations. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice of proposal on Jimbo's talk page

Options to hide an image

Imagine a wikipedia space page with instructions on "How to set your browser to not see images". Imagine a link to it in the toolbox on the left side of each page. Image a more noticeable template that links to it, available for pages which are routinely problematic due to images that are shocking to a minority of wikipedia editors, rather than shocking/offensive to enough to have the image only linked to. Imagine a Wikimania conference in Egypt this summer. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

this has been proposed and rejected repeatedly. It is not for us to instruct people how to configure their browser. Nobody will stop you from compiling a Help: page giving instructions on how to block certain images at browser level. Interest groups could then trade lists of images on WP they do not wish to see. But the point is that we, as WP, cannot single out some images as "problematic": we either show them because they are relevant, or we don't show them. If we started accepting responsibility of maintaining blacklists "unsuitable for $INTEREST_GROUP" we'd never hear the end of it. If this situation prompts some users to set their browser to "block all images from wikimedia.org" -- so be it, let them configure their browsers already and stop pestering Wikipedia about it. If they are too pious to view "infidel" websites, what are they doing here in the first place? That's like a puritan visiting a porn site and then placing complaints could he get special settings blocking all the indecency please. dab (𒁳) 19:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, at least half of this proposal is already accepted - showing people how to disable image display is a reasonable solution. WilyD 20:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

But nobody reads those things - we know this, we know this not just from experience here but every bit of HCI research done since the 1970s! It will make not one iota of difference for the calls for removal that appear on this page. If someone wants to generate such a page, that's is entirely upto them but let's not kid ourselves that it will make any difference to the 1000s of one-timer posters/viewers of such pages. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would personally be satisfied with that solution (and I think it is necessary). If someone argues further than I want the pages to be removed, he can be responded that he can find worst images on the internet and that we are clearly informing him about how to avoid this before seeing the picture(of course it shouldn't be a difficult thing to do for newcomers). It may take sometime for some to learn about this but those who insist further afterwards are not logical. And if your question is that are there illogical people around? I would say "yes". How should we deal with them? Just as we do with other illogical people in other articles. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Any proposal that makes sure that there are no non-consenting readers who might involuntarily or unwittingly be exposed to the images works for one side of the dispute because it places the responsibility of seeing images on themselves. On the other hand, those who argue against it say that this will become a precedent and people will request say pornography or violent pictures to be removed. A response to that was that a Muslims is more likely to visit Muhammad article than someone who gets offended by porn visiting related articles. Because the person who visits such article is already aware of the possibility of exposure to those kind of images and hence will not see something very unexpected. This line of argument has not been convincing it appears. Just trying to summarize everything from my perspective. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, measures where you can "opt-in" to seeing images are generally undesirable (and will inevitably present pratical problems). Measures where you can "opt-out" of seeing images are pretty reasonable, if anyone knows how to implement one. WilyD 20:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wily, I did not personally oppose the proposal (I myself belong to the side that asked for some kind of notice be added- Fredrick day below is among those coming from the other side). I just added the summary of past; why am I in error? --Be happy!! (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no chance - leaving aside the work it would require, editors are here to improve the encyclopedia not spend their time trying to deal with every single group on the internet who want special privileges - it would be seen as the thin edge of the wedge and I'd be at the front of an campaign to stop this attack on the secular nature of wikipediia. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

look, nobody whatsoever objects to the development of a "halal Wikipedia" plugin that Islamic readers can install if they so choose. Instead of debating this here, people could just go and do it. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy at all, people are free to fiddle with their incoming internet traffic any way they like. You can develop a script that replaces "Muhammad" with "Muhammad (pbuh)", or "Jimbo" with "boobies" for that matter, in five minutes and just install it tacitly on your end. But no, this isn't about not seeing images, it is about making political noise. Still, if there was such a plugin, at least we could simply point further complaining users to it in a giant sign at the top of this page and move on. What is not acceptable is being pressured into adapting the standard toolbox / article space so that everybody is presented with a STOP sign and a message like "STOP! IF YOU ARE MUSLIM, DON'T LOOK!!! CLICK HERE FIRST!" as Fredrick points out, every interest group on Wikipedia would give no peace until they'll have similar templates touting their own sensitivities to the world at large in place. dab (𒁳) 20:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And another thing - why have we ran straight for "daddy" Jimbo? what's the point of having a community if people are going to run straight to him? Was this proposal put on the relevent boards first? --Fredrick day (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Dab, I don't care if some people look at this politically. If you can give the readers a chance to choose to see the images or not before exposing to them in whatever possible way, that would work, even through the Islamic plugin you mentioned. It doesn't matter how.

re "every interest group on Wikipedia would give no peace until they'll have similar templates touting their own sensitivities to the world at large in place.": NO. Since it is unlikely that such a thing happens because if it wanted to happen, it should have happened by now. Let's talk about the realities.--Be happy!! (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Bowing to religious pressure will cause a schism in the project that's a massive practical and organisational reason why your proposal cannot pass. If it does pass, the WP:POINT nominations will start from all corners (I can think of 15 with little effort) and will be impossible to deny because precedent will be sent. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing how creative some people will get in order to inject censorship into the project. Wikipedia already comes with a Wikipedia:Content disclaimer - that's all that's needed. --Veritas (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think this is setting a precedent. Most articles on movies/books provide a header for "plot"; they don't simply jump into spoilers without warning, nor do they place these spoilers in the lead, for example. True, they don't provide overt disclaimers, but they at least allow readers to know "what's coming." Most Muslims that view this article probably wouldn't immediately assume unveiled imagery is furnished here, considering how rare it is to begin with. -Rosywounds (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

yes, {{spoiler}} is was sort of a prededent (I'm surprised this doesn't come up more often). As it is, I would rather get rid of {{spoiler}} (per "WP is not censored") than allow it to set such a precedent. (hey, I note we already have -- thank you Wikipedia!) seriously, Aminz, you should look into developing a "halal Wikipedia" plugin along the lines I mentioned: this isn't meant as a joke, this could be a respectable project, and would even be guaranteed to make the news. dab (𒁳) 21:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in turning this into a larger-than-Wikipedia thing nor do I care about making any news. Please assume good faith. You disagree with the proposal. That's fine. It should be also fine if someone agrees with it. Please do not try to single me out and put me in a negative light. We can agree to disagree. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The spoiler suggestion has actually been brought up before and rejected. --Veritas (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about a built-in template for spoilers; I was referring to the fact that all Wiki articles on movies, for example, isolate the plot summary into one section under one heading. They do not provide spoilers in the lead, for example. This makes it very easy for someone to navigate on such a page while still avoiding spoilers. An article such as that is not censored, even though it provides accommodations (built in to its structure) that allow one to navigate the page easily without worry of accidentally stumbling into something that one could potentially find unhelpful/objectionable. "I would rather get rid of {{spoiler}} (per "WP is not censored") than allow it to set such a precedent." So you would have found it tolerable, so long as it doesn't impact a page on Muhammad? That sounds like bad-faith editing, particularly since you barely even edit Islam-related articles in the first place. Halal Wikipedia? That seemed pretty irrelevant (and uncivil). -Rosywounds (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think moving the pictures would help in this matter (if I understand you correctly)? Oh and the "barely ever edit islam-related" argument is a red herring, I NEVER edit them and it's irrelevent, any editor can act to protect the content of articles and can join in on ANY talkpage about matters relating to both individual pages and wider policy issues (and this certainly ties into any number of wider policy issues). --Fredrick day (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that there is a section in this article that is named "depictions of Muhammad." I think any person, Muslim or otherwise, would be able to reasonably infer what is (or ought to be) located in that section from the title. Besides that, my comment wasn't directed at you, Fredrick day; it was directed at Dbachmann who implied that he wouldn't necessarily oppose a policy on spoiler templates so long as its application does not extend to a page on Muhammad, which sounds pretty hypocritical in my book. Certainly anyone can post, but individuals that come to this talk page to rant and cry (I am talking about Dbachmann, again) probably aren't doing much to contribute to this Islam-related article anyway; Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, and we don't need people that are wholly unconcerned with improving the article to come here to politicize the issue. -Rosywounds (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

has a single person come here and asked us to move the pictures to a seperate section? because I've only being patrolling this page for a couple of days and the requests all seem to be "remove" - I don't understand how this is a solution to anything? Having said that, I have no objection to trying it if other editors feel it is a worthwhile experiment. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The complete removal has been eliminated as a solution, but different methods ought to be taken if we don't want anonymous users to appear here everyday clogging the talk page. I think anything is worth a shot. -Rosywounds (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

you are twisting my statement. I am glad the spoiler template is gone. It was in place when I joined WP in 2004, and while I never liked it, I never campaigned against it. An "objectionable image warning" mechanism would be much, much worse than the spoiler template, and I will certainly object to its introduction, regardless of whether it is going to be used on Islam related articles or any other articles. dab (𒁳) 12:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for a solution

This situation is reasonably unprecedented — realistically, we cannot expect this to abate any time soon, and keeping the article fully protected indefinitely is not a reasonable or appropriate solution. I suggest the following solution:

• Semiprotect the article indefinitely.
• Waive the three revert rule on this page with respect to restoring the consensus version of this page, with respect to the images.

This may sound controversial, but there is a previous situation in which it was settled upon as appropriate. (See the "exceptions" provision of WP:3RR with respect to the Gdansk/Danzig vote). Note that this suggestion does not define what the "consensus" version of this page is, with respect to images — consensus can change, and this suggestion takes that into account. In any case, before we move forward with this, I'd like to get some input from other posters here. What do you think? --Haemo (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Quite frankly, fuck the Danzig vote. Our current practices work well enough with indef semi-protection (which is necessary for far more than just image issues - take a look at the last time this page was unprotected) and although we're in a bit of a surge now, it'll pass - there's no need for alarmism. WilyD 22:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think that indef semiprotection is inevitable. But I'm not opposed to Haemo's second notion. Comparing to the practice over at Rage Against The Machine (nude image in PMRC protest section), that has been the effective practice. Revert anyone removing the images who has not concretely changed the previous consensus. Doesn't seem that controversial to me, or something that needs cementing in a "guideline" type thing. It's just common sense in the context of our standing policies on content and conflict resolution. VanTucky 00:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Indef semi-protection is already the status quo. Take a look at the logs. WilyD —Preceding comment was added at 00:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• I know it has been. I'm saying it should continue indefinitely unless events change significantly. VanTucky 02:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Err, it will unless anyone can present a plausible argument why we should change (and really, then it'd have to be indef full protection). This brew-hah-hah will blow over soon enough. WilyD 14:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with this proposal; I suggested the same thing on ANI, but some seem to think the current level of disruption is unmanageable. I don't see that at this point, though. -- tariqabjotu 03:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems sensible enough. I can think of a direct parallel: Republic of Macedonia, which I keep a close eye on. It's indefinitely semi-protected to deal with hit-and-run vandalism from anonymous editors (mostly Greeks, unfortunately) and it has to be reverted fairly often to resolve abusive edits from accounts that have been used often enough to get around the new user restrictions. It works fairly well in practice and helps to reduce the problematic editing to manageable levels. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

support. This seems to be a necessary proposal, considering the circumstances. Yahel Guhan 04:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

there is a stable consensus version. Yes, this article should be permanently semi-protected. It there are going to be edit-wars among established users, we might need to impose Wikipedia:Article probation as well, with admins clamping down immediately on anyone indulging in unproductive edit warring. Permanent semiprotection, and even enforced 1RR is better than prolongued full protection. dab (𒁳) 12:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Analysis and a proposal

It seems to me that we are having problems with two distinct groups here:

1) Editors and readers who want the pictures gone, deleted, destroyed, period.

There's nothing we can do to meet this demand; the removal of the pictures isn't consistent with our goal of providing encyclopedic information, and WP:NOTCENSORED anyway. However, there's a second group we can perhaps do something about:

2) Editors and readers who do not expect to see the pictures in the article and are upset when they do.

There's a significant point here. Images of Muhammad are exceedingly rare because of the Islamic tradition of aniconism. That means that, even in Western sources, it's very unusual to see a depiction of Muhammad. Other encyclopedias - Britannica, Encarta, Chambers, Oxford etc - do not depict Muhammad. Wikipedia is thus indisputably exceptional in this regard. If you look up "Muhammad" in just about any encyclopedia that I can think of, you do not automatically expect to see a depiction of him. There's what you might call an "expectations gap" between what readers expect and what they actually find. (By contrast, if you look up Breast you'll have every expectation of seeing an image or diagram of one, just as you would in any good Western encyclopedia. Likewise, if you look at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy it's reasonable to expect an image of the cartoons in question.)

I think we need to address this "expectations gap". We certainly shouldn't be posting a disclaimer, as Wikipedia:Content disclaimer already covers that. A spoiler template wouldn't be appropriate, as spoilers refer to plot resolutions, not images. Nor would a warning be appropriate, as that would probably also clash with our content disclaimer. However, a short, neutrally worded notification - not a warning, spoiler or disclaimer - would give readers the choice of reading on in the full understanding that they would be seeing pictures of Muhammad, or navigating away if they didn't want to see them. DragonflySixtyseven added some words to the top of the article earlier today which I think - if amended and presented in the right context - could help. I'd suggest something like the following wording:

This article includes two images which represent the uncovered face of Muhammad. The images, which are artworks created by Muslim artists, are used respectfully in an historical context to illustrate two episodes in the life of Muhammad.

Any thoughts? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, if we put this up at the top then readers who come upon the article won't be "shocked" to see the images. Of course, "hiding" the image seems to be the most logical solution since people can actually choose if they want to see the pictures or not. Hiding the pictures is not censorship because all you have to do is to click on the box to un-hide it. It seems strange that both ideas were immediately rejected without even testing out these methods to see if they are effective at reducing attempts by Muslims to remove images. --Hdt83 ^Chat 00:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't support hiding the images. That would in effect be a form of censorship - allowing one element of the community to impose a certain standard on everybody. My proposal above is strictly neutral in terms of how it affects other editors. We can't compromise our principles by imposing a burden of censorship on the entire community, whether it's by removing the images or hiding them. What we can do, however, is give people the informed choice of whether to read the article or not, in the knowledge that it contains the disputed images. Editors would then be under no compulsion to do anything, whether it's changing their browser settings, editing their monobook.css or clicking on a box to show the images. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We also have a gap in what we consider reasonable as Wikipedians, and what the vast majority of people who see this page think. Asking most readers to participate in discussions is hard, especially for people who don't know how this works. My mother, a retired executive assistant with a ready eye for spelling errors and mistakes, would rather send me corrections than edit herself. Wiki is something new you have to learn. Readers, who comprise most of our audience, don't want to be directed to RFC's or RFARB's. Yes, the vast majority of complaints insist on having the images deleted...and then there's some intellectual individuals who are suggesting there is a bigger issue. The fact that most Sunni Muslims don't want to be confronted by an unexpected picture of Mohammed. Forcing them to see it on the article only inflames the situation. Versageek had an edit while protected which would go a long way toward solving this as well, but reverted herself. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=189386710&oldid=189365656). Cary Bass ^demandez 01:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit counflicted)I do go along with Versageek's proposed paragraph, or any in-paragraph, low toned notification. I do however strongly oppose any kind of out of paragraph notification, which sounds like a warning to me no matter how you may call it, and go, in my very humble opinion, against the spirit of our not-censorship and no-disclaimer policies. If it makes somebody more happy, no problem with making bold the last sentence, the one which actually tells about the images. As a side note, my middle school history book had these images too. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw Versageek's proposal, but I didn't think it was very effective. It's buried at the bottom of the lede, it doesn't stand out in any way and I'm pretty sure that the circular reference in it isn't consistent with our MOS. The point of having a notification is that it should be noticed immediately by a visitor to the article. And I'd like to emphasise that it shouldn't be considered a warning. "May contain peanuts" is a warning. "Ingredients: 100% orange juice" is a notification. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So, would one suggest that we put notices like that on masturbation or Prince Albert piercing too? нмŵוτнτ 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The comparison of Muhammad to sexual or anatomical body parts is like comparing apples to oranges. When people type such things, they expect to see a picture of it. In this article, many Muslims probably have no idea that there are not one, not two, but three pictures of Muhammad. This is akin to going to the main page of Wikipedia and seeing it vandalized with porn and other unsuitable images. --Hdt83 ^Chat 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the same concerning if one expects to see images or not. You made my point more clear. If one doesn't want to see images of a penis, don't search for penis-concerning articles. Exactly! If one doesn't want to see images of Muhammad, don't go to Muhammad articles. нмŵוτнτ 01:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That analogy simply doesn't work. Everyone knows that pictures of penises exist (since 50% of the population has one, pictures aren't exactly hard to come by - if you'll excuse the inadvertent pun). So if you look at an article about penises, it's not unexpected that you'll see a picture of one. On the other hand, I suspect that a good deal of the offence in this case is due to many Muslims not being aware that pictures of Muhammad even exist. I'm pretty sure it's not covered in middle school history books in Islamic countries! The point is that readers anywhere - in the West or the East - have no expectation that this article will show depictions of Muhammad, since they have no idea that such images exist, let alone appear in the article. Our challenge is to close this gap between their expectations and the reality of the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Cary Bass made a good point in distinguishing between different Muslim readers. In fact, I think some form of harsh treatment together with compromise on reasonable points is required here. Let me provide a stupid example of how things may go wrong: Just as some male Muslims prefer to increase the covering of women instead of thinking of a way to make a special type of eyeglass for men, some of them might not see their own share in the story and acknowledge that at the end, the opportunity of doing something inappropriate is always available but it is they who have to restrain themselves from it or impose restrictions on themselves. Not that this type of thinking is specific to Muslims, it shows up in various forms among all people. Admittedly, Muslims can expect that in a free society, they should be given the chance to exert their freedom but anything beyond that is not acceptable.

One last comment: one way to make a note more visible is to change its color to blue by adding a wiki-link to the depiction section in the article. Probably the blue can become more colorful if it is bolden: the depiction section. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I always forget to mention this. I think we should separate English Encyclopedia from other European encyclopedias. Similar measures may not be necessary to be taken in other encyclopedias. This is because of the international aspect of english: many Muslims know English because it is the scientific of the time and they have to inevitably use it; they are taught in school about it; they have to write their scientific papers in that language etc etc. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Chris O, that was a very good response. I not understand that not all of them even KNOW that an image exists. Although I still stand by my opinion that they should stay on the page, I learned something. I thought that they just didn't (or weren't supposed to) see pictures of him, not that they had no idea pictures even existed. That massive culture gap is just hard for me to fathom, I suppose. Thank you for the informative answer (and making me laugh w/ you pun, haha). нмŵוτнτ 02:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not intending to single you out by any means, hmwith, I've seen other people using similar arguments, but just a general caution: let's please be careful comparing Muhammad to other topics with "offensive" images, as I worry the argument might be taken out of context and very much in the wrong way by someone who doesn't immediately grasp what the speaker's getting at. I see where the point's coming from after a good dozen rehashes of the old debates, certainly, but I'm not so sure about newly incoming (and in some cases already upset) readers. Not to say the argument is invalid, by any means, just to try and be aware of that when phrasing it. Other than that, I'm very happy to see some healthy discussion going on, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My point was that they're both images some users don't want to and/or don't expect to see. I've seen many complaints on talk pages of articles w/ "inappropriate images" that are a great deal like the ones here. нмŵוτнτ 16:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Don't you think that if Sunni Muslims do a Google search for "Muhammad" and click on a link to an English encyclopedia hosted in the United States that they might expect to find something objectionable, even a photo? They are clearly aware that Wikipedia is not subject to the laws of a Muslim nation. Pushing forward - we are a self-selected group, there is no limit to who can edit here. While some may be wary of editing because of technological unfamiliarity we don't consider the feelings of Luddites on our technology either. The prohibition against the display of images of Muhammad is a religious law. We simply do not and can not obey religious prohibitions or other rules that directly conflict with our culture and goals. If you want to obscure the images behind a collapse box - fine, collapse all the images in this article. Other articles (notably the inkblot test article) do so without issue. The only reason I can see that justifies this, however, is to stifle vandals and readers who (a) oppose what we do here and (b) are unable or unwilling to participate in a reasonable discussion. ^Avruchtalk 02:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Those who follow a laws be it secular or religous do that with the belief that it is good for them to do (good in some "sense"). You might not recognize the goodness or validity of that "sense", but then that would be simply your personal view. One can not bring that in the discussion about a community as a whole. In any case, any such personal analysis will be always based on some assumptions and assumptions could not be enforced...Karl Marx was not a fan of religion but if you take his historical materialism thesis, then you can see that the religous laws are not in essence a different origin than the accepted norms, customs, even moral standards and many of the common sense things. I hope you see where I am going. We should simply look at the problem in this form: there are some people who think for some reason seeing an image is bad for them. To say that since the reason comes from religion, it can be ignored is not the appropriate position to take.--Be happy!! (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, and you are right that the distinction between 'laws' and 'religious laws' can be flimsy, particularly in a historical context. My view is that we are subject to the laws we must be subject to, and we should not voluntarily accede to any other attempts to legislate our content. The laws governing what we do are secular and determined by a free society - 'free' and 'freedom' are intrinsic to what we do. Laws based in modern religious interpretation tend to be the antithesis to 'free' and 'freedom' and while this may be a relativist view and others may believe that greater limits on freedom is good... They are not here, and as a community we emphatically do not share their belief. ^Avruchtalk 02:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It is correct that the laws should not be arbitrarily imposed and that's why I think those who ask for the outright removal of all the pictures because they are offending to them should be strongly opposed (and I would go as far as saying indefinitely banned if they persist).

My only point is that in a free society, people be given the chance to exert their freedom in matters important to them: in this case, Muslims being given the chance to exert their freedom in not seeing the images if they don't want to (that is, they stop reading the article and go for another source of information). That's all. Most of the work is left to Muslims themselves eventually. We do not change our way, we let them know what our ways are. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's ludicrous to impose a disclaimer on the top of the article that the article contains images of Muhammad. Anyone looking at the article can tell that. There's no need to include an article-level content disclaimer when there's already the Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Images of pornography are often considered to be incredibly violent against women and are opposed almost universally by the feminist community, yet we don't put disclaimers there. Why? Well because the feminist community isn't trolling those articles - Adding such a disclaimer to this article is simply giving into and feeding the trolls; a path down the slippery slope of censorship. --Veritas (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I just make a sidepoint here - there is very little to no trolling from the hit and run IP editors who appear here and ask for the pictures to be removed. Just because they don't understand how we do things doesn't make them trolls, the majority (as far as I can) see are acting in good faith - so let's keep that word for people who deserve it. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the giant red warnings at the top of this talk page? Making the same comments here for image removal after reading those certainly seems like trolling to me and giving absolutely no regard to consensus while disrupting the project from making constructive progress toward improving the article. --Veritas (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a red herring - we know from HCI research that people don't read such things and we are being unrealistic if we expect IP editors who have never been here before to do so - it's nothing to do with the issue at hand, it's the reality of CMI - be it here at wikipedia or any number of talkboards - people only pick up the rules and norms from repeated interactation - no amount of big red notices will get around that reality. Those people don't understand "consensus" as we describe it, so again it's unrealistic to just mention it and expect them to "get it". It's very easy for us on the inside to forget what a confusing place wikipedia is. So no it's nothing to do with trolling, it's do with understanding. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, the warnings at the top of the talk page are quite clear and explain the situation. If someone fails to read what's right in front of their face, that's their own fault. --Veritas (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, it's not a disclaimer. It's simply a notification to inform readers that certain content exists in the article. What they do with that information is up to them. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In essence, another form of a spoiler warning which is unnecessary. Either way, it is pointless and not encyclopedic. --Veritas (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Being encyclopedic is certainly a worthy goal, but there does eventually come a point where standing on absolute principle only prolongs controversy and upset. I can't say where that point lies, or whether we're approaching it here, but this seems very much a fringe case to me. A large number of people are upset and will likely continue to be upset for some time; what do you propose we do about it? – Luna Santin (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In this case, stand by policy and keep the article semi-protected (against both IPs and newly registered editors). --Veritas (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We are in a blind here and this isn't actually about policy anymore (although we all use that language) - it's about worldview. Many of our hit and run editors will not stop until the pictures are removed - that is reality, many of our established editors will not allow the pictures to be removed because they see it as an attack on the very nature of the project (rightly or wrongly). The simple answer is that this problem is pretty much unsolvable without causing a schism in the project - without removal, the editwars will continue, remove or anything that is seen as being censorship will just cause a similar response but internally plus will create a different firestorm - that wikipedia capitulated to the religious (rightly or wrongly - that is how it will be seen by large sections of our readers/media commentators) --Fredrick day (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that the vandals will be persistent until they get their way, I disagree that the problem is the doomsday "Clash of Civilizations" problem you describe - there is no schism in the project. With the right level of protection we can force people to the talk page and direct them to the relevant policies. No solution is perfect, but we should seek to obtain the best solution possible without compromising policies which may or may not be where we are at now. Again, I think that protection of the article page should also disallow edits by newly registered users in addition to anon ones. --Veritas (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I propose we continue to do what we have been doing. WP:RBI those that wish to edit war over removing the images, fully protect as needed, and continue to do so until people tire of this crusade and move onto the next. IMO, this very petition is defeating the argument of how a Muslim follower could come to this article and not expect to see depictions of Muhammad. They are coming here specifically because they know there are images. At this point, any upset that is caused is self-inflicted. We can't do much about that. Resolute 14:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. --Veritas (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Important information deleted

Why was this deleted from the Mohammed page. It is 1 of the most important paragraphs, for all Muslims and Mohammed followers. It is also in the Qu'ran I request you to put this paragraph back up as it is important. It is important for people who are strong devotees to Mohammed.

Jewish tribes of Medina

After his migration to Medina, Muhammad's attitude towards Christians and Jews changed.

During this fateful time, fraught with tension after the Hidjra [migration to Medina], when Muhammad encountered contradiction, ridicule and rejection from the Jewish scholars in Medina, he came to adopt a radically more negative view of the people of the Book who had received earlier scriptures. This attitude was already evolving in the third Meccan period as the Prophet became more aware of the antipathy between Jews and Christians and the disagreements and strife amongst members of the same religion. The Qur'an at this time states that it will "relate [correctly] to the Children of Israel most of that about which they differ" ( XXVII, 76).

Jewish opposition "may well have been for political as well as religious reasons".[108] On religious grounds, the Jews were skeptical of the possibility of a non-Jewish prophet,[109] and also had concerns about possible incompatibilities between the Qur'an and their own scriptures.[109][110] The Qur'an's response regarding the possibility of a non-Jew being a prophet was that Abraham was not a Jew. The Qur'an also stated that it was "restoring the pure monotheism of Abraham which had been corrupted in various, clearly specified, ways by Jews and Christians".[109] According to Peters, "The Jews also began secretly to connive with Muhammad's enemies in Mecca to overthrow him."[111]

After each major battle with the Meccans, Muhammad accused one of the Jewish tribes of treachery (see Surah 2:100) and attacked them. After Badr, Muhammad besieged the Banu Qaynuqa and forced their surrender. He wanted to put all the men to death, but was convinced not to do so by Abdullah ibn Ubayy, who was an old ally of the Qaynuqa.[112] Instead, he expelled them from Medina with their families and possessions. After Uhud, he did the same to the Banu Nadir. After the Battle of the Trench in 627, the Muslims accused the Jews of Banu Qurayza of conspiring with the Meccans, then inspected the captives and beheaded all male members of the Banu Qurayza that had grown pubic hair.[113] The females and children were sold as slaves. [114]

Two types of explanations are given for Muhammad's treatment of the Jews of Medina: theological and political. The theological explanation given by some Arab historians and biographers is that:"the punishment of the Medina Jews, who were invited to convert and refused, perfectly exemplify the Quran's tales of what happened to those who rejected the prophets of old." Others offered a political explanation.[115] F.E. Peters, a western scholar of Islam, states that Muhammad's treatment of Jews of Medina was essentially political being prompted by what Muhammad read as treasonous and not some transgression of the law of God.[111] Peters adds that Muhammad was possibly emboldened by his military successes and also wanted to push his advantage. Economical motivations according to Peters also existed since the poorness of the Meccan migrants was a source of concern for Muhammad.[116] Peters argues that Muhammad's treatment of the Jews of Medina was "quite extraordinary", "matched by nothing in the Qur'an", and is "quite at odds with Muhammad's treatment of the Jews he encountered outside Medina."[111]

--99.238.7.180 (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The information was decided to be chronologically merged into other sections. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for reference purposes, the anon's comment refers to this edit by Aminz, on 3 February, 2008. I feel the edit summary is an explanation in itself. Green Giant (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Death of Muhammad

He was being ill for very long time and died just after Maghrib.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdzuber (talk • contribs) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 

Please find a reliable source for that. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

an image question unlike all others!

Why do we need both images in the Seal of the prophets section? It smushes the text awkwardly. I don't know enough to know whether they are both essential. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)