Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images/General discussion

''The following discussion is closed and should not be edited.

↑ Intro

<- Alt Question 10 | General discussion | Proposal:Leave everything as they are (no change is necessary) ->

General discussion

 * I find discussion of censoring any otherwise perfectly appropriate content on Wikipedia for any reason to be both offensive and a waste of time. If a separate "censored" version of this article ends up being implemented, it sends a terrible message and sets an embarrassing precedent. Placating those who would want accurate and pertinent information hidden or removed is simply antithetical to the goals of this site. --Resplendent (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We should be considerate of the feelings of faithful Muslims, but we also have to defend tolerance and enlightenment as fundamental Western values an encyclopaedia is a part of.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should we be considerate for their feelings just because they are the most vocal group about this type of censorship? Many other religious or cultural views prohibit or discourage things such as this, but are effectively ignored because there are less numbers or less vocals complainers. I doubt certain Christians are very happy about Christian mythology, evolution or creation myth, or that Holocaust deniers are happy about Holocaust, but their feelings toward the matter are not considered, nor should they be. —  FoxCE  (talk • contribs) 11:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Being considerate against other people's sincere feelings and believes also is an element of tolerance. The point is that we have to find a threshold, a line of demarcation. This can only be found in a deliberative approach, in a discussion. My point of view is that we live in one world, but this a platform of enlightenment, so it must be possible after all to show depictions of Mohammed at all, just as we do show depictions of Jesus Christ or indeed any other prophet or religious reader in an encyclopaedia. The current solution for the infobox as a prominent point if interest in an article seems to be a good idea. Everyone gives in a bit, no one prevails abolutely, and the character of an encyclopaedia is preserved.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that perhaps your point of view is mainly influenced by the rigid discussion that has taken place in th U.S. on matters of Christian fundamentalism lately. We don't have this problem in Germany, or indeed in Europe, as we are quite liberal in this country. Denying the Holocaust is a crime in this country, and we hardly have any religious fundamentalists in prominent places.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It does seem crazy that people would get upset about this but are fine with articles on Fisting, Mammary intercourse, facials, cum shots: discussing and picturing every aspect of pornography is fine but a picture of a bloke is not. Span (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * People accept that pornography articles are 'sinful' by nature. They do not believe that 'fisting' is their God's chosen prophet.  There's really no comparison between religion and pornography (at least  not one I'll risk making here!). Ocaasit &#124; c 12:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Like FoxCE said, I don't think it is an issue specifically of comparing religion and pornography, it is an issue of how we respond to those who are offended by parts of them. Why should one group who is offended by something (a depiction of Muhammad) be allowed to have sway over how this Wikipedia is operated and not another group (when I say group it is rather loosely defined, but those who protest images of genitalia, naked bodies, etc)? You could make the religion argument: Muhammad is believed by Muslims to be God's chosen prophet and so his article should be treated with respect to that religions wishes, but you could easily bring up how offensive naked bodies and images of those engaged in sex acts are in religions as well. I see both as really being the same thing: offensive because of religious reasons, and as such if one isn't prohibited in the English Wikipedia, neither should the other. HMman (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Be fair, give them the same degree of consideration they accord to opposing philosophies. When they accept that the rest of the world has the right to think, act and publish differently to their beliefs, then the rest of the world can respect their choice to differ. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They want the pictures not to exist anywhere, and Wikipedia is just one part of that. It's hard to understand how we could effectively compromise with the attitude that knowledge must be destroyed - David Gerard (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Where's the option to change the Wikipedia logo into a small picture of Muhammad? I'm not sure who wrote this RfC, but since there's no clear option to say WP:NOTCENSORED really means not censored, I'll just leave a note here. Gigs (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While reviewing the discussion on this page, I noticed that a contingent of editors seemed to express in their chosen rhetoric the idea that "Western" English Wikipedia users and individuals belonging to "Islamic culture" are two entirely separate groups of people, whereas that is not the reality—that is, Muslims and Westerners are not two mutually exclusive groups. This comment is not so much an attempt to persuade either way on any question above, but merely something to keep in mind for all editors involved as the discussion procedes.  scisdahl  ( t • c ) 16:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The overlap of the two groups is so minimal as to be functionally nonexistent, honestly. We are here discussing this today because over the years there has been sporadic off-wiki protests and advocacy to remove the images from this project.  This has been either in the form of vandalism to the article (now contained by permanent semi-protection) or edit requests (shunted off to their own article talk sub-page).  It was only recently that the WMF commissioned the study on controversial content; some editors took it to mean a license to remove the images, others saw religious concern as not meeting the threshold where images had to be removed.  That disagreement is why we're here now, but again, the impetus for all this is the attempt to impose a non-Western point-of-view on the English Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a summary of this conflict, but I remain convinced that an "us vs. them" mentality is overly reductive and therefore not conducive to reaching a lasting solution. I understand that vandalism can be a thoroughly frustrating issue, but hostile or divisive language in this project's discourse can only serve to de-legitimize the outcome of these proceedings and further open the door to future conflict.  scisdahl  ( t • c ) 23:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Some editors believe we shouldn't gratuitously insert images that add nothing to the readers' understanding but are offensive to many of our readers. This is not "imposing a non-Western view." It is advocating for adult behaviour.


 * By the way, 80% of Wikipedia's readers are outside the US. The subcontinent has as many English speakers as the US and UK combined. North America, Europe and Australia have sizable English-speaking Muslim populations. Your implication that we are writing only for Western non-Muslims is wrong in a toxic and pernicious kind of way. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The entire Muhammad article looks entirely fine to me as is, and this whole argument seems like extraordinarily much ado about nothing, when more sensitive issues are largely overlooked. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting discussion, but I think that the discussion around CENSORSHIP here is misleading. Censorship is something that is externally imposed, with the implication that is it done against the will or interests of the affected parties, whereas here the discussion is within the community, seeking consensus about steps we can take to address concerns expressed by members of that community (I am excluding here vandals and others who have agendas over and above making Wikipedia a friendly and useful place to be a part of). The comparison to pornography and sexually graphic images is also misleading. A better comparison would be the use of offensive words like "nigger" or "fag," which most of us voluntarily refrain from using outside of contexts (like the present) where their relevance or utility outweigh their affective impact. I have the right to use these words, but I choose not to because I don't want to offend other people. Of course, avoiding slurs is easier than the image-of-Mohammed problem because having these images can be argued to serve a genuine purpose, unlike most slurs. However, there is no reason that we can't serve that purpose without showing some delicacy and sensitivity (as per some of the measures suggested above), particularly when the only reason that I see offered here not to be accommodating is largely emotional. I would not advocate removing these images, but moving them off the first screen, adding a warning or option to show the page without them, or taking some other measure to acknowledge that Wikipedia IS aware that the issue is important to some (many?) of its users does no harm. It is not caving in to censorship because nothing is censored, and minimizing the objectionable images by keeping them down to what is necessary for the purposes of the article seems perfectly reasonable to me. The fact that there might be other constituencies out there that could raise similar objections to other Wikipedia pages is simply a fact of life, and if there needs to be discussion around other such pages, it's all part of the process of developing the Wiki community. Davidjamesbeck (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If we allow our content to be dictated by small groups of radicals, then it is indeed censorship. Gigs (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not the small groups of radicals we want to be concerned about, it's the much larger community of people who are offended by these images or feel that they are disrespectful to a dearly-held belief. My point is simply that we shouldn't be thinking about this in terms of radicals trying to dictate what Wikipedia does, we should be thinking about this in terms of doing what needs to be done and saying what needs to be said in a way that doesn't unnecessarily alienate members of the community. Not everyone who is potentially upset by this is a radical, and I don't think finding ways of accommodating these cultural sensitivities without compromising Wikipedia's aims is impossible.Davidjamesbeck (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree that many of the solutions being suggested here are not true censorship, especially in the case of the 'remove images from this article' hatnote - see my comments in that section. I would also point out that very little of the discussion on this page is motivated by radical Islam, but rather a spirit of inclusiveness and concern for the beliefs of others - while I haven't read every comment here, I haven't seen a single person in favour of hiding/limiting/removing images say that their choice is motivated by their own religious belief Euchrid (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That is because the sorts of users (anon IPs and single purpose accounts) that demand removal based on their personal beliefs have been excluded from this discussion, per the Wikimedia Foundation's suggestion. Not that they are excluded because of their beliefs, not implying that, but that there was a desire for actual vested Wikipedia editors to make the decision on inclusion of controversial images. I agree that no regular users are advocating removal for this reason directly, they are just taking into account the belief system of some Muslims in general. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The way I understand it, the vast majority of Muslims are not offended by depictions of Muhammad. Nothing in their holy texts prohibits non-muslims from creating or displaying depictions.   So this has nothing to do with the sensitivities of any mainstream group, only with the sensitivities of radical agitators, which we should never cave to.  Gigs (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken. Most Sunni Muslims find depictions of Muhammad offensive. Shias are more relaxed about it. These are generalisations, of course. Several Sunnis I know aren't especially bothered by our use of gratuitous depictions of Muhammad. Their response is more like disappointment that Wikipedia should be so puerile, and concern that other Muslims may be alienated by it; one sees it as a deliberate insult to Sunnis but he, too, is more disappointed than hurt or angry. No one here is arguing for the removal of all figurative depictions of Muhammad, only that we should use them where they add to the reader's understanding of the text they illustrate. Most images presently at Muhammad are purely decorative. It's the gratuitous use of such images that is problematic. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This idea of editors trying to speak for "most" of any group is a fallacy. Trying to state another's offense risks patronization.  Finally, the ancient people who used these images to illustrate biographies of the prophet found them educational. So, the idea that they "add nothing" is refuted by the material itself. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Images of Muhammad exist all over the internet. I am not at all clear how Wikipedia different from the rest of the web? Taking them down from here doesn't make them go away. Flickr and Wikicommons have many, Google images and Google books have any number. Maybe they don't like the idea of an internet and an international publishing industry, but there you are. Span (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It matters to me what a Muslim (of the type about whom we are concerned) feels upon viewing a depiction of Muhammad. Does he feel defiled in a way similar to if he had unknowingly ingested pork?  Or, rather, does he deplore the wickedness of the image-maker and feel offended for the sake of the honor of Allah and Muhammad, but not feel personally defiled himself?  Or is it something in between, or altogether different?  Please answer this only if you practice, or have expert knowledge of, Sunni Islam.  Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter to me how any religious group feels. An encyclopedia isn't about protecting feelings, it's about verifiable truth.  I know that certain Christians are offended by certain scientific ideas (evolution, etc.).  Does that mean they should be censored or semi-censored based on feelings?  No.  Who is being forced to read Wikipedia?  The strongest argument against placing photos or limiting them is that (supposedly) most reliable sources don't put them.  I don't know if that's a strong enough argument.  Showing depictions of Muhammad isn't really violating an NPOV or giving undue weight to anything.  Pictures are used to augment or enhance the content.  Are there ANY other articles where depictions are not shown of someone for the supposed reason that that it's not NPOV or undue weight is given?  There's no doubt that images violate certain people's feelings and/or religious beliefs.  If Wikipedia wishes to censor for political reasons, then fine.  I don't think it's a good idea, though. Doctorcherokee (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your answer is completely irrelevant to the reasons for which I asked the question, nor do you fit the description of people whom I asked to answer it. Thanks anyway.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Principle of neutrality, censorship vs. Muslim-appeasement
It gravely hurts me to even realise that I need to reiterate these utterly simple things.

When distinguishing between black and white seems hard enough, be cautious because it's likely that you are going blind.

Muhammad's pictures should not be treated any differently than any other picture. The argument is not about effectiveness or the contribution of the pictures but the principle behind wikipedia policy not-censored (as you read on, you'll likely find out that arguments based on the effectiveness of the pictures are actually immaterial to the present discussion). No amount of chicanery should be sufficient to obscure this distinction. As editors, we shouldn't waste too much of our time thinking whether an image is adequately contributing to the article (because usually they do and if one picture doesn't other editors are there to replace it with a better picture), all we should have to make sure is that the picture doesn't vitiate the quality of the article or in other words, the picture should be related to the topic (hence, an article pertaining to Muhammad should contain images of Muhammad).Legitimacy of Prohibition on depictions of Muhammad is questioned by Muslims themselves and is claimed to be not founded in Islamic law. Wikipedia need not lend credence to this demand which is itself unsettled/illegitimate within Islam. If one finds even the otherwise decent depictions of Muhammad to be unavoidably offensive, it is possible to configure the browser to not display them. That way, the undisturbed or unconcerned readers get to keep their freedom of accessing information and any sensitive reader who finds it disturbing will also be able to keep his/her sentiments intact without affecting others. (click here for further discussion about this) And we should spend even lesser time figuring out whether the provided information is going to hurt somebody's sentiments. People must learn how to adapt to sanity and the reality (i.e. information supported by reliable sources) as opposed to making whimsical demands. The reality shouldn't need to adapt to the wishes and sentiments of people. Also, pictures do sometimes say a thousand words. It's about providing editors with the freedom to explicate or enhance or even adorn an article by images they deem fit. To say that, “it's not adequately contributing to the article” is not a credible rationale, it's an evasion, an excuse, an inane equivocation at best. "Adequate" is a relative term. It's either generically allowed or generically prohibited. There should be no special treatment for any religion (be it Islam or anything else). We also serve audiences who are not muslims. But this is not a perfect place for discussion about a GENERIC change in Wikipedia interface.Like I've been reiterating everywhere, Wikipedia is not an Islamic proselytizing website nor is it affiliated with any particular Islamic organization (as far as I know). Wikipedia doesn't admit of expurgation of reliable information (pictorial or otherwise). There should not be a ban from the policy-makers or ArbComm on this issue as it will intrinsically undermine the principle of neutral and equal treatment of relevant information regardless of what creed they are related to. </ol> :) <font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR:#FFFFCC" size="2"><font face="Ravie" color="Green">Brendon is  here  14:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC) [last edited by <font face="Ravie" color="Green">Brendon is   here  15:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)]


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


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


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

Why don't editors, for the time being, just concentrate on what I've written, as opposed to how I've written them? I say this because I don't see how any attack on my personality or style of writing, is going to be very conducive for anybody here. Anyways, if my eye-catching writing-style or my signature has offended anybody then I present my sincere apologies. <P>By the way, "respectful hatnote" isn't really respectful to the principle of "equal treatment to everybody irrespective of class, colour or creed". Hence, it's not so altruistic as you are trying to make it seem. Special treatment or concession to any group of people is not "respectful" since that so-called "respectful" act necessitates unequal treatment of pertinent information based on religion, as well as needless restrictions on editorial freedom. See, I'm not looking for friction here. In the end I'd like to politely request you not to mistake my enthusiasm or ardency for hate-ridden aggression. (I am sure you're familiar with WP:AGF)+(I don't hate Muslims or anything. But at the same time I'm fed up with the demands for special treatments and concession) User:JohnChrysostom wrote something interesting above - "None of our other articles are WP:CENSORED: the most notable and recognizable depictions go first. We don't censor Swastika, Holocaust (or Holocaust denial), Cunnilingus, Fisting, or Fellatio. Wikipedia caters to no other point of view, religious or not. It is not Wikipedia's job to censor images (as per the WP:DISCLAIMER) or anything else, to reinforce any form of bias or superstition. What's next, remove pictures of the cross because Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons object, remove descriptions of sex acts as immoral?" @ Macon "Neither group wants fewer images or a hatnote explaining how to not view the images. They want the images to not exist, anywhere." —I totally concur with this. :) <font face="Ravie" color="Green">Brendon is  here  19:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Your sermonette has helped me understand how the motivating concern for many participants in this discussion comes from the need to nurture a sense of embattled collective identity." — Firstly, I am only speaking on MY behalf. I don't represent anybody other than myself. However, I'm sorry because I don't find a place where I've claimed, <ul><li>"that all editors who are against the inclusion of images of Muhammad, or are seeking as a minimum to provide a respectful hatnote, are Muslims." or <li>"that others [who] don’t share [my] opinion [are] blind panderers" (all I said was "NO special treatment for any religion. No pandering to Islam.") or <li>"four different-sized fonts, italics, bold script, and a multicoloured signature [are indeed] substitute for a good argument.".</ul>


 * From the WP:Content Disclaimer:
 * It doesn't get any clearer than that. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 13:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC) [last edited by :) <font face="Ravie" color="Green">Brendon is  here  07:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC) used quotation]
 * "May" not "must". No compulsion here. Policy doesn't tell us what we have to do here. Neither do mullahs. Or bigoted ratbags. We decide, in a civil discussion among ourselves. The fundamental question is, to what degree should we take account of the feelings of our millions of Muslim readers on this article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "May" not "must". No compulsion here. Policy doesn't tell us what we have to do here. Neither do mullahs. Or bigoted ratbags. We decide, in a civil discussion among ourselves. The fundamental question is, to what degree should we take account of the feelings of our millions of Muslim readers on this article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

To be precise, the question is "to what degree those conflicted, unfounded, gratuitous demands predicated upon sensitivities of readers that are fueled by nothing more than religious tenets, matter with comparison to principle of equality for all, no prejudicial censorship, validity and relevance of Information, that too in an encyclopaedia?" Proposals for bowdlerizing, otherwise sober and pertinent, information depriving all other readers (majority of whom don't even share the same kind of sensitivity) of the opportunity to smoothly access moderate images just because some few Muslims claim to be emotionally offended (Note:few because most Muslims are moderate and, with good reason, don't expect everybody else to cater to their views), is as appalling as it is disruptive on its face. :) <font face="Ravie" color="Green">Brendon is  here  11:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Policy doesn't tell us what we have to do here. Neither do mullahs. Or bigoted ratbags." -No. Policies do give us a clearer idea of what the boundaries are or in other words, what we can or cannot do. Please don't obfuscate this simple issue. "The fundamental question is..." - You're mildly incorrect again.

New proposal

 * I propose that we remove all photographic images from Wikipedia, because Native Americans and Australian aboriginals believe that photographs steal your soul and disrespect the spiritual world. Discuss.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#a00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> chatter 16:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sensing an ironic tone, in which case you might want to strike your response to 3f, which appears to support only using images of M at the bottom of the article. FormerIP (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite right. I've amended my comments above.  Thanks.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#00a -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> chatter 04:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perfect example of why an "image switch-off option" hatnote of any kind must either be implemented wiki-wide or not at all. — <font face="Lucida Fax"> FoxCE  (talk • contribs) 16:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding us, SW? The Taliban, being faithful Muslims, would obviously need to be accommodated first, ahead of your native and aboriginal infidels. And since all music is an offense to them, that would clearly mean the destruction of all sound files from wikipedia, out of sensitivity to their beliefs. Remember, SW, "neutrality" isn't just a word anymore. It's the way we work. You insensitive brute. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Amen Reverend Good Father. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 01:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Music is also offensive in Saudi Arabia, at least in public. Neotarf (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not true, at least in the case of indigenous Australians. Some variations of their spirituality forbid the depictions of people who have died. If you're going to be sarcastic and unhelpful then at least get your facts straight. Euchrid (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Striking out my own comment as equally unhelpful, and excusing myself for the rest of the debate.Euchrid (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Although that also just covers people of indigenous Australian and Torres Straight Islander origin. Seeing images of dead Australian immigrants is fine. PuppyOnTheRadio   talk  07:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The main issue here is that in most cases the offence (umbrage) is taken rather than given. I take offence to a lot of things. I take offence to some group of people's surreptitious efforts to undermine my freedom of expression. I even take offence to the incessant and gratuitous claims of offence. So what? I don't want pages removed from wikipedia just because it hurts my sentiments. This is all about Islamic hyper-sensitivity, isn't it? Instead of making ourselves sensitized to every second thing the others do or want, should we not be willing to think rationally? <P>Frankly speaking, if it were not for Islamic mumbo-jumbo, there wouldn't have been any discussion regarding sober depictions of dead people. The credibility of unfounded claims of umbrage should not be put to a referendum. So what if somebody is upset? What can we do? Nothing. <P>The apathy towards people's sensitivity is absolutely fundamental to the existence of any encyclopaedia. People must learn how to adapt themselves to claims verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not an Islamic proselytising website and so the existence of depictions of Muhammad shouldn't offend anyone. Wikipedia clearly states its policies. So, it shouldn't be a shock either. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favouring their removal. <BIG>The onus of validating the demands doesn't fall on us, those who are offended should first justify their claims as to why it is so terribly offensive.</BIG> FYI, “Because Quran/Muhammad said so” is not a credible rationale. I repeat, wikipedia, as a website, doesn't necessarily give credence to the tenets of Islam. Thank you. :) <font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR:#FFFFCC" size="2"><font face="Ravie" color="Green">Brendon is  here  12:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "This is all about Islamic hyper-sensitivity, isn't it?" No, it isn't. What it is about is that an encyclopedia should convey knowledge rather than perpetuate ignorance. So if we are using Islamic images, we should show the typical ones, the ones that have widespread cultural significance. Figurative images of Muhammad do not generally speaking have that widespread cultural significance. They are exceptions. Many people don't know that, and don't care. But it's not the job of an encyclopedia to enable people to remain ignorant, or to present a minority viewpoint as though it were the mainstream viewpoint. -- J  N  466  10:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * JN466, while I concur with some of what you have written, I don't see any necessity to notify me that "an encyclopedia should convey knowledge rather than perpetuate ignorance." because I've myself cogently asserted that in various parts of this page. "Figurative images of Muhammad do not generally speaking have that widespread cultural significance. They are exceptions." — this statement is not really relevant since we don't modify or restrict information based on cultural significance. Besides, if we had to count cultural significance of every bit of information we publish here on wikipedia, we won't have had any wikipedia. Thus, I think I'll have to just repeat myself and write, "The main issue here is that in most cases the offence (umbrage) is taken rather than given. [Since offence, in this case, is in the eye of the beholder] I take offence to a lot of things. I take offence to [..] the incessant and gratuitous claims of offence. So what? I don't want pages removed from wikipedia just because it hurts my sentiments. This is all about Islamic hyper-sensitivity, isn't it?" (I'm now even more convinced that it is.) :) <font face="Ravie" color="Green">Brendon is  here  19:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @WBrendon111, please don't use overly large bolded text in discussions. It's quite distracting, and gives others the impression that you think your opinions are more important than theirs. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

@willey "It's quite distracting" - I would say "eye-catching" (that was the purpose, I admit). "gives others the impression that you think your opinions are more important than theirs." - That's your opinion. It was meant to seem more important than the other parts of my own comment. Please assume good faith and don't make it seem something which it is not. I personally thought they were pretty important, yes, but not more important than most other comments. I'm sorry if it had offended you in anyway. ;) <font face="Ravie" color="Green">Brendon is  here  10:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No offense at all. It's really not a big deal to me, and I hope my comment didn't make it seem that way. In my mind using large bold letters falls somewhere along the lines of WP:SHOUT, which again, isn't a big deal, but can be annoying to some. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I must tell you that sometimes shouting is indeed an impolite thing to do. (hopefully, I won't shout from now on) But then there are times when shouting is absolutely necessary or a good thing to do, albeit that must be done without hurting anyone's ears :) <font face="Ravie" color="Green">Brendon is  here  12:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Another new proposal

 * I mentioned this in one of my above comments, but it relates to WP:NDA. I am most definitely opposed to all of the hatnote-related suggestions that have been raised in the discussion, but would it be such a bad thing to make the site-wide disclaimers a little more visible at the top of the Main Page?  That's not censorship, after all (because it's on one page - the page everybody sees when they first come to WP - and therefore applies equally to all articles on the project), and it might help alleviate some of the problems (I suspect the WP:IDHT edits will continue no matter what is decided here - call me cynical).  Right now, the site-wide disclaimer isn't particularly visible.  Yeah, the link is at the bottom of the main page, but shouldn't it (and by "it" I mean, of course, the link - not the disclaimer itself) be visible at a glance on the main page?  To put it as simply as I can: The Main-Page link to the site-wide disclaimer should be more prominent (i.e. visible somewhere on the first screen) of the English Wikipedia.  Sleddog116 (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not everybody comes into Wikipedia via the Main Page. Many come in via a Google (or similar) link. Martinvl (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly... the previous suggestions of having a link at the side in the "toolbox" area is a much better one. — <font face="Lucida Fax"> FoxCE  (talk • contribs) 10:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a main page? PuppyOnTheRadio   talk  07:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternate proposal
Don't worry about "quotas". Just confine all the Muhammad images to this sub-article and take them out of the main article. Then strict believers in the no-images can read that article without fear of violating their beliefs, and if they take the "see also" to this "Images" article then they've done it by choice and they can't gripe that it's being thrown in their faces. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I don't think censoring the article by moving all images to confine them elsewhere (like a contagion?) is in accord with the policies on image relevance and not censored. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (I think?) he's being sarcastic. — <font face="Lucida Fax"> FoxCE  (talk • contribs) 11:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not being sarcastic. Whose interests are we serving, our own or the readers? And moving them elsewhere is not "censorship". Removing them altogether? That's censorship. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You are removing them altogether from an article in which they are relevant. And why?  Because there is religious objection? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) The problem with this, and all such suggestions is that they misunderstand the objection, which is not simply an objection to images of Muhammed in the Wikipedia article, "Muhammed", but the the existence anywhere of any depiction of Muhammed. Muslims have protested against the inclusion of Muhammed in a freize of historic "law-givers" at the US Supreme Court, and against the display of historical depications of Muhammed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (which pulled all such works from display in 2010). What is sought is not the removal from one article, but the outright removal of all such images from Wikipedia (and, I am sure, Commons also). cmadler (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I am opposing this for the same reasons that have been mentioned throughout the whole discussion (without bludgeoning WP:CENSOR). As someone expertly pointed out earlier, we can apply the same principle here that we've applied to the sex-related articles (as far as interpreting "least astonishment" is concerned): in the article about Masturbation, a reasonable person can expect to see images. Similarly, a reasonable person (Muslim or not) can expect to see images (or at least artistic depictions) of Muhammed in an article about Muhammed (and I believe many - if not a majority of - Muslims who participate in the project would agree with me). And I should say that the "problem Muslims" (I don't want to stereotype because not all - in fact, relatively few - Muslims are the cause of the problem) haven't exactly shown good faith towards Wikipedia - to clarify, if you look at the homepage of MuslimWiki, the main page has, in a very prominent place, "Why Use MuslimWiki and Not Wikipedia". I'll assume good faith all day long (and I haven't actually watched the video yet - I'm at work on a computer with no sound), but that, to me, doesn't really speak much to their willingness to be tolerant in the project. The fact that several of them have come in like angry mastodons (Not asking but expecting, Shouting in all caps) only reinforces that. The other problem I have is that we wouldn't do this for any other article I can think of - In fact, I doubt we'd even be discussing it for any other article. It's time to stop walking on eggshells and apply the same standards to this article as we'd apply to anything else on the project. Sleddog116 (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've said it before but I'll repeat it here - do you know how silly it sounds for you to tell people that you can't respect their opinion because they type in all capital letters, especially when you're asking people to respect our article on Muhammad despite our use of images. The only thing those posters are doing wrong is expecting us to censor our article for them, and that is true of a whole lot of posters from a whole lot of viewpoints on a whole lot of issues. Wnt (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Mmmm. Have you read any of the above? All that's being called for here is respect; not censorship but discretion and discernment. No one's making us do this. I don't advocate the sparing use of depictions of Muhammad because I'm afraid of Al Kaida or ranting fools who type in caps on Talk:Muhammad. I want to show respect (not deference, respect - Tarc seems to think they're the same thing) to the millions of moderate Muslims who will come to this page, by not gratuitously adding more Muhammad images than we need. I'm not talking about images in the section Muhammad, where they exemplify the topic, but in earlier sections, where they are artists' impressions of mythical and historical events. How do you justify their inclusion when they add nothing to the readers' understanding of the text they illustrate? You and others seem to be arguing "Fuck you" to all Muslims because some extremist fools behave badly. Get over yourself and learn some manners. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "All that's being called for here is respect; not censorship but discretion and discernment." Did you see me disagree with that? I even said "without bludgeoning WP:CENSOR".  "I want to show respect (not deference, respect - Tarc seems to think they're the same thing) to the millions of moderate Muslims who will come to this page, by not gratuitously adding more Muhammad images than we need."  Again, I agree - I didn't say we should add more images necessarily - I said we should treat images on Muhammed the same way we treat anything else on WP: consensus.  "How do you justify their inclusion when they add nothing to the readers' understanding of the text they illustrate?" I don't - but deciding whether they do add to understanding is something that should be seriously discussed and subject to the same consensus processes as anything else, not by some arbitrary decision.  " You and others seem to be arguing "Fuck you" to all Muslims because some extremist fools behave badly. Get over yourself and learn some manners."  I will not dignify such a personal attack with a response except to recommend that it be stricken.  Sleddog116 (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC) *I struck the first sentence in this quote because, while I disagree, this can't be called a personal attack.  The part left, however, is - address edits, not editors. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Addition: Perhaps you missed this, too: "I don't want to stereotype because not all - in fact, relatively few - Muslims are the cause of the problem".  Please point out to me, if I need to "learn some manners," where I said anything rude here? Sleddog116 (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, it comes down to how we want to treat offensive images. Depictions of Muhammad are offensive to many of our readers. Just as naked genitalia are to some. We don't shrink from illustrating Vagina, Human penis or Depictions of Muhammad with accurate images of the topic. The same for Muhammad. What we don't do is illustrate Human skin with pictures of vaginas and penises. We could, but we don't because the same educational value can be achieved by using an inoffensive option. We choose to exercise discretion. I'm just asking that we do the same for offensive religious imagery. "Treat this article the same as we treat other articles" has been code during this debate for "Ignore the offensive nature of these images. Nobody complains about pictures of Jesus at Jesus, so we should use images here like we do at Jesus." That's what I read you as saying. If you in fact mean we should deal with these offensive images in the same way we deal with images of vaginas, then good. Consider yourself well-mannered and over yourself. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how useful it is to suggest that pictures of Muhammad should be grouped with pictures of vaginas as opposed to pictures of Jesus. I don't think even Saudi clerics would go that far. FormerIP (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh? Try to imagine that someone, not you but a moderate Muslim, may feel the same degree of offense in response to a figurative depiction of Muhammad as a moderate Christian would feel in response to a picture of a vagina. Imagine that for a bit. That's what's required here. An understanding of the meaning of offense, and a willingness to believe that others may feel it in response to a stimulus that doesn't offend you or your culture. It's a stretch. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"If you in fact mean we should deal with these offensive images in the same way we deal with images of vaginas, then good." That's basically what I meant, but in very broad terms. In point of fact, both of your comparisons (the one about Jesus) are wrong. My point is that we should decide each image on Muhammed the same way we'd decide images on Jesus or Vagina: by bold edits, discussion, and consensus. What I'm saying is that you're drawing parallels where none exist: a lot of people are saying "we can't remove images from Muhammed for the same reason we can't remove them from vagina" and "we should keep the images at Muhammed because we keep them at Jesus" - Both viewpoints, in my humble opinion, are wrong. The reason we should keep the images at Muhammed is because the community has decided to keep them, not because we've imposed some arbitrary decision on the article. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Bold edits, discussion and consensus" wasn't working so the arbitration committee has instructed the wider community to decide on a consensus version and lock it down for three (I think) years. This RfC is the community deciding what to keep, which seems to be what you're advocating. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the RfC is in place so this issue cannot be dredged up again...and again and again...this is the "for once and for all" time. Tarc (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well... a few years, anyway. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I'm confused. Are we going to start adding images of vaginas to the Muhammed article? PuppyOnTheRadio   talk
 * I'm not sure. Maybe it's Muhammads to the vagina article. FormerIP (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Back to the original point of this alternative proposal, because there is a wikilinked article on depictions of Muhammad, it could be argued that there isn't even a need for Muhammad portraits throughout the main article. I don't feel they add that much to the article and removing them certainly wouldn't negatively impact the content of the article. It's not censorship as much as it is appropriate placement and it certainly makes moot the discussion of the silly hatnote idea. <b style="color:green;">Grika</b> Ⓣ 21:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That position is difficult to understand. Are you saying images of his life are not relevant to his biography (but they're relevant in another article not about his life), so we aren't censoring? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alan. The first two images of Muhammed (the narrative images) are directly relevant to the segments of the article they illustrate (the black stone and the receiving of the Koran from Gabriel).  No, perhaps we don't need to illustrate these events, but if that's the case, what's the point of providing narrative illustrations for any of Wikipedia's articles? Sleddog116 (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is that there are images that pertain to his life that do not necessarily include a representation of his likeness, and the article would be less enriching without them (this is actually my biggest objection to the hatnote idea, because the "button" is indiscriminate when it is simply actual depictions of Muhammad that are contentious). And by having an article that is all about his likeness, repete with representative images, then the censorship point is moot as Wikipedia is still making them available for anyone that wants to further research the topic. That, in fact, is the purpose of having "main article" links atop sections. <b style="color:green;">Grika</b> Ⓣ 02:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They are not "enriching" because there is religious precept against them? Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the non-portraiture images; the article would be less enriching without any graphics. But again, the article is not substantially improved by the portraiture images. <b style="color:green;">Grika</b> Ⓣ 17:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Alan, you're just about right. That's the basic issue here. It has always been so. Muslims and Muslim-sympathizers (no offence please) will always come with some more sophistry for these gratuitous demands. and Grika, non-portraiture images don't add substantially more than the portraits either. Why this bias then? I'm just going to quote alan and write, "the ancient people who used these images (portraits) to illustrate biographies of the prophet found them educational. So, the idea that they "add nothing" is refuted by the material itself." Regarding hatnotes, I'll say, it would be (at least) mildly disruptive over controversial articles and bring undue weight to the controversial side of the topic. Which adds nothing positive to the article either. :) <font face="Ravie" color="Green">Brendon is  here  10:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Five Pillars
How ironic, if not karmic, that this RfC begins with the Mission item: "Five Pillars"! I urge any editor who is unaware that the original Five Pillars are the foundation of Islam itself, to read said article. At the least, you will be enlightened and at best not remain ignorant of the significance of this Jungian “coincidence”. Veritycheck (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Many of us are fully aware of the coincidence; most of us out of that many, I suspect, deem the coincidence totally and utterly irrelevant, like most purported "Jungian coincidences" alleged to occur. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  01:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt it's a coincidence, but it's still irrelevant. (Though can you imagine the size of Wikimania if.....) Wnt (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt it was a coincidence and I was elated to see it at first (I was still a Muslim when I began to edit here in 2007), and then it irked me, and now I've learned to live with it. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 05:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone read Farsi or Turkish?
I've just found that File:Muhammad 13.jpg, a depiction of Muhammad as an infant (vaguely similar to Madonna and Child paintings in Christianity), is in use in the Muhammad Wikipedia article in two different languages whose speakers are mostly Muslims: fa:محمد and tr:Muhammed bin Abdullah. If you can read either of these languages, it would be helpful if you'd check the article histories and see how their editors have dealt with this type of controversy. Note that ar:محمد does not have any images of him. Nyttend (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's long been noted that the Farsi articles has 6 figurative images of Muhammad, same as the English (the man on the Kaaba is not Muhammad). There doesn't seem to be any controversy there, which I think Farsi-speakers have confirmed in the past. The remarkably short Turkish article only has one (veiled) image. Most other largely-Muslim-speaker languages don't have any, but the very short Kurdish article has 4/5 of its images of Muhammad - ku:Mihemed Pêxembe, 2 veiled, 2 not (inc the same Western one we have).  Apparently the majority of Kurds are Sunni, of the very mainsteam Shafi'i, with quite a bit of Sufism.  Probably they can't read Anthonyhcole's comments.  Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As a man who studied to become a faqih of the Shafi'i madhhab (as an Egyptian, not a Kurd; Egypt is unusual in having some of every school, Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali, without one being extremely dominant: note that I never completed my training, as I left Islam first [although one may suppose that I was ejected for idiocy]) I would state that the official position of the school, as far is there is one (that being in the opinion of Imam ash-Shafi'i and his commentators Nawawi, Suyuti and Juwayni, not to mention Ibn Kathir or Tabari) is that all depictions of all living creatures are impermissible (haram), although we were not as strict about it as Hanbalis (or the ahadith). I believe a few scholars hold them to be extremely disliked but not mortally sinful (makruh). I believe this can be confirmed in al-Misri's Umdat as-Salik, published in English translation by Noah Keller as Reliance of the Traveler, which is a short compendium of the usul of the usul al-fiqh of Shafi'i jurisprudence. I note with sinful and off-topic pride that all collectors of the sahih ahadith were Shafi'i, as was al-Ghazali who set the path of Islam unto the present day. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 06:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And, about the languages: I can't read Farsi or Turkish, but I can read Arabic (although I'm long rusty and it's not a native tongue). What about the Arabic Wikipedia? St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 06:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No figurative images - nor in Urdu. Whether they have any in other articles I don't know. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the breadth of the use of these images in many languages (in wikipedia) is, perhaps, instructive. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't read Turkish or Farsi, but I do a mean Google translate. Turkish Wikipedians seem to have spent most of their energies arguing about what Muhammad's name is. There doesn't seem to be any discussion about how they should use images. There is discussion about the "stop the blasphemy" petition against en.wp, with some being for it and some against (on the basis that what en.wp does is en.wp's business).FormerIP (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On fa.wp, there is some discussion of images from 2007/8. The consensus view seems to be that the images are culturally and historically important and should stay. FormerIP (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a native Persian speaker and I was formerly active on Persian Wikipedia under another username. I checked the history of the article in fa.wp, (and as I rememeber) there was no discussion on this topic on fa.wp. Nevertheless there was an edit war on this topic between a Bahai and a Muslim user for some days. Baha'is do not use depictions of Baha'u'llah or the Bab as this is considered disrespectful. Currently Mohammad's article on fa.wp which contains images of the prophet of Islam is a featured article. Please also read the comment of JN466 below.Farhikht (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure there is discussion, Karhikht. See here. It's possible I may be mistaken about the contents, though, so it would be great if you could have a look. FormerIP (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I just reread the archive of the article. There was a discussion between Muslim and Baha'i users on those famous pictures. As I said there is the same prohibition in the Bahai faith, and in fact a Baha'i user says that they must take away the photos of both articles (of Mahoemt and Bahaullah). That's why he started an edit war. In short, and finally, three Shiite Muslims have said in the last discussion that they have no problem with the photos, and they believe that we can find these kinds of pictures in every Iranian families, and it is kind of Islamic art then we can keep them.Farhikht (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

And it should be remembered that book miniatures, even in their day, were a courtly rather than popular tradition. This is quite different from images of Jesus, which have always been public church art that became part of the public consciousness. Mosques have never contained images of Muhammad. There is a good one-page summary here. -- J N  466  13:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is covered in the background above. If we're going into it, it should also be pointed out that historically Sunnis in Persia, Turkey and elsewhere produced images, including some of those we use in the article. Our "Ottoman" images are from the workshop of the Sunni Caliph, and it is misleading to imply Turkish images are explained by the Shia minority (mostly in the east of the country). According to Arnold, in the Middle Ages the Shia clergy were more strongly against them than the Sunni. Illustrated manuscript biographies would of course always be very expensive indeed, but single Mi'raj images spread well beyond the court to manuscripts produced for the better off classes, and when printing finally arrived images began to be printed pretty quickly, obviously much more cheaply and reaching wider audiences. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say depictions of Jesus have "always been public church art". My own denomination has a tradition of not using them in the sanctuary (graven images, maybe) also portraying the empty cross rather than the crucifixion, although images in a Bible, depicting life of Christ etc. are not a problem. I also seem to remember a tradition in film-making that Jesus was not to be depicted, at least not the face. Didn't "The Robe" break some ground there by showing His sleeve from the back?  Neotarf (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Calligraphy is very important today, but it wasn't always that way. This is borne out by searching for historical depictions of Muhammad as a man, versus historical calligraphy. Calligraphy is also overdone, especially for en-wp, as I've pointed out above, because it is merely repeating the title of the article in a different script (not even a different language, they're pronounced the same way, except English speakers tend to pronounce the Latinate "u" like "ah"). In my decent breadth of experience, I've never seen really unique Sunni Muhammad calligraphy like the Ismailis have either. The closest one comes are the geometric patterns that have Muhammad's name, the Shahadah, etc. in them all together. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 01:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to wonder how much of this "consideration" argument is really fear.Thelmadatter (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for everyone who has voted, but as for myself - there is a fear of insulting people needlessly, but as for fear of what this will do to me as an individual or Wikipedia as a whole, to be completely frank, the thought never even crossed my mind. And even that fear of needlessly insulting could be classed as a mark of respect. In editing elsewhere, I have supported the use of Muhammed images where appropriate, and I would argue against removing them from this article, but I will support people having an option to hide the images if that's what they wish. As far as I can see nobody has suggested removing the images from the wiki (definite article, hence referring to Wikipedia), or from Creative Commons as a whole. If it was a fear motivator, wouldn't that be what was requested? PuppyOnTheRadio   talk


 * Or "passing the buck". Muslims don't care that they see Muhammad images. They care that they exist, and that anyone sees them at all. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 02:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the case; I think many accept that they exist, and have for a long time, and aren't especially concerned about museum-type images, but feel a spasm of distaste when they are personally exposed to them. That's why I think it's a great pity the blanking options seem to be clear losers here, & the infobox hangs in the balance. The arbcom case and this Rfc were launched by people who wanted to reduce the use of figurative images & it has backfired badly on them. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with JN466 on the point that Iranians are very open to depiction of Muhammad.Farhikht (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- J N  466  09:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was always clear to me that it was likely to do that, the moment arbcom said this would go to an RfC. Personally, I wanted neither the arbcom case nor this RfC, which is to a substantial degree just drive-by opinion from editors who think of limericks when they hear the expression "light verse". -- J N  466  09:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be fair comment had editors with better breeding been able to come up with a constructive solution to the dispute. FormerIP (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I recall that you were instrumental in preventing that. -- J N  466  20:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. We were at an agreed version (that looked pretty much like the present version), largely brokered by User:Resolute, until FormerIP turned up rejecting that very hard-won consensus and insisting the proposal be put by way of an RfC. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To the comment: "Muslims don't care that they see Muhammad images. They care that they exist, and that anyone sees them at all."
 * This is a dramatic oversimplification. No doubt there are people who oppose the mere existence of such images, but they are fringe minority in the online world.
 * The complaint under actual consideration is more subtle-- people who get embarrassed or upset by viewing images they didn't expect to see (often while viewing in public places). Right now, we know people have such negative experiences while viewing WP, but currently we offer no solution to this narrow need.  That's the focus.  Here, among us, "Delete all images of Muhammad" is something of a strawman.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you need to spend some time researching the Talk:Muhammad archives, where the overwhelming tone of the demands from WP:SPAs and IPs that invariably geolocate to the Middle East is indeed "remove all", not a request for a "shield thine eyes" coding solution. Anyways, the consensus in question 6 is by my rough count running at about 5 to 1 against the notion that it would ever be astonishing to see a depiction of Muhammad in an article on Muhammad. Tarc (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I know the extremists are the most vocal-- but I don't think they're representative of their populations or of wikipedians in the muslim world . --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I pull my non-existent qualifications out again, and state that Shafi'is (which are not extremists) are opposed to the existence of such pictures (more, they are opposed to the creation of them, as several ahadith state "Whoever draws a picture of a living thing, he shall be sent to the hellfire"...."Whoever hangs a picture of a living thing in his house, or owns a dog, angels will not enter" - it's not about images of Muhammad, but about all images of living things, although, this is invariably amplified when it comes to Muhammad, who is highly venerated). I believe Hanafis have the same view, Hanbalis and Salafis are what you think of when you say "extremist" (bi la kaifa, unquestioning adherence to the sahih ahadith), and I don't know about Malikis. As has been pointed out, I assume correctly, Shi'i have no issue with it. Those who are offended by their existence on Wikipedia don't want an option to not see them (as once they've seen them, the damage is done, at the very least), they want them eradicated. I will reiterate above comments that "Wikipedia should be a vehicle for enlightenment", as it was for me. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 03:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I am not Muslim. Personally, I think for some Muslims who visit wikipedia, the contents of the article Muhammad (including Criticism of Muhammad for ex) is more offensive than these kinds of pictures. If some of us think that we must go in this discourse then I think we should add a warning at the top of the page saying that the content of this article may be disturbing for some people. To me wikipedia is an encyclopedia like any other encyclopedia. There are lots of other online encylopedie containing articles on the life of Muhammed, including Iranica. I understand that we must respect Muslims, and at the same time I believe that a Muslim who visits wikipedia knows that he visits an encyclopedia, a real encyclopedia. He knows that Wikipedia's article on Judaisme may be offensif for jews, the article on homosexuality is offensif for all religions etc. He knows that Wikipedia, like any other encyclopedia, explains the sides fairly and without bias. So for me, to not censoring wikipedia is a sign of respect, a sign of trust in people.Farhikht (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Muhammad is the image of perfection of man: what he did is with Allah's approval and guidance, and is the prototype for all behavior, perfectly representing fitrah" is a pretty standard part of a semi-creedal Muslim statement. I'm sure the same are opposed to criticism even having been thought of, but it's less of a rallying-cry, and, honestly, would this have ever gone as far as it did if the proposition was, "remove everything unflattering about the Prophet, sall'Allahu alayhi wa Salam, from Wikipedia"? St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 03:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Some further comments from Christiane
I've exchanged e-mails with Christiane Gruber again, the acknowledged academic expert on Muhammad images, who vetted the above background information for us. I'll reproduce the salient parts below, for those who may be interested (my questions are in italics, her answers in normal font – bold emphases are all mine): - A number of authors, like Omid Safi, state that the book miniature tradition was essentially a private, courtly tradition for ruling elites, and that this imagery was not generally accessible to the common people. In other words, they say it was never public art, the way Christian iconography became a part of the public consciousness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- J N  466  20:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, if Associate Professor Gruber would like to participate in the RfC, she is welcome to create a Wikipedia account and comment herself. And even so, her comments would be her own, just as with other Wikipedia editors. I'm confident we have other informed Wikipedians already participating in this RfC, too, so I would be uncomfortable giving one off-wiki academic any more of a voice in this discussion than any other, even if I agree with her views. Have you invited her, though? --Elonka 20:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the harm, unless the emails were meant as a private communication; it's just fact-checking secondary sources, not presenting original research. Neotarf (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed welcome to participate...this topic is covered in "Question 7: Image use in sources" above...but her voice will be on par with that of everyone else. Tarc (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jayen, but why not put out all the e-mails in full, and is the bolding, in the original or did you add that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant to add that, thanks. Emphases are mine. I will let her know of course that she can jump right in if she wants to, but I think she knows that, and I for one wouldn't particularly advise it. She is a source here (three of her works are cited in the depictions section of the article) and not an editor. Note that I initiated the contact, not vice versa. I mailed Omid Safi for advice a while back (as I mentioned during arbitration), and he suggested I write to her as the most knowledgeable academic on this particular subtopic.  J N  466  00:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Most people commenting here have taken very little interest in these sorts of issues - which in a way is a good thing, as we know from the talk page how bogged down such questions become. I'm not sure it really matters anyway, except for the infobox. Exactly the same could be said of all the Western miniatures from chronicles and histories that our medieval biographies rightly use in great quantity where we have them. We never normally apply that sort of test to images in fact. What is the case is that images of Muhammad feature prominently in accounts and displays of Islamic art history, but less so than 30-40 years ago, when the Mi'raj image we all like used to be on display in London, with I think another Muhammad image, in a fairly small display of Islamic miniatures. Now they aren't, and the Metropolitan in NY I believe now has a policy of not displaying its Muhammad images. As with commercial publishers, you can be pretty sure this change is due to (choose your option) displaying cultural sensitivity/concern for security/censorship, and it is very clear from this page how our community feel about applying that to Wikipedia. I have throughout tried to explain and emphasize the difference between the nature and usefulness of narrative images used as such, and small details from them used as a "portrait" in the infobox, but this has been equally ignored. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the differentiation between narrative and portrait images. But again there is a difference between Christianity and Islam here in that these narrative motifs were public art and commonly known to everyone in Christianity (as well as featured in elite manuscripts) while they played no such role in Islam. That's simply a difference. -- J N  466  00:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You may do, but most commenting here seem not to. I referred to "chronicles and histories" and "medieval biographies". Unlike Jesus or the Buddha, Muhammad was a highly significant medieval political figure, and while comparisons to articles on and images of the other religious leaders have very often been made in these discussions, comparisons with those of other medieval political leaders (whose images were typically not public art either) are just as relevant but are ignored. In medieval China you had to be a very high-ranking civil servant to be allowed to see (once a year) the gallery with the imperial ancestor portraits, virtually the only portraits existing of the Imperial dynasty - a far tighter restriction than ever applied to Persian miniatures.  Yet where we have them we naturally use such images. Johnbod (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We use such images because we presume they are actual paintings of the rulers' faces, don't we? This is not the same situation as here at all. If there were thousands of other, more iconic images of these ancestors, images that are widely distributed and generally known, and which have the same informational content (or the same lack of misleading content), we would use these culturally significant images first. -- J N  466  10:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No we don't! We have as little idea of the actual apppearance of most Early Medieval rulers (saints etc even less) as of Muhammad's. Just as in Muhammad's case, later medieval artists used conventional features they thought appropriate. It is exactly the same. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've proposed the same on another project yesterday were quotes from this e-mail have been posted too. As long it is not clear and documented that this e-mail is in fact meant for publishing on Wikipedia talk, it should be quickly deleted or revision deleted, --Rosenkohl (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Christiane is aware I have posted this material in Wikipedia, and she has the link to this page and section. In addition, I cc'ed Elonka on our most recent communication.  J N  466  00:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but that you may have informed Gruber in another e-mail where her e-mail has been quoted on Wikipedia talk does not necessarily mean that she agrees with it. I don't know what the term "to cc someone on something" means. Thus I don't understand how Elonka being "cc'ed" results in Gruber to agree on quoting from her e-mail here, --Rosenkohl (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since Gruber still has not clearly confirmed here that she agrees in having the E-Mail posted, I have now commented out the e-mail for the time being, --Rosenkohl (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely bizarre. Christiane has seen this posting and says she prefers to contribute like this, in a consultative role, rather than becoming an editor herself. What exactly is the problem?  J N  466  01:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


 * I'm someone who definitely fits the bill of "some editors who are against images seem to take this position on the basis that they are representing the interests of Muslims who, it is supposed, are dealt serious injury by the presence of images in the article." So let me complicate this.
 * Most Muslims in most nations are going to be fine with actually seeing the images-- American muslims, for example, "get" the concept of NOTCENSORED as much as non-muslim Americans.  So, the majority of the Muslim world isn't going to be directly upset by unexpectedly seeing images here.  This is reflected in the fact that you can find many many Muslims defending, essentially, NOTCENSORED as a value.
 * So, when you imagine people getting upset over unexpectedly seeing images of Muhammad, don't imagine it occurring in Turkey or Egypt. You have imagine it  happening in "small town Afghanistan" among a population for whom the internet provides the first direct experiences with the global culture.
 * Wikipedia is a global institution that will play a big role in First Contact between wired- and not-yet-wired populations.
 * When I've talked about grave trauma that could result from this page, I don't mean that literally the image will permanent traumatize readers. Rather, I worry that the apparent lack of respect we show them will be a contributing factor to a sense of being "oppressed".
 * I don't expect a reader to be "scarred for life" by including images. What I'm afraid of is that we contribute to a pre-existing belief that "the global community doesn't care about the feelings of the Muslim world".   That belief exists, it's widely held in many places, and it's very dangerous.  That belief leads,in rare cases, to violence.
 * So, it's not that we are the one single thing that will cause permanent harm. Rather, we are like a butterfly flapping its wings, knowing that what we do can affect the the formation of tornadoes.
 * Just because the stakes are high doesn't mean we abandon our values. But, for a Wikipedia decision, the stakes are almost terrifyingly high.  This isn't a debate about a spoiler alert on a battlestar galactica episode summary, this is a "real world" decision with "real world" effects, some of which could include death.
 * When it comes to living people, we recognize that 'rigid, cold logic' must be tempered with a real-world considerations of compassion. Provided we remain true to our core values, this would be a very good place to also turn to the "better angels of our nature", just as we do with BLP.  It's not 'just another' RFC, it's very important that we get this page right.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This was a point of view expressed by during many months of discussion of this topic, but he found very little agreement with others on the matter.  We really need to be cautious here, as insinuating that the Wikipedia would be liable for external effects "some of which could include death" is going to sour the conversation here very quickly.  Please reconsider your words going forward.  We're having a robust and healthy discussion above regarding temperance vs. openness, and both "sides", if you will, must be prepared to accept an outcome of this RfC that they may fundamentally disagree with. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Much in here that bears repeating. My hope was to offer people a glimpse into why this issue is 'such a big deal', one that keeps coming up endlessly.  Your hope, which I share, is that we won't actually get so swept up in the emotion that we abandon all our values and our rationality. The RFC is a legitimate venue to decide this question, and nobody should think about abandoning the consensus that emerges from it.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Seconded. But I worry that the close may be too fudgy. A lot of editors seem to me to be basically saying "we should just put the images in the best places for them". Which sounds reasonable, but if it gets translated in some aspect into a compromise-consensus, it will be a bit like telling two children arguing over a toy that the one who deserves it most should have it. FormerIP (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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


 * I don't think this makes sense, Robofish. If censorship can only be due to external forces, that would seem to imply that the community itself is incapable of censorship. But that surely can't be taken seriously as an idea. If it is, what's the purpose of having a policy about it in the first place? What the policy means is that our editorial judgement must take into account (and is, in fact confined by - it's a policy) the principle that we do not censor.
 * Of course, there may be some valid debate as to what does and doesn't constitute censorship. But, in that context, editors are certainly entitled to cite the policy in support of their position. FormerIP (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is in colloquial English the long-established concept of "self-censorship"; I think that most folks invoking NOTCENSORED are advocating that self-censorship is no less harmful than any other kind, if not in fact more invidious because it implies consent (as opposed to coercion and intimidation). -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  16:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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

So, !votes that make no sense within the policy (and don't make a credible case regarding that) can arguably be ignored (upon the closers responsibility), but votes that go along with the policy cannot. Not censored (the policy) actually does eliminate certain considerations. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is one of the most misused and abused policies. When it is used to silence a minority or a position, without regards to the merits, then it is censorship.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 18:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In your opinion misused, others do not appear to share that point of view. I also reject the claim that people citing censorship are doing to just to spite those who may be offended.  I had hoped that this RfC would be a way to move the community forward on this thorny subject, not reopen past arguments.  Tarc (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Balloonman, I sort of get what you're saying. But it's a bit of a funny position. Objecting to censorship is itself censorship of the proposed censorship (?). FormerIP (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If the extent to the argument is "NOT CENSORED" then yes. Not censored is a valid argument if somebody's sole rationale is to remove material ia  "I'm offended or that is a secret of the Masonic Lodge and we shouldn't share their secrets."  But if there is a rationale argument which supports a specific view, then you have to address that editorial distinction.  To simply cry "NOT CENSORSHIP" in an effort to silence or rebut a rationale stance, is nothing more than censorship.  It then becomes a violation of the policy to which people appeal to!  It also becomes contrary to the best interests of Wikipedia and the project.  Too many people are giving knee jerk reactions without contemplating what/why the changes are being proposed.  I want to hear valid editorial reasons for the stance.  It goes back to our discussion above where you wanted to ensure that if calligraphy is in the info box, then a figurative image has to be the next image.  When I asked for a rationale, your argument was "to prove we aren't censored."  That is not a valid rationale for cementing this into place.  (I suspect that a rationale argument can be made---but when the crux of an argument is "prove we aren't censored" that becomes a dogmatic stance not an editorial one.)  Give an editorial reason and address the opposition---not simply discard valid rationale because you don't like it or you feel threatened by it.  That is what the appeal to NOT CENSORED is, a discarding of another perspective without presenting a valid rebuttal.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 20:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * NOT CENSORED can be read in a multitude of ways. Assuming good faith, a yes/no vote + only a reference to a policy should be interpreted as a yes/no vote with the argument being the spirit of the mentioned policy. Thus I interpret NOT CENSORED votes as a claim that the definition of objectionable content is inherently personal, and can not accounted in when choosing what to include in a article. To decide what is objectionable content is is to define who the reader is and what feelings he should about the subject. To do so, would be neither verifiable or neutral. Belorn (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Graphic content? The wikipedias in Persian and Arabic have MORE images of Muhammad than the English one does. The opinion on images in Islam is also not universal by any standard: it is limited to a specific set of Sunnis. I'd like to add that I'm a Muslima at this point just to underline the issue.  Ogress  <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash!  01:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A visit to Muhammad محمد at the Arabic Wiki does not show more images of the prophet than the English site. There is, in fact, only one; he is veiled. Fallacious statements do not help here or anywhere.Veritycheck (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he may have meant to say Kurdish, rather than Arabic. The Kurdish page doesn't actually have more M images than the English one but, given that it is shorter, it is much less conservative. It also has images above the fold. FormerIP (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Support. I think it is especially telling that so many people made this argument in opposition to 1a. I can see how some of the other sections might be seen as censorship, but 1a removes nothing and only serve to increase the users choices. I believe that after the first few oppose votes invoked the magic WP:NOTCENSORED word, it was copied over and over by people who never bothered to read it, much less consider whether 1a actually violates it. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support in the case of the two hatnote options. How giving people the option to personally not see the images on the page, or informing them about what they're about to see, counts as censorship is beyond me. It doesn't even go against the 'spirit' of the policy. Do rating on movies count as censorship? Hatnotes would give people the power to make informed decisions about what they personally view, but no power whatsoever to affect anybody else's experience. Euchrid (talk)
 * Used as an exception, hatnotes are useful and effective. The NOT CENSORED policy does not address exceptions, nor does it address WP:IAR. Used en-masse over other controversial articles, hatnotes would be disruptive and likely bring undue weight onto the controversial nature of the topics, and in that light NOT CENSORED would bring valued note of warnings. Thus, objections with WP:NOTCENSORED for introducing hatnotes should be view as a cautioning warning: We would not like to see hatnotes used commonly when there is content that a portion of the readers find objectionable. Belorn (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I dunno, gang. I loved the hatnotes, but I "get" what people are saying when they say NOTCENSORED.  It's not a valid policy citation, to be sure, but it is a 'wikimedia value' that is at play here. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I rather wish now the two hatnote questions were the last two, then people would grapple with the substantive material first. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, if we had to it over again, we'd probably choose a different order for the questions. I think we did a pretty good job on wording though! I'm glad that we had the process that we did, with different viewpoints represented, as the RfC seems to have come out pretty well drafted as a result. --Elonka 15:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


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

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

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


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


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


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


 * Like I've been reiterating for many days, labeling an Image as "sacrilegious material" or "offensive material" is NOT a sufficient ground for removing or veiling any picture. WP:PROFA states,
 * Editors should only make sure that those images are treated in a proper encyclopaedic manner. Besides, Inclusion of depictions/portraits of Muhammad is not considered to be a vulgar or obscene or an uncivil act by wikipedia standards. Wikipedia serves a broader range of audience than just Muslims and many of whom don't consider depictions of Muhammad to be a vulgarity. Hence, in this case, the offense is indeed in the eye of the beholder. Wikipedia editors do not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. If one doesn't want to see an image which may seem offensive to you because of something as religion, then you should check out the page NOSEE. You cannot ask for removal or bowdlerization of content just because it hurts your religious sentiments. :) <font face="Ravie" color="Green">Brendon is  here  10:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Editors should only make sure that those images are treated in a proper encyclopaedic manner. Besides, Inclusion of depictions/portraits of Muhammad is not considered to be a vulgar or obscene or an uncivil act by wikipedia standards. Wikipedia serves a broader range of audience than just Muslims and many of whom don't consider depictions of Muhammad to be a vulgarity. Hence, in this case, the offense is indeed in the eye of the beholder. Wikipedia editors do not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. If one doesn't want to see an image which may seem offensive to you because of something as religion, then you should check out the page NOSEE. You cannot ask for removal or bowdlerization of content just because it hurts your religious sentiments. :) <font face="Ravie" color="Green">Brendon is  here  10:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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


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


 * James AM statement cogently identifies the issues, including the weakness in the censorship claim with respect to the proposals. As the proposed hatnotes do not contain commentary or opinion, only facts and options they do not fall afoul of the anti-disclaimer guideline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The hatnote text does not contain opinion, but the existence of the hatnote is an opinion (that this article contains "offensive" material). As to "hatnotes ... do not fall afoul of the anti-disclaimer guideline", of course hatnotes "fall afoul" of WP:NODISCLAIMERS, which is unambiguous: "... additional disclaimers into an article ... the consensus is that they should not be used". Mitch Ames (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Hatnotes are used all over the pedia; as they do not disclaim (like these proposals do not disclaim), they do not run afoul of the disclaimer guideline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is, is this kind of hatnote all over the pedia? Do we have any other main space page with a hatnote that specifies how to view the article without images? If we are to use this kind of hatnote, then we ought to use it consistently, and not single out this page as a special case.--New questions? 02:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Alanscottwalker, please let us know why we're considering putting a hatnote (advising how not to view images of Muhammad) if it's not to avoid offending some people. The proposed hatnote might not mention "offence" (or variations thereof) but I've yet to see any other reason for its existence. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Immaterial, we need not assume, and we don't, why readers do what they do with information. They could have 1001 rational and irrational reasons or no reasons, at all. It's their life. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If we're not making any assumptions about our readers, why are we even discussing putting a hatnote on this particular article at all? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose obviously citing WP:NOTCENSORED or any other guideline could be used as a means of simply dismissing the other's argument without actually addressing it. This is something that is regularly taken into account when people make arguments that do not actually prove their point. However, it would be wrong to suppose that all citations of WP:NOTCENSORED are without merit. The principle usage is to argue against "we should do x, y, or z because this will satisfy/not offend certain groups of people." Those kinds of arguments should be immediately dismissed because that is what WP:NOTCENSORED is about, and those are the appropriate times to cite it. However, it should still be kept in mind that it is not an argument for anything by itself - merely that it is an argument for dismissing (quite rightly) arguments for the the exclusion of something (or inclusion of disclaimers) on the basis that it would offend people less.--New questions? 19:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm prepared to admit that I have used 'censorship' in my contributions on this page without being as specific as I should have been. I don't think I'm alone either. Upon reflection, I was thinking of a form of over-conscious self-censorship, not external censorship. However I think that WP:CENSOR is drafted broadly enough to encompass both of these forms of censorship. Whether or not I was being sufficiently clear about whether I meant external censorship, or a kind of over-active self-censorship, should not have a huge bearing on the validity of my comments. Of course we have many internal discussions about whether a piece of content is appropriate, or valid. The question is whether these questions are judged on purely encyclopedic criteria, or in accordance to some wider set of values. I argue that the criteria should be restricted to the former (plus legal issues that pose an existential challenge). I suspect that this distinction is in fact at the heart of the debate. Thom2002 (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


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


 * I fail to see why adding a hat note to help readers realize they can turn off images is a "form of censorship". Nothing I've read on this page has come close to convincing me it is.  Thus, I feel opinions that just say WP:NOTCENSORED without any support for why that applies should be given very little weight. (Which is probably the way comments that just state a policy without explanation should always to treated, not something unique to this RFC.)
 * Also, I agree entire with Balloonman's eloquent arguments. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment Censorship is not merely the "suppression of information" but also applies to any kind of indication of selectivity that can aid in the suppression of information―for example, by applying a rating to it, or saying "this page is more suited towards adults" at the top of the page. Having a hatnote on this page without having it on every other page is almost the same thing as applying a "rating" to the page, a distinction that could be seen as censorship in one sense.--New questions? 06:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it’s not. Censorship is suppression as per the Wikipedia article on censorship and the dictionary.com entry on the word censor. One cannot make people apply their views on what should to be done regarding to censorship to things that are not censorship simply be declaring the non-censorship to be “censorship”. You have to deal with the merits of the case. Logically analysis can’t be cut off by incorrectly declaring the hatnote to be censorship. One could still argue that a hatnote imposes a stigma that should not be permitted, but that’s different then going to a censorship analysis. Another issue is whether a hatnote on a Muhammad article would be an unprecedented situation. Turns out there’s an least one situation where more is done than the hatnote proposal. In the John F. Kennedy autopsy article, the most detailed photographic depiction of the head wound (and the only color photo) is not viewable in the default setting. A reader has to click on “show” to view the photo. In contrast, the hatnote proposal here would keep all images available in the default setting. Readers would have to take an affirmative action to hide the Muhammad images from their view. For those who believe that a blanket, end-of-discussion WP:NOTCENSORED situation applies to a Muhammad article hatnote, logical consistency requires one to take the view that the Kennedy photo should be shown without any caveats. The only way one who is aware of both situations can oppose the Muhammad hatnote proposal but support the more restrictive Kennedy photo practice is if one rejects a blanket view and favors a detail analysis regarding injuries, religious offense, etc. --JamesAM (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


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

Undue weight
Having a calligraphy of Muhammad instead of an unveiled image in the infobox is giving undue weight to the Islamic theories. The calligraphy is in no way descriptive of the prophet Muhammad, and as it is in Arabic it is incomprehensible to most English Wikipedia readers. Wikipedia must not conform with any religion, and using a calligraphy instead of an unveiled image will make us acheive nothing but being politically correct. Wiki-Taka (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See, I have much more respect for this argument than I do in simply saying "NOT CENSORED" ;-) It is a response that takes the issue seriously and can be discussed which is part of the core of Wikipedia.
 * But I disagree. Images of historical figures are governed by conventions and varioius iconographic merits.  When artist/historians look at anceint art, and the subject is unknown, they will look at certain conventions in order to identify the subject.  In the western world, we can do this with common subjects.  Even if you don't believe in Christianity, you can often identify Jesus based upon the conventions governing the imagery surrounding him.  Julius Ceasare has certain conventions in art related to him.  This is true for all ages and places.  Look at the art of India/China and there are conventions governing the anceint heroes and various deities.  When presenting art on Wikipedia, we use the images that fill those standard depictions.  When I look at a picture of Norse God, I may recognize it, but only if my understanding of conventions covering the way Norse Gods are depicted is sufficeint to do so.
 * In Islam, the same holds true. The difference is that the imagery associated with Mohamed is not figurative art of Mohamed directly, but rather calligraphic.  That is how he is typically presented.  The UNDUE weight would thus be the figurative art which is the less common form of depiction.  It's not based upon the religious morales of Islam or Islamic theories---but a reality that calligraphic representation is the dominant manner in which he was presented.  Using figurative art gives the impression that it is more common than it really is.
 * Consider using one of the images from this page as the lead for Jesus? Some of them work because they continue to carry the common conventions through... but others would not because they are not norm.  They could still be used in the article, but not in the lead.
 * While we in the West are more familiar with "figurative art" to use that type of art to depict a person who is most often depicted in another manner would be the UNDUE weighting. It would be our imposing our bias upon a subset of artistic depictations because we want the image; not because the image is representative of the art.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 16:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * +1. What I was saying for weeks. And ArbCom did direct us to take NPOV (which includes UNDUE) into account. -- J N  466  23:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there sources that that shows that calligraphic representation is in majority use outside books and texts (like paintings, movies, theater)? Belorn (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced by that line of argument, though I support calligraphy in the infobox as the most appropriate single image, and as a matter of tact, and because none of the crops from the narrative images are helpful as portraits, a distinction that no one else seems much concerned about. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I would argue the other way around: Most Muslims don't use images of Muhammed. They are created and used by a minority of Muslims. Overemphasizing them by including too many images or making them too prominent is casting undue weight on a minority opinion within the Muslim community. There are Christians who depict Jesus as a woman, but we would be doing our readers a disservice to include even one of those in our Jesus article, because that is not the standard portrayal, but a minority one, and we would be giving this minority portrayal too much weight. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, this article is not about Muslim Iconography, nor is it about Muhammad in Islam, those are different topics. This article about Muhammad's life. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is about Mohamed, not his life.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 08:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, by focusing on his life. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying that it's not about Muslim iconography is no excuse for putting undue weight on a minority viewpoint from Muslim iconography. In my analogy, if you used an image of female Jesus to illustrate the Jesus article, you could equally well argue that the Jesus article isn't about Christian iconography.  But even though it's not about Christian iconography, it's not supposed to mischaracterize Christian iconography in the process of giving us information about something else. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes you think much of it, in this article, is iconography? That characterization is unsourced and from what we do know untrue.  It does happen to fall within the category Islamic Art that illustrates biography but not iconography. Moreover, nothing in the article represents any of it as iconography (Muslim or otherwise) in fact the opposite is true. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not about iconography, and neither is my objection, really, I just used that word in replying to you.
 * The idea that Muhammed may be depicted by images is a minority opinion among Muslims. By presenting a lot of Muhammed images created by Muslims, the article puts undue weight upon this minority opinion.  The opinion doesn't have to be the subject of the article in order for its portrayal to be undue weight.
 * If the Jesus article showed five pictures of female Jesus (or even one, without labeling it as unusual), would you claim that that's okay because the article's not about iconography? Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The obvious difference there is that there are few, if any, extant historical examples of Jesus depicted as a woman, whereas there are many examples of Mohammed depicted as a man.
 * Also, I don't think that you can appeal to what the majority of 21st century Muslims feel is permitted as the basis for an NPOV argument, because the idea that we should style the article as a majority of Muslims would style it breaches NPOV in the first place. FormerIP (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are not many examples of Mohammed depicted. There are few.  You're trying to count absolute numbers instead of considering proportionality.
 * And I can apply the same argument to female Jesus. "If we style the article as a majority of Christians would prefer, we are breaching NPOV."  Your reasoning would completely negate undue weight, since any attempt to avoid undue weight could be argued as expressing a POV that favors the side given the most weight. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the article, or how the images are used misrepresents them, so the claim that they do is not based on NPOV, it is based on an interpretation of religious prohibition, not based in the article. The images in the Life section are not even noted, in the article as Islamic art, because that information is not pertinent to how they are actually used. They are also not represented as "common."  The objection to them is therefore based on prejudice against them, by not even looking at them in context. Wikipedia does not discriminate based on the identity of the artist.  It is not censored by religious prohibition.  Every image is unique.  Every image is correctly and pertinently identified.  Every image is relevant.  Wikipedia regularly uses such images in historic biography, in fact it is a point in their favor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

History of images
Comment: There is supposed to be an early description of Mohammed of unknown accuracy; perhaps he had a space between his front teeth. If someone has a copy of the Maxime Rodinson biography to hand, I think he is the one who mentions it. Neotarf (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Referring to the Battle of Uhud, Maxime Rodinson: Muhammad. Prophet of Islam, 2002, page 181 writes: >>A stone split his lip and broke on of his teeth. Another smashed into the cheekpiece of his helmet. There was blood on his face. A Qurayshite dealt him a great blow which sent him reeling backwards into a hole. They hauled him to his feet but he was so badly shaken that he had to lean on two of his Companions. Someone cried out that he was dead, adding to the panic. At last, he and the little group about him reached safety on the slopes of Mount Uhud.<< Perhaps the scare on his left cheek on File:Muhammad 8.jpg is a picture of the supposed result of this injury --Rosenkohl (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Background #1 is wrong: >>In at least once instance, we are told how onlookers were brought to tears when gazing upon a "light" image of the Prophet. The anecdote describes how a number of the Prophet's companions visited the Byzantine emperor Heraclius (r. 610-41), who brought in a box, called "box of witnessing" (şandük al-shahâda). This box included a number of drawers or compartments containing pieces of silk with painted images of the prophets Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Muhammad. We are told that when the Prophet's portrait (şürat) was taken out, it was as luminous as the sun and better than any beautiful form<<, Christiane Gruber: Representations of the Prophet Muhammad in Islamic Painting, in Gülru Necipoğlu (ed.): Muqarnas, Brill, 2009, p. 252. So in fact, there are depictions known to exist from his lifetime. In addition, Depictions of Muhammad says that "recent scholarship has noted that, although surviving early examples are now uncommon, generally human figurative art was a continuous tradition in Islamic lands", so it is unlikely that there were no pictures of Muhammad in the centuries after his death, --Rosenkohl (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair point, but #1 is still correct, in that it is referring to the current existence of images. There are no images known to exist in the modern day, which date to Muhammad's lifetime or centuries thereafter. The oldest existing images were created about 500 years after his death. --Elonka 19:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be very surprised if there was 'anything' that old -- calligraphy, Koranic scraps, whatever. Isn't the oldest Koran from 200 or 300 years later? Neotarf (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This should really all be on the Muhammad images talk page, but while we're talking about it the Byzantine Emperor's portait is a later legend, analysed in an article somewhere by Oleg Grabar - as I'm sure Christiane Gruber points out. There are indeed continuous figurative images in Islamuic art, most surviving ones being on pottery, but there are no known authentic (from the life) or early (within ~500 years) images of Muhammad, and indeed very few images that can be regarded as portraits of anyone until later than that. Johnbod (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it was Johnbod who moved this section to here, afaik. I originally posted my edits above higher to the top of the project page, because they perhaps had a higher chance to be read there, and actually they are intended not as comments on the article "Muhammad images" but on the "Background" notes of this project. I'm not sure if you want to say that Heraclius' image of Muhammad did not exist. A story being a legend doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong, and I don't see that Gruber claims that the image did not exist. However, we still have verbal description of Muhammad's physical appearance, which are ascribed to his contemporaries, --Rosenkohl (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A couple of scholars hold that Muhammad is depicted on some early Umayyad coins (see, e.g., Robert Hoyland, Writing the Biography of the Prophet Muhammad: Problems and Solutions, in: History Compass 5/2 (2007), pp. 581 – 602) - Ankimai (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Excuse the glibness to make the point but does this article really need such images to inform? What is the real basis for their inclusion? Shouldn’t informing be our sole goal? Veritycheck (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Now this is a case where "NOT CENSORED" would be applicable.
 * The rationale above is essentially that we should censor ourselves because others do, which is not a valid rationale. But even so, simply citing NOT CENSORED is not an appropriate response without further explanation. While 1/5 of the population is Muslim and Muslims may be offended; it doesn't change the fact that there are and have been historical portrayal of Mohamed.  Those portrayals are valid for inclusion in an encyclopedic article.
 * That being said, enabling 1/5 of the worlds population to read the article could be achieved if we enabled a hatrick to block potentially offensive images. This would not be CENSORSHIP as it would enable more people to read an article and it listens to the community in a respectful manner.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 20:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly that a hatnote is the best solution. It would enable a significant number of people from being potentially grievously offended. It would also allow those who wish to satisfy their curiosity for such images to be placated. Censorship would not be an issue. Veritycheck (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Such arguments presuppose that all (i.e. the 1/5th number bandied about) Muslims are angered by depictions of Muhammad. As others have noted several times in this very RfC, that is an incorrect assertion. Tarc (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which would matter if this were purely a discussion about CENSORSHIP, but there are other merits to the discussion than that.
 * Even so, ok 80% of the Muslim community finds it offensive... that is still a significant portion of our readership which we are excluding because we refuse to be consolodating... because we want to rally around a policy rather than consider the possibility that there might be a better win-win option.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 01:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I call shenanigans to this entire line of argument, honestly. Break it down between Muslims who came to en.wiki, came across the Muhammad article and were offended vs. those who have no connection to the project or would not have visited otherwise but came just to protest.  The latter is unequivocally irrelevant to this discussion, while the former is so vanishingly small as to be insignificant.  Again, we're at a decision point of temperance vs. openness.  Sometimes there is enough of a population here where temperance is the clear choice (e.g. nudity in the intro of pregnancy), but here?  I'm sorry, but it isn't even close.  We don't get to make vague waves at people whom some think may possibly object to depictions of Muhammad. Tarc (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: ..."people whom some think may possibly object to depictions of Muhammad"; Large numbers of people objecting to depictions of Muhammad is an established fact, and their existence is more than just being relevant to this discussion - they are the reason we are having this discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Objection" doesn't mean "a demand for removal", though, somewhere above there was a user that provided several sources either penned by Muslims or about Muslims where they offer an opinion of "I find it personally objectionable, but do not expect everyone else in the world to cater to my view". It seems like you overestimate and oversimplify the world's Muslim population and treat them like one monolithic Jyllands-Postern mob protest.  It isn't like that at all.  And honestly, even if it was, we have 4/5ths of the world left that do not believe in these same religious precepts.  I'm comfy with a 5:1 margin here. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 5:1 is enough to pass RfA with flying colors! When one counts Muslims who are, dare I say it, enlightened enough to expect to see a neutral article instead of a hagiography on Muhammad when they look in an encyclopedia (just as Christians must with Jesus, or Jews with the Exodus, Moses, or Hasidim with the Lubavitcher Rebbe), I imagine the margin is great enough to pass RfB! St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 15:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt about how this RfC will close, that doesn't mean that it will close in the proper manner---it is just proof that most people don't understand or care about what NOT CENSOR means. They use it as a blugeon to silence views they disagree with.  And rather than finding  a solution that is a win-win solution---we are going to cower behind a platatude to "prove that we aren't censored."  (And yes, we have had people say that we have to prove it.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 00:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't have to prove it, we just have to be it. FormerIP (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want a rationale, I 'd say that actually it is about showing that we are not censored. FormerIP (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 16:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I seldom edit Wikipedia, so I hope I may bring a fresh perspective to this discussion. To me, the issue seems remarkably simple, and it boils down to the question of what Wikipedia considers itself to be. I see two possibilities:
 * 1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If that is the case, it is absolutely possible to provide a thorough and comprehensive article that contains no images.
 * 2. Wikipedia is a game where anonymous geeks seek to wield power over countless real-world individuals, including the power to cause gratuitous offense. If that is the case, well, duh, Wikipedia Is Not Censored. Joe Bodacious (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It seems that note #5, and the other background notes too, fail to explain that calligraphy, or names in general on the one hand side, and actual depictions on the other hand side are not only two different types of representing something, but that they also result in representations of different educational quality, --Rosenkohl (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A painting created 600 or 1000 years after the subject's death only tells us something about that particular tradition of art (and note comments above). It tells us nothing about the subject. However, Muhammad is for example frequently depicted symbolically as a rose (see example), and such rose depictions are sometimes found at the end of the Quran. Same with different types of calligraphy. That is the mainstream part of his visual reception. -- J N  466  09:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No. That's not true they educate about events in his life. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume you are talking about specific paintings about the specific subject of Muhammads life. In the generic form, we have all from Cave paintings to Egyptian hieroglyphs, both include incredible amount of knowledge beyond simply tradition of art. On some historical people, the only information we have is the preserved images of that time. The tradition of art can sometime hide what parts are relevant, and which one is not, but the information is there for those that can see through it. Belorn (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To both of you: fanciful paintings created 600–1200 years after the death of the person they are depicting are educational about themselves, but not about the subject they purport to be depicting, or events in his life. They are educational about an aspect of the subject's reception – and in this case, it must be said, very much a fringe aspect of that reception.  J N  466  12:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only do I disagree with you but the medieval historians who put them in writings about the subject's life disagree with you too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No more so than fanciful figurative art created 600-1200 years after the death of the person they are depicting---especially when we lack a solid conventions on how we should depict him. Images of Jesus are meaningful because we have a strong artistic tradition that illuminates how he is portrayed.  I can look at a piece of art that I've never seen, and often identify the character because of those conventions.  Islam didn't develope those conventions.  Except for in the form of metaphorical imagery.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 00:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Using an convention is not art, and conventions are not educational. Art means to invent something new, hitherto unseen. An artist may use an convention due to a certain personal habit, belonging to a certain traditional school, or having to comply to the expectations of his audience, perhaps even without knowing that she or he is using the convention. So using a convention means just to repeat a learned technique. Conventions may be used in certain genres of religious art, however Wikipedia is not a religious community or enterprise. Apart from articles about a specific genre, Wikipedia ist never using an image because of the convention to which it complys, but because of the individual ideas which the artist has expressed in the design of form and content of the image, or because of the object itself which has been depcited.
 * Of course there are informations about how Muhammad supposedly has looked alike. For example there are verbal description on Hilyas, some of which are allegedly going back to his contemporarys.
 * After all, the older artists are, the more likely they know a fact about how Muhammad looked like, which may have been lost till today - except in the image they painted. Acknowledging the artwork of our ancestors is not only respectfull, but also scientifically necessary, --Rosenkohl (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Representation of Muhammad in visual arts

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


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


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


 * Hmm. Muhammad is "in" films, but tricks are always used to keep from actually showing him (many are shot from Muhammad's point of view, such as the animate "The Last Prophet" and the famous "The Message"). Hardliners say any depiction of living creatures is forbidden, although there's still a thriving film industry in the mid-east. Muhammad is oft a subject, but never depicted (except maybe his hands). Theatre is non-existent in any form of Islam I am aware of. I know nothing of Shi'ism that I did not learn on the internet. (Real-life knowledge of Shi'i to the average Sunni: "they're mushrikun and kuffar, of course".) To answer the question, you find nothing shown, but figural representation strongly implied, so the closest still-life shot of Muhammad would probably be "veiled". But, nevertheless, this is not Islamopedia or Christopedia or Conservapedia to cater to religious sensibilities, so how Muslims wish to depict or not depict Muhammad does not matter.St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 13:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're going too far there. Our article on Jesus will show Christian images just because of their number and because of due weight. Same here, we will include Islamic imagery -- except that the weight figurative images of Muhammad have in Islam is very different indeed. -- J  N  466  09:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


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


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

Odd, I know of no tradition that says Muhammed ever wore a veil, yet, Moses was said to have worn a veil and I know of no depiction of him shown like that. Neotarf (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no tradition that he actually wore a veil, it is purely an artistic convention, as the background section says at the top. It should not actually be considered as wearing a veil, but as a blanked face. In the same convention there are Islamic images of Jesus and other Prophets in Islam, and members of Muhammad's family, including Ali, also wearing "veils". Johnbod (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


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




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


 * And then it clarifies the meaning further




 * So the policy "ignore all rules" is actually against needless (prejudicial?) censorship not for it. :) <font face="Ravie" color="Green">Brendon is  here  07:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A Sense of the Consensus
I'm not a closer, but what I see so far is this:
 * There's strong consensus that figurative images of Muhammad are welcome in the article.
 * There's strong consensus that while the the 'most iconic depiction' might be calligraphic, NOTCENSORED prevents us from complying with a general prohibition against figurative images.
 * There is substantial support for a hatnote informing readers on this page about WP's NOTCENSORED policies as they apply to this page.
 * But there is also substantial opposition too-- (equal or greater than support)-- to such a hatnote as a violation of journalist neutrality or the WP:NODISCLAIMERS guidline.
 * There is substantial support for a "toggle images" feature.
 * There is substantial opposition to enabling the "toggle images" feature on only one page. Commenters cite selective implementation as contrary to NODISCLAIMERS or NOTCENSORED.

Based on this I predict a future where:
 * Figurative images of Muhammad are permanently welcome in the article.
 * Calligraphy is "top image" for the foreseeable future, with the understanding that it is chosen through normal consensus editorial decisions about informativeness.  At this point, it's "informativeness", not "reader offense", that is the consensus justification for using calligraphy as top image.
 * The "toggle all images" feature does not have consensus when applied to one and only one article.   It appears to have consensus when applied to all articles, which is the ideal solution anyway.
 * Similarly, a hatnote reminder of WP:CENSORED does not have support when applied to only one article.  In future, it may be possible to achieve consensus if objective criteria for "shocking" can be determined, but a single lone exception to NODISLAIMERS is not supported by consensus current. --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In summary - the existing page is fine; I think this is about right. But even though fewer new comments are coming, the rfc should run its full course. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I see neither how the Rfc is about finding "the most iconic" picture, nor a strong consensus that this most iconic picture was calligraphic, --Rosenkohl (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * My own sense of the consensus is that the existing page is mostly fine. The calligraphic image in the infobox (as currently) appears to have consensus. There also appears to be consensus that providing some depictive images is appropriate, if they appear farther down in the article. "Farther down" appears to mean either the "Life" or "Depictions of Muhammad" sections, with opinion split between those two sections. There is also a strong opinion that too many images may be giving undue weight to such images, though there is no consensus on what "too many" means. It may mean we should thin out a few of the other images in the article. Which doesn't mean delete them, but just to keep a sense of proportion and balance, and move a couple over to Depictions of Muhammad. I do agree though that we should wait and let the RfC run its course. --Elonka 16:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think relative majoritys would constitute a consensus, but the Request is not closed for new comments yet. Also, according to my counting, there is currently a clear majority for an unveiled depiction in the infobox, --Rosenkohl (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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


 * Oh dear, the words that one has to bite around here...the former me would have risen to this bait in a heartbeat, but that former me also almost got topic-banned from this area. So...I will just say simply that IMO those who wish to retain the images do so because of a sincere belief that they make the article better, and that the removal would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the subject.  I'm sorry that you remain unconvinced by that and seek alternative reasons for the calls for retention. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the discussion has opened up a bit on these points, and was extensive in the arbcom case & on the images talk page. Actually we only use 6 of the 70 images on Commons. That the images do not represent authentic likenesses of the historic figure was made clear in the background section at top. What has been missing from those who oppose the images is any recognition of, or arguments dealing with, the fact that the situation here is exactly the same as for most early medieval biographies, which we invariably illustrate with whatever medieval images are available, usually far fewer than here. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I made comments noting that I believe a visual depiction of events in Muhammad's life contribute both to our understanding of those events (reinforcing the text) and of the culture who created the artwork depicting them. I believe the educational value is clear. In fact, if such images did not exist, I would not object to a user uploading their own illustration of events from the life of Muhammad - such a practice is non-existent today on Wikipedia, but illustrated historical works are sold and I believe they promote effective learning. Dcoetzee 00:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not precisely measurable but the relevant educational value of an image clearly varies from instance to instance. In a section on the early life of Muhammad, an image depicting an event described in the text helps the reader to visualise and remember the narrative, but adds nothing relevant to the text. The same image in a section on Islamic depictions of Muhammad would be highly relevant to the text, and such a section should have as many examples as it can comfortably accommodate, because each is worth a thousand words, on the subject of art history. In the earlier situation, where the image serves only to aid memory and beautify, does that benefit outweigh any disaffection we may cause in some of our millions of Muslim readers? I don't think it does. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is crabbed view of visual education. Muhammad was born and came to adulthood in a feuding, clannish, polytheistic land.  The image of the clan men in the pre-Islamic, Kaaba educates about that on many levels.  He had a claimed revelation, which is the central fact of his life.  The image used educates about that on many levels. He went to war.  The image used, educates about that on many levels.  He united the (formerly feuding divided people) by proclaiming the revelation (launching the entire world into a new stage of history).  The image used educates about that on many levels.  (As for the religious prohibition, that is discussed extensively elsewhere but for Wikipedia's audience (which in the words of the Foundation report) is aimed at a modern secular society, it is not pertinent.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You [Anthony] have expressed this view many times (complete with helpful examples of "useful" engineering cutaway drawings as I remember). The trouble is that one thing this RFC (which I think you encouraged) has convincingly demonstrated is that few editors agree with you. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, Argumentum ad populum is no argument at all. Alan, I didn't follow that. You seem to be saying the narrative images do add something to the reader's understanding of the text they illustrate, but you're not saying what important relevant information they impart. It seems to be begging the question but perhaps I've misread you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Anthony, I've tried. All I can do now is emulate the ancient prophets: 'for he who has eyes, let him see.' (I do appreciate that you have moved off your more absolutist prior declarations). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. Denying any value to narrative images, as I have in the past, was hyperbolic and lazy. I often stressed their "adding nothing to the readers' understanding of the topic of the section they're illustrating" but too often didn't bother, because I can't think of an elegant way of saying that, and just went for the simple "they add nothing." It depended on who I was addressing, and how much of their attention I thought I had. But actually, because the value these images add to the sections they illustrate is so minimal compared to the value of a relevant exemplary or diagrammatic image, or compared to the offense they will cause millions of our readers, "they add nothing" is very close to the truth. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * <li>I agree with Alan there. The job of images is to illustrate events/information. And those images do that nicely. As for the question of what they actually add, I'd say they provide a vivid description and a better understanding of how the past cultures viewed those events.
 * And I'd also like to draw attention to the fallacious and careless use of the label "Argumentum ad populum" (Appeal to popularity). Since, this whole page is essentially a sort of referendum, argumentum ad populum is indeed a valid argument here. It's a fallacy, only when argument ad populum is cited as the only basis for truth and not popularity/support for the belief. But here it's about belief and perspective per se, not the truth (don't gloss over this important difference) . I guess it's not fallacious to "appeal to people". Among other valid uses of "appeal to popularity" is "democracy". FYI, I think this page itself proves that some people have been victims of fallacies like "Blind loyalty" (to an icon) and "Favoritism". <font face="Ravie" color="Green">Brendon is  here  09:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And I'd also like to draw attention to the fallacious and careless use of the label "Argumentum ad populum" (Appeal to popularity). Since, this whole page is essentially a sort of referendum, argumentum ad populum is indeed a valid argument here. It's a fallacy, only when argument ad populum is cited as the only basis for truth and not popularity/support for the belief. But here it's about belief and perspective per se, not the truth (don't gloss over this important difference) . I guess it's not fallacious to "appeal to people". Among other valid uses of "appeal to popularity" is "democracy". FYI, I think this page itself proves that some people have been victims of fallacies like "Blind loyalty" (to an icon) and "Favoritism". <font face="Ravie" color="Green">Brendon is  here  09:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Object to section. Why do editors do this in the middle of an RfC (two weeks to go!), to repeat thier arguments or say it should go thier way, or make inflamatory statements about how they must be right, and everyone else wrong? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I did it because I wanted to make it clearer on the closer which are issues where "we don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows".  I proposed 1b, and the amount of opposition it's gotten makes it clear to me 1b doesn't have consensus in its current form and thus needn't be a major point of contention going forward.   (also, I totally forgot we had 2 more weeks left, for some reason thought we were almost done)  --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * While I don't like the 30 day rule for most RfC's as they effectively tend to come to an end within about 2 weeks, this is an exception. When we are dealing with an RfC that will be used to determine the policy standard for years to come, we need to let people enter the discussion without a "consensus" being formed.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 01:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no "30 day rule". The bot removes RfC from the list after 30 days but that's purely housekeeping, not some kind of recommendation on how long an RfC should run.  It's entirely OK to have an RfC that runs 5 or 7 days. I don't know how an arbitrary housekeeping bot's timer got turned into something that people think is policy. Gigs (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree... but the number of times that I've seen people go to AN asking for an RfC to be closed only to be shot down because 30 days hasn't passed is ridiculous. All it takes is one person to say, "No it needs to stay open"---even if there is no meaningful discussion. Look at Fae's recent RfC.  This RfC, however, because of its nature and unprecendented consequences,  needs to be open unfettered for as long as possible.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 16:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that no RfC needs to be open for 30 days. In the mediation it was proposed that this one be open for two weeks. (By me, I wanted a time limit to among other things, avoid the when will it close drama).  That did not gain consensus (using the bot timing rationale, among others), instead, as the instructions for this RfC above state, it will close on a date certain (but not two weeks).  This should definitely not be treated as binding precedent for any other RfC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I fully Oppose this section. I don't think this is the right time to make any sort of predictions or guesses. One week is adequate to sway the pendulum hard enough to shock the present majority. This sections sends out a wrong message with its existence itself. I wholeheartedly concur with user:Alanscottwalker's comment on this. <li>Also I would like other editors to pay heed to User:johnbod's important remarks. :) <font face="Ravie" color="Green">Brendon is  here  06:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that your "sense of the consensus" is incorrect on many issues. Let's just let the closer(s) figure out the consensus, shall we?  No need to try to influence them.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#0a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> speak 18:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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


 * I concur that the RfC should conclude before this process takes place. On a process note though (I don't know much about RfC), it would appear likely that at the end of the time period there will be still be quite a weight of opinion on either/all side(s) of many of the questions. I'm sure this is not unusual. Who will attempt to 'call' the consensus, and what if they determine that no consensus has been reached? Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask these questions but I would appreciate any help. Thom2002 (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the "wrong place" but it never hurts to ask. Consensus for this one is planned to be a "three admin close"  3 WP:Administrators, who are "uninvolved" will be asked to volunteer to do a panel close.  Where they can find consensus they will declare, if they really can't on some issues, they will explain that too.  If more things still need to be decided, another RfC (with different/narrow wording) will be tried or perhaps binding WP:Dispute Resolution for anyone still interested. Cheers. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"A Sense of consensus..

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

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


 * Matt, frankly speaking (couldn't help it), I guess the right place for you to spew your inane vile against the "dark heart of Wikipedia" which is also like "the purest form of madness" (your own words, right?) , is WP:BATTLEGROUND. Not here! I'm sorry, I gotta tell you that the way you put your words out and your rhetoric doesn't seem to be very affable or civil. You must know that if you are inherently opposed to the practices/policies of wikipedia (it's quite clearly evident, you are absolutely uninterested in wikipedia) , you may peacefully opt out without disruption (albeit, your permanent exit is not a preferable outcome) . But, Wikipedia is not compulsory. <font face="Ravie" color="Green">Brendon is  here  13:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good summary. I can't see any other way to read the consensus here, and it's consistent with both WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:WEIGHT. Perhaps further comments will come in that sway things. But this isn't a section to argue the point. It's to summarize the weight of the discussion, which the initial comment does successfully. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I find your great belief that unbiased content creators exist to bringing a smile to my face. To find an content creator who is unbiased to what he creates, would be like finding a person who is completely unaffected by the social environment around him. This is why concepts like consensus and democracy are tools not only used to make decisions but also to create an objective view of a subject when all who speaks are by definition, being human, biased. Belorn (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


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


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

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

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

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

Having a quota established by consensus, neither censoring depictions nor allowing an excess, seems like a reasonable way to address the constant disruption of the page, bearing in mind that consensus can change. So if we assume good faith and assume we're not just out to censor the article and appease the fanatics, what are the downsides to this proposal? Peter Deer (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Downsides are all discussed below. Thank you for your comment. <font face="Ravie" color="Green">Brendon is  here  15:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)