Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 16

To support the article's neutrality
Hi, the pictures from La vie de Mahomet, by M. Prideaux, and "Renaissance fresco in San Petronio Basilica" show anti-Islamic point of view. To be neutral, you should, kindly, include a statement that clearly shows that Muslims oppose the messages implicitly implied by these two photos and that these photos reflect the opinion of their painters only. In other words, the painting by M. Prideaux indicates clearly the painter's grudge against the Muslims' Prophet (I believe a grudge against any culture should be banned from Wikipedia) while the painting in San Petronio Basilica implies that the Muslims' Prophet has spread his message by sword and that he cursed the 10 commandments (any one with weak knowledge of Islam knows that most -if not all- of the commandments are common between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism). I believe that these two photos should be underlined with clear statements that state that they reflect the point of view of their painters (and I believe that many non-Muslim researchers already oppose the messages of these paintings)(Mounibkhanafer (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC))
 * I believe that any statements along the lines of what you have suggested would constitute WP:OR and therefore we cannot make such edits. There is already information in the article and on other WP articles relating to various culture's views on Muhammad.  raseaC talk to me 19:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That said, this is EASILY the most levelheaded and reasonable post that has ever been made to this page. This represents possibly the first time the page has ever been used correctly. -- King Öomie  19:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In all fairness I will second that. Obviosuly my post is my own view, other editors may hold a different view.  raseaC talk to me 20:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that the images mentioned have a WP:DUE place in the article. They belong in depictions of Muhammad. In fact, the long-standing consensus version of the article did not include them, and it should be checked if they were added based on any change in consensus. "You need consensus" cuts both ways, for removing and for adding images. The original complaints concerned historical, Persian and Ottoman, images of Muhammad. The addition of 19th century images of "Muhammad in hell" appears to be a conscious escalation. Somebody should look into this. --dab (��) 21:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I could see one image in that section, but not two - especially since they are squeezing the text, which is against the MOS. One does have to question why the two most provocative Western images on Commons were used. I'd probably choose to replace both with just the SCOTUS frieze instead. Resolute 17:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for taking the time to read my comment. The problem with the two photos I'm talking about is that the first one clearly spreads "hatred" as no one on earth would accept that his holy, or even respected figures, and icons be insulted publicly. We may agree and disagree on millions of topics and it is not the right of any of us to insult and curse others ideas just because they are different (and insulting has nothing to do with freedom of speech). The idea of any encyclopedia is to provide facts as they are without taking a position (with or against). I believe none of the respected admins/editors on this page would allow any hatred topic be published on Wikipedia. The other photo, on the other hand, distributes a clearly false idea which is that the Muslims' Prophet was against the 10 commandments and as I mentioned before this is false as it is among the basics of Islam to believe in the One God, to forbid cursing parents, forbid stealing, forbid adultery...etc, which are the commandments themselves. These photos reflect the opinions of their painters. Thanks (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC))
 * No worries - but your assumptions are quite mistaken. This is an encyclopedia.  It is our duty to create and improve articles about notable, verifiable facts about our world.  To that end, we must acknowledge that negative views of Muhammad exist, they are notable, and they are portrayed in both art and literature.  We can not simply ignore them because a few people might be offended, and it has nothing to do with a general bias against Islam, Arabs, or Semites.  Sure, some people might be offended by the paintings you mentioned - just as Christians might be offended by art perceived as anti-Christian, yet we publish images and articles on the subject none-the-less.  And yes, it is all about free speech and scholarship.  Islam used to be like this.  Someone famous once wrote:  "the ink of scholars is worth seventy times the blood of martyrs." There was a time when Islam experienced its own "golden age."  It was during this all too brief period when Muslims were free to discuss the Qur'an and its meanings without fear or embarrassment.  Islamic culture, art, science, and poetry reached its peak during this time, and it all came to a crashing end when a tyrant put a stop to questions he perceived as insulting. Islam has suffered terribly ever since. With luck and increased tolerance for diverse viewpoints, Islam may once again experience a golden age.  Until then, I suspect that demands such as yours will continue to appear with regular frequency.  Rklawton (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks for considering my comments. Please note that I did not request the removal of these images. My intent was that if you could add some clarifications either in the passage or under the image (and I prefer the latter) then it would be, from my point of view, much more appropriate. Please allow me to disagree with some of the points you raised. You mentioned that "some" people may be offended with these photos. With all due respect, the painting by M. Prideaux is really offending as it portrays the Muslims' Prophet almost naked and being tortured in Hell (which is very insulting and offensive), and I don't know sir (again with all due respect) how only "some" people will be offended by that? I assume you agree with me that such paintings remind us of the fundamentalists who only dream to kill and torture the people of the other religions and civilizations. And although I strongly believe that this photo does feed the "hatred" against the West (beside being offensive to all Muslims), still I didn't ask to remove the image. All what I asked was to clarify that it doesn't reflect the West's view of the Muslims' Prophet. The second image, on the other hand, is not cited in the passage and is just viewed with absolutely no clarifications related to it. It will really add to the richness of the passage if you, kindly, add some explanation about that the image has a clear misconception about Islam (at least from the Muslims' point of view) as Islam does invite its followers to abide by the 10 commandments. One last thing, yes I agree with you that we are not living in the golden age of Islam, but believe me sir the picture is not that dark. If Islam itself wasn't open for free discussions, you wouldn't find me here discussing openly and quietly. I'm a practicing Muslim who has been interested in Islamic studies and researches since almost 15 years, during which I had thorough discussions with scholars about many things that may surprise you (starting from the existence of God (the central and most sensitive pillar in our belief) and not ending with what may appear as contradictions in the Holy Quran) and believe me these discussions where public and quiet without even a shred of fear. For the record, the Holy City of Qom in Iran hosts at least 18 Islamic Universities beside at least 500 scientific institute specialized in Islamic research and publish books in a wide range of sciences related to Islam. This is over and above the annual conferences that attract people from around the world, including important figures from USA. Not to forget important visits by professors from US, like the one made by some Harvard profs. in Oct. 2007 to Ayatollah Abdul-Karim Al-Mosawi Al-Ardabili. Yes, Islam is being introduced to the West by the wrong people. Thanks (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC))


 * Mounibkhanafer: I would agree with your point if the images you reference had appeared in a section of the article about Muhammad himself. However, in this article, they are appropriately placed, in the proper context, in a section about negative historical Western views. It is an historical fact that Muhammad was once portrayed in the West in a negative light, and it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to describe that historical fact. I see no no way a rational person would interpret this context as Wikipedia taking a position about Muhammad. The pictures simply serve to illustrate that particular section.
 * Even so, I see no problem revising or clarifying the captions to underscore that context. Please suggest some alternate text on this talk page. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. As I mentioned above, I didn't ask for the removal of the photos. And I also didn't say that Wikipedia is taking a position. I meant that these photos, without appropriate citation and description, will lead some people to that conclusion. Now, since you kindly asked me to suggest some sentences, I would suggest for the first photo anything that states that this photo reflects the negative view of Islam that the painter had (and I assume you agree with me that such paintings remind us of the fundamentalists who only dream to kill and torture the people of the other religions and civilizations). For the second photo I strongly suggest any sentence that educates the readers with the fact that Islam does believe in the 10 commandments and instructs its followers to abide by them. The latter fact is enough to show that the painter had misconceptions about Islam. Thanks (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC))


 * Would you mind suggesting some actual text that doesn't overwhelm the space required for an image caption? Either here, or be bold and edit the captions in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your invitation. In the first place I refrained from suggesting some statements in order to avoid "imposing" my ideas on you. But as you are, kindly, requesting again I'll throw my two cents and please keep in mind that I'm open for any constructive criticism. For the photo by M. Prideau, I would suggest the addition of this statement: "This photo reflects an extremist's depiction of Mohammad that reflects the negative view of Islam in the middle ages". For the second photo I would suggest to add:"This photo shows a clear misconception about Islam as most of the 10 commandments agree with the Islamic teachings". Again, I'm open for any other suggestions. Thanks (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Regardless of the bias you see in those images, you must be careful not to insert your own bias into the captions, using loaded or inflammatory terms. Your first caption suggestion would be better if shortened to "This depiction illustrates the negative view of Islam in the middle ages." The second one could be stated "In contrast to what this image shows, the 10 Commandments are largely compatible with Islamic teachings." I'm sure others could come up with further improvements. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I totally agree with your suggestions. Just one last comment about the first photo. This photo is really clearly offensive and I just wanted the caption to be descriptive with that fact (thus my suggestion above). Now, who is supposed to add these statements? Thanks for considering my concerns (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC))
 * I made an attempt to clarify the captions. It isn't appropriate to state that the images are offensive. They may be offensive to you, but they are not offensive to everyone. Wikipedia (and also this article) is full of things that offend people. Wikipedia does not censor, and also does not provide disclaimers or warnings. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating the captions. Two things please. Firstly, the caption under the second photo is great but I think it will be stronger if you make it as: "This illustration is taken from La vie de Mahomet, by M. Prideaux, published in 1699. It shows Muhammad holding a sword and a crescent while trampling on a globe, a cross, and the Ten Commandments. In contrast to what this image shows, most of the Ten Commandments are ironically compatible with Islam".
 * Secondly, for the first photo, I like the updated version. But I have a comment, if you allow, about your latest entry above. You mentioned that this photo is offensive just for myself. With all due respect, do you really think that there is a muslim who will be pleased to see his Holy Prophet naked and being tortured in Hell? Do you really believe in that? Any average person won't agree to see his beloved people in this situation, not to mention his holy figures. This photo is clearly insulting, especially if you notice that in Islam we have the known code of modesty that controls what part of the body can be shown. After all, I was clear from the beginning that I'm not trying to impose my "own" ideas and I didn't request the removal of any photo and I didn't ask to censor anything. I always discuss with an open mind and in a quiet atmosphere as these are the requirements, I believe, for a healthy relationship and dialogue among different cultures and societies. Wish you all the best (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC))

This conversation is veering off the intent of this page, which is to discuss improvements. However, I will answer, because you asked directly for my opinion.

Yes, I personally know Muslims who are capable of viewing a work of art about Islam with detachment, given a prior understanding that the work was from a period and place in history that was hostile to Islam. While I am sure no Muslim would be pleased to see this image, I truly believe that not every Muslim would be offended by it, knowing the context of the painting's creation. Art is an individual expression. This painting simply reflects one man's (long dead) opinion. Many Muslims realize that non-Muslims are entitled to express and publish disagreeable opinions about Islam.

I appreciate the discussion and the fact that you are not advocating removal of the image (whether we need both images is another topic to discuss). But as to the caption, Wikipedia should not take a position on whether the painting is offensive or insulting. We don't know if the artist even intended to be offensive or insulting; likely he intended it for a sympathetic European audience. Perhaps he was simply trying to portray the truth as he fervently believed it to be. Without a reliable source giving insight into the artists mind, it would violate the No original research policy to imply that the image is deliberately insulting or offensive. The fact that many Muslims are insulted or offended by it, as you are, would be superfluous to state, in my opinion. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sir, the photo painted by Giovanni da Modena represents, in fact, a scene from Dante Alighieri's Inferno. According to Tony Donovan's article titled "On Dante and Islam" and published in the journal "Taj Mahal Review", volume 4, number 2, Dec. 2005 (check: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WOi-v6NU1mUJ:thinkers.net/writer/tfdonovan.html+dante+Islam&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca), Dante had strong misconceptions about Islam, and I cite: "(Dante) never once used the term "Islam" or "Muslim" in his work. How could he have? Dante, like most of his contemporaries, was completely unaware that Islam existed as an autonomous religious system." and thus the outcome of such "lack" of knowledge about Islam is the painting by Giovanni da Modena. This exactly resembles a situation when an average muslim learns about the Western civilization from the fundamentalists' books!!! As for your comment on that some muslims would understand the rational behind the painting, allow me to disagree as this has nothing to do with "freedom of expression". What may appear as "freedom of expression" for you, with all due respect, is not necessarily true for others. If we use the "freedom of expression" loosely, we won't be able to differentiate between respected opinions and "insults". (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Well, you more or less just proved my point. An artistic expression about Muhammad created in ignorance of the existence of Islam cannot possibly be accused of insulting Muslims, if the painter had no knowledge of who or what he was supposedly insulting. He evidently had knowledge of Muhammad, and painted Muhammad suffering in hell, in accordance with his Christian bias. I was not using the term "freedom of expression" loosely. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the open discussion. So don't you think that the fact about Dante's controversial opinion about Islam is better be mentioned in the passage? it will enhance its richness. About the "freedom of expression", I was citing your statement:"Art is an individual expression. This painting simply reflects one man's (long dead) opinion" and "...non-Muslims are entitled to express and publish disagreeable opinions about Islam", in these statements you insist on considering the image as an "opinion", while it obviously reflects an insult. When an extremist islamist uses a "coarse language" to describe the Westerns, I can't consider him to be saying his own "opinion". Yes, Islam has absolutely no problem of accepting respected and scientific critique from non-Muslims, but not insults. Thanks (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC))
 * I forgot to mention in my last reply that I made a further minor edit to the caption.
 * Looking over the essay on the thinkers.net site you pointed out, it seems like a place for writers to self-publish essays, and therefore it wouldn't be considered an authoritative reliable source by Wikipedia standards. If you can find reliable sources that discuss Dante's opinions on Islam, you are welcome to include them or bring them up here. This article already mentions Dante's treatment of Muhammad, and I agree that sentence could be expanded somewhat. Any suggestion is welcome, keeping in mind that any expansion should be brief in accordance with the Undue weight policy.
 * You conclude that the outcome of Dante's ignorance was that painting. More likely the painting was simply inspired by Dante's Divine Comedy and the artist was similarly ignorant. Please remember No original research. Wikipedia articles aren't a forum for speculation about what went on in someone's mind. We can only report what sources report. Neither you nor I know whether the painting was consciously intended as an insult. If the artist was painting for a non-Muslim audience, then it's likely no insult was intended, rather he was simply painting the truth as he saw it.
 * I know of some extremists who consider the mere existence of any religious faith to be insulting to the human intellect. Are you deliberately and consciously insulting them by following Islam? I think not. And as long as you are asking about my personal views, I will sum them up in this context by saying: You have a choice about what offends you. Therefore, Wikipedia has no business defining what is offensive for readers. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you check the well-known, authentic book titled "Orientalism" by the highly admired prof. Edward Said (the book is available on Google Books) you will find a reliable source on Dante's views about Islam and Muslims. Please check pages 68 and beyond. I'll provide you with more references soon. Thanks.(Mounibkhanafer (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Hi Amatulić, I'm still waiting for your response about the reference I mentioned in my latest entry above. This is a highly praised reference and I strongly believe it should be included in the passage. (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Google Books is showing me only reviews of this book, not pages of the book itself. Would you care to suggest an expansion of the single sentence in the article that mentions Dante's treatment of Muhammad, and cite this book? ~Amatulić (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. In fact I did access the book itself and read through it. I prefer that you try again as you need to go through many pages to understand the point of view the author trying to make. Beside, this will add to my honesty that I'm not trying to impose a certain understanding of the book itself. Please try the following link and on the "search bar" on the left enter the word "Dante":

http://books.google.com/books?id=izpNLWUxp5IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=orientalism&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

Pictures
If Wikipedia was really neutral then it should respect all religions including Islam, and remove these horrendous pictures that are insulting our faith. --Stuvaco922 (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There are too many pictures coming on-line everyday. It the viciously  anti-Islamic satire "How Fatima Started Islam: Mohammad's Daughter Tells It All" by Noor Barack and sold by Amazon.com, Mohammad is depicted as a drunken, urine-soaked, child molesting pimp who runs (poorly) Mohammad's Saloon & Brothel.  An alleged photo of Mohammad, in his role as Mecca's town drunk, is on the back cover.  This satire is just one of many new products that orthodox Muslims would find disrespectful, but they cannot all be censored.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burlytop (talk • contribs) 14:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, neutral is not defined as "universal respect" - one dictionary definition is "not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy." Being neutral could just as easily mean one disrespects all religions, including Islam, so long as one is not more or less disrespected than any other. An encyclopedia that censors itself in favor of one religion over another would not be neutral. Now, if you're arguing that wikipedia should censor not only the images of Muhammad but also the images of "Piss Christ" or the like, then you'd at least be consistent. However, that is not wikipedia's policy and I'd argue against that just as much. Dart~Ben (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Also no neutral person would just disrespect someone's faith without a second thought.--Stuvaco922 (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not? What if they disrespect everyone's faith without second thought? Plenty of comedians have made a very successful living being so-called "equal opportunity offenders." Dart~Ben (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. If you have additional concerns that the FAQ doesn't address, feel free to post them here. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of the online pictures of Muhammad are FROM Muslim manuscripts... like this one.http://hypernation.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/muhammad.gif So how can you claim its against your faith to show it when the faith has done it itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.81.113 (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Those paintings might have been made by Muslims, but that does not mean it is not against the Islamic faith. Hitler killed 6 million Jews and he was a christian, do you mean to say that since Hitler was a christian, so now its OK for christians to kill Jews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijax (talk • contribs) 19:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read Godwin's law. Please read the FAQ and previous discussions. Jarkeld (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore these caricatures amount to mocking the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), which the Muslims can't tolerate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.127.8 (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Muslims may not be able to tolerate pictures of Muhammad, but Wikipedia is NOT censored. Viewing these images is not forced upon anyone. You may be offended by such images but Wikipedia will not censor articles to conform with one particular religion's world view. If you don't like these images, simply do not look at them - but do not presume that you can refuse the right of non-muslims, who do not consider such displays blasphemous,to view such images. FramingArmageddon (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Template:Muhammad-FAQ-Images allows registered users to set their preferences so that images of Muhammad are not visible. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 93.189.193.16, 20 April 2010
Not done:

Please kindly remove all photographs shown as Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). This is against Islam. No one has seen him and this is a Sin.

93.189.193.16 (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, please read the faq. Jarkeld (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be a sin to you, but it is not necessarily a sin to anyone else. Wikipedia is not beholden to any one religion, or indeed, any religion at all. Please read the FAW FAQ and look at Wikipedia's rules regarding NPOV (neutral point of view) Dart~Ben (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also not a sin according to the Qur'an, either. Rklawton (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not here to protest but I would like to invite your attention to some neutral thoughts. Almost all of the picture dates to hundreds of years after Muhammed (peace be upon him) died. The picture does not contain the actual picture of Muhammed (peace be upon him). If you think neutrally, the source is not reliable from its date itself. I don't mind if you keep the picture or not, it's up to you, if you really think it's his actual figures. As The God Almighty explains in the quran, there is no compulsion in religion (2:256), he knows everything and I leave the rest to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.207.32 (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They are historical depictions of him, though. No one is claiming they're photographs or even live portraits. If they're so obviously not him, though, why do you care? -- King Öomie  17:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, i dont know where you had your info from abt the Quran not condemning depiction..but it is condemned in Islam....I dont know how you not reating to our requests is neutral. It is not just the portrait of our Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) that is forbidden for us muslims. But depicting him in any way is considered prohibited. So please, like some other pictures that i have seen on the internet-- you could mask our beloved prophet's face like it has been done in so many original persian artist's rendition. And in the end, i'd just like to add that its fine that you want to be neutral but what you dont see is that you're not being accurate with your information. Islam doesnt permit portraits or renditions of Prophet Muhammad and when you show these pictures, it contradicts our beliefs and a very important aspect of Islamic culture. Thanks and hope you understand-- Peace, Sherza (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Sherza
 * Technically I believe that only applies to Sunni muslims, its fine for Shia muslims to display images of the prophet - which is why the Wikipedia in Persian shows these images, but those in other languages (and even Chinese/Russian) do not. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Administrator,

I understand that you are not taking sides of different religions however by posting pictures/depictions/figures/images of our beloved Prophet Mohammed PBUH you are hurting our religious sentiments and feelings.

If you do not want to consider religious views, I strongly believe that the team at Wikipedia as Human beings should consider the request of Muslims to delete and erase such pictures on Humanitarian Grounds. I am quite certain, if any images or content posted on the internet, defames/hurts/abuses or is offensive in any way to a group or individual, the company needs to consider the request and take action accordingly. I am requesting you to remove these pictures, since Wikipedia's knowledge about Islam should be enough to educate the world even without any pictures or images.

Please give in some thought to our requests.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubairrazack (talk • contribs) 21:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read the below (collapsed section) on adding a warning to the article and how against most editors were to that I think its unlikely that a consensus can be found to remove the images completely. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote/disclaimer linking to the FAQ on hiding images in this article
Not done: As this hasn't been discussed since 2008 I think it probably is justified to have a leading sentence linking to the FAQ article on hiding the images, as currently it isn't even on the main part of the talk page. My reasoning is that its offensive to a large number of muslims and its not completely obvious that the page will include images of Muhammad - especially if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia's polices. Additionally I don't believe there is anything similar which applies to such an important page of another major world religion so there is little room for "slippery slope".

The only similar thing I can think of is images of death of Indigenous Australians but there aren't any of those on their main Wikipedia page and my Googling didn't find any on any other pages. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No. WP:NOTCENSORED does not change over time.  We are here to provide an encyclopedic knowledge, and not molly-coddle people who may find this or that to be distasteful, unpleasant, or offensive.  An article on Muhammad, in a Western-hosed server, is likely going to display images. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Disclaimers have nothing to do with censorship. After all, we provide plot-spoiler notices, thereby giving readers the ability to self-censor if they wish.  This is no different.  Rklawton (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we don't. WP:SPOILER. There USED to be spoiler notices, but you'll notice that is a dead link.  -- King Öomie  20:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Many articles contain images which we can reasonably expect a fair number of people to find offensive. If those articles have disclaimers, then so should this one. Otherwise, I strongly feel that we should not treat Muslim readers as a "special case". Rklawton (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) For clarity I am not asking for the images to be removed - as that would be breaking WP:NOTCENSORED (and I'd be against their removal). However given that Comedy Central has just censored South Park (which is notoriously offensive to everyone) on this exact issue I don't really think its obvious that there would be images on this page. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What does this "obviousness" matter? And how is it different from any other article with potentially offensive images?  Rklawton (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And Comedy Central is getting absolutely torched over its decision to censor South Park. I've yet to hear of anyone defend their actions with any sort of vigor. So that's not exactly a good example. Dart~Ben (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Because if it was obvious that the article on Muhammad was going to contain images then people wouldn't visit it in the first place and get upset and make discussions asking for their removal on the talk page (which appears to happen over and over again). The difference IMO with other articles is that most of them are much more obscure than this one, you aren't exactly likely to visit Pearl necklace (sexuality) if its going to offend you. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't use spoiler notices (if you find one be sure to remove it). It is reasonable for one to expect a subject's article in a major encyclopedia to have images of said subject so I see no reason for a warning. We already have disclaimers anyway, they're at the bottom of every page in the link marked 'disclaimers'.  raseaC talk to me 20:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that South Park have censored their images of Muhammad, how is it obvious that Wikipedia will include them? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comedy Central has a prior history of censorship, and Wikipedia has had a consistent no censorship policy. Besides, many of the folks who come here and are offended and leave complaints complain in such poor English that it's obvious that the only reason they visited the English language version of this article was to complain.  Rklawton (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Given South Park has bashed practically every group under the sun it is completely non-obvious that they would censor this unless it was particularly controversial. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

To add, for example the BBC didn't publish the Danish cartoons: "After that some media outlets republished the pictures in solidarity or outrage, while others - including the BBC - have refrained from publishing them to avoid causing offence to their audiences." (source) -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Television broadcasters censor a lot of things indicating a lot of things are particularly sensitive. So what?  Wikipedia isn't a television broadcaster, and our longstanding censorship policy has not wavered. Since we don't provide advance warnings on any of these other subjects, then I see no reason to start here.  Rklawton (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. What other topics are equivalently high-profile and similar to this one? Most of the examples given in the FAQ on this page were very obscure. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NODISCLAIMERS is pretty clear. -- Neil N   talk to me  20:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - it clearly states that exceptions can be made. Rklawton (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The editors at this page have been quite clear that there will be no exception in this case. The guideline describes several SPECIFIC exceptions, none of which are related to this issue, and also describes 'dissenting opinions' to the guideline. Why are they there? I'm not sure. They shouldn't be. -- King Öomie  20:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The consensus is two years old, so it's been brought up again for review. Rklawton (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Having one article out of 3 million+ showing a content disclaimer doesn't make much sense, IMHO. -- Neil N   talk to me  20:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What other WP:VITAL article has the potential to offend several hundred million people just by reading it? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the response to that is "tough titty says the kitty". Neither you nor anyone else has the right to walk through life un-offended. Tarc (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not offended by it in the slightest. However clearly lots of people are as you can see from it being bought up here over and over again. Additionally major western news agencies like the BBC are self censoring. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they censor because they'd rather not have their heads lopped off on a grainy videotape. The censoring says more about the viciousness of those who are offended and the fear of reprisals than anything else.  I do not feel that the Wikipedia should follow suit; we have a policy, and we stand by it. Tarc (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That news agency argument is a red herring. News agencies don't have a charter to be encyclopedic. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news agency.
 * Being offended by something is a personal choice. Many Muslims choose not to be offended by these images. See, for example, the Persian Wikipedia article on Muhammad, presumably edited predominantly by Mulsims, which contains many of the same images. They don't see the need to self-censor or provide disclaimers; why should we? Just to appease Muslims who are evidently ignorant of the Qu'ran, who choose to take offense? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @News agencies, fair enough. The Persian Wikipedia is a bad example as the Persians/Iranians are 90% Shia Muslims (source), its Sunni Muslims who appear to be offended by images of Muhammad (source) - and worldwide Sunni muslims make up 90% of all muslims (source). EDIT: So for example the Arabic, Malay (Malaysia) and Malay (Indonesia) don't have any images of Mohammad. And neither do the Chinese Wikipedia or the Russian Wikipedia -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comparing other Wikipedias is not that useful as it's been mentioned again and again on other parts of English Wikipedia that each local Wikipedia has its own policies, guidelines, and topical consensus. -- Neil N   talk to me  22:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So long as we're on the subject of "most Muslims" - we should probably acknowledge that most Muslims do not read English or use the English language Wikipedia - except perhaps to complain about the images in the article on Muhammad. Rklawton (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that English is the international language that isn't really true. In virtually every country English is their second language, and as the English Wikipedia is much more developed than other Wiki's people all around the world will read it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As with others, I oppose special disclaimers on this article. The content disclaimer already states that readers may be offended by what they see on Wikipedia.  Muhammad is no special case in this regard. Resolute 00:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

For those not familiar with the history of this issue:"The Qur'an does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental traditions) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating the visual depictions of figures under any circumstances. Most contemporary Sunni Muslims believe that visual depictions of the prophets generally should be prohibited, and they are particularly averse to visual representations of Muhammad.[3] The key concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry, where the image becomes more important than what it represents. In Islamic art, some visual depictions only show Muhammad with his face veiled, or symbolically represent him as a flame; other images, notably from Persia of the Ilkhanate, and those made under the Ottomans, show him fully.[1]" From Depictions of Muhammad, a fairly well referenced article.I don't think we should give in to pressure to remove this. I once visited a gallery that displayed this work, which is pictured on Wikipedia is pretty much guaranteed to offend anyone Christian. People wanted to shut down the gallery and ban this image, but luckily cooler heads prevailed. We should not, ever, give in to demands to censor images or other content just because it offends a certain section of the population. Maybe I'm offended by this, but I'm not trying to get it censored. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I bet the gallery had a disclaimer... Certainly when I went to see Jeff Koons sexually explicit works in Chicago there was a disclaimer. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, this debate is not about censorship, but about whether or not to warn users who may be offended that such images exist, and to tell them how to hide the images if they choose. Resolute 03:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be the context of this current conversation, but the intent behind the initial post that eventually led to this conversation is clear enough. However you do make a fair point and I'll try to keep my remarks on topic. We don't hand hold users on any other pages to warn them that they might be offended, and frankly there are images that are offensive  to a much wider audience from various backgrounds than drawing of Muhammad. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I only bought this up so that Wikipedia could be a little more culturally sensitive towards Sunni muslims and to be honest I'm pretty surprised there is so much opposition to this - given all that I wanted to add was a single sentence. Certainly removing the images themselves would be a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED and is something I'm against. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The gallery probably did have a disclaimer, and so do we. By posting a disclaimer on this article we're just cherry-picking one of literally thousands of articles that would be offensive to readers for various reasons. Because the image offends a lot of people is hardly an argument. We don't take action just to appease large groups of people, if we had a policy (i.e. posting content disclaimers at the tops of pages) we'd have to do so on every page that could be considered offensive to any person, which is pretty much all of them. raseaC talk to me 08:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Tally

 * Oppose - disclaimer. We already have a disclaimer (at bottom), many if not most of those claiming offense clearly don't speak English as their first language and are just here to cause trouble, disclaimers run contrary to "no disclaimer" guidelines, starting disclaimers here would open up a large and unproductive can of worms. Rklawton (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest the most likely reason the people who don't speak English as their first language come to read this article if they know about it so that they can improve their English - as English is used incredibly widely worldwide and is the world's second language. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then they should be complaining at Simple English Wiki, which contains several (ironically simple) depictions of the prophet. -- King Öomie  21:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not if your level of English is above a very low level, you'll want the exposure to the more complex words used in the full English language Wiki. And besides this one is far more high profile than the Simple English version (in fact this article is a couple of orders of magnitude more popular than the the Simple English version). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest Eraserhead1, you are deluding yourself if you think non-English speaking Muslims visit this article to improve their English only to find themselves terribly offended to the point that they feel obligated to leave complaints in broken English. Rklawton (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So maybe they are just reading the page for fun then. The idea that there is some conspiracy of muslims deliberately complaining about this over and over again seems to be rather bizarre - especially given it hasn't been reported in the Western media. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that this has been reported in Western Media, I'd agree with you. We debated the issue then, and the article now looks as it does. Pictures with no disclaimers. I presume this is all in the FAQ.  Rklawton (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. The relative English skills of hypothetical users who might be offended by these images is not at all relevant. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need to make this into a poll. If the discussion which has already occurred does not convince anyone that we should not and will not be doing this, then a request for comment or some other form of dispute resolution can be pursued, but I should think it would be clear by now that we neither censor Wikipedia nor make specific disclaimers. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as per above.  raseaC talk to me 19:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. I started it because it's often a good tool for a consensus check.  But I agree that this is a special case.  Rklawton (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, if you wont take off the pictures, could you please atleast mask the face.. Sherza (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Sherza
 * No. Please read: WP:NOTCENSORED and the image FAQ. Jarkeld (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If it offends you that much click here and follow the instructions, you won't see the images anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we've established that most of the people here don't care if they have an option to hide the images from their own computer. They don't want the images to exist on Wikipedia at all. -- King Öomie  15:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction required concerning images
The images contain the sketches of Holy Prophet (Peace Be upon Him) and his companions, which is wrong and highly condemnable as it hurts the feelings of all the Muslims. It is strongly recommended to remove these images from Muhammad (Peace Be upon Him) profile as soon as possible.
 * No. Please read the FAQ explaining why. Dart~Ben (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are offended by it, don't look at it, it is THAT SIMPLE. Muslims may not believe in freedom of speech, but they cannot force the rest of the world to be censored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.102.25.201 (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Today, Sunday May, 10th 2010. I also ask you to remove these pictures. If you categorize this as a freedom of speech a lot of people do not see that. This will result in a law suit, and we will let the judge decide. If you cheat, lie, and distorse information and classify it afterwords as if it was freedom of speech, that id rediculous. This is been documentented and will be used against you. Since, this website is a wiki, I will let the creator of this website know to put preasure on you to delete this. That way, they would not withdrawl for responsability claiming it is a wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaatoug (talk • contribs) 05:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see that the anti-image people have upgraded from death-threats to frivilous-lawsuit-threats. That's a step in the right direction. Can you tell us the places where the wiki editors cheated, lied, and "distorsed" information, or will that be surprise evidence in your court case?  24.68.41.132 (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's how upset people get about it :(. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh the humanity of it all. It's not like encyclopedias should be oh i don't know objective is it? I'm sure the good folks at the ACLU of Florida would be happy to offer a free legal defense were this empty threat of lawsuit to actually materialize into a frivolous lawsuit. But the preceding comment is right, frivolous lawsuits and a great improvement over death threats. They're moving in the direction of Scientology, rather fascinating really. HawkShark (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite the fact that any lawsuit based on this would be thrown out of court in the first five minutes, I have blocked this user for making legal threats. Clearly the intent was to intimidate and bully in order to force such a change in policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I truely hope you try to sue Wikimedia, or even Jimbo Himself. The law that regulates wiki is Florida state law, in wich SLAPP lawsuits are countered with FLA. STAT. §§ 768.295 & 720.304 will make YOU pay for HIS court expenses and all pre-discovery. Since jimbo is a rich man I hope you got tons of money to pay for his fancy high priced lawyer fees. I enjoy your nonsense lawsuit., its worth a laugh.Smitty1337 (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

guys, what happened to WP:DFTT? --dab (𒁳) 09:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)