Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images/Note on NOTCENSORED/AGF paradox

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

↑ Intro

<- Alt General discussion | Note on NOTCENSORED/AGF paradox | Permissibility of Images of Muhammad in Islam ->

Note on NOTCENSORED/AGF paradox
Has anyone noticed how people so keen on Wikipedia NOT BEING CENSORED, and in ignoring people's "sensitivities", can be particularly sensitive over 'AGF' being broken? I'd like to point out the plain hypocrisy there. I think that many of them care less about NOTCENSORED than their own likes and dislikes - the rest is often little more than ammunition given to them by the project. It often seems to me as if everyone armed with a proactive bias are given a billion bullet bonus the moment they sign up. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC) "Has anyone noticed how people so keen on...ignoring people's "sensitivities".." - Who is keen on (i.e. needlessly in favor of) ignoring people's sensitivities? It is not intentional. If "sensitivities" bar the flow of information then only it can be ignored.
 * "can be particularly sensitive over 'AGF' being broken?" - If you are referring to me, then I must say, I'm not "sensitive" about the contravention of WP:AGF. I'm just suggesting you a better approach, that's all. Brendon is   here  20:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The question is, whose sensitivity, and who decides what is offensive? Offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder; something is offensive only in someone's point of view. To presuppose that anything is offensive as a basis for any action is to actively favor someone's point of view.--New questions? 18:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Right you are! Brendon is   here  20:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't be so ignorant of basic Wikipedia policy - this is not about 'predisposing' anything. Wikipedia works on reliable sources - which here must show that sufficient offence is taken. The weight given to the sources (and what they actually say) should be decided by various policy and consensus of course if needed.


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


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


 * @Matt "it is a clear cut fact that a significant number of Muslims do not wish to see an image of Mohammad" - again, argumentum ad populum fallacy. So what, if muslims are offended. If that is to be considered then, it is also a clear cut fact that a significant number of non-Muslims (myself included) do wish to see an image of Mohammad in the article Muhammad and will consider censorship based on religious precepts or specific POV to be highly offensive.
 * This is why quoting WP:CENSOR becomes relevant and necessary,
 * I think all of us ought to learn what the word "Policy" means. Brendon is   here  21:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think all of us ought to learn what the word "Policy" means. Brendon is   here  21:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


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


 * So who is doing the censoring here? Wikipedia pages are intended to be viewed by the broadest possible readership while keeping their value intact. It's perfectly possible to do that in this case, but you just don't want it to happen. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've got some serious reservations about this line of thinking. First you say, "Wikipedia pages are intended to be viewed by the broadest possible readership" then you annex, "while keeping their value intact." - You are wrong again, Matt. You don't even realise that the two criteria are contesting criteria and cannot coexist in some cases (e.g. where offensiveness of a reliable content is cited as a sole argument for the removal of that content). Belorn beautifully pointed this out by saying, "No, this is not the goal. Had this been the goal, Wikipedia would encourage soapboxing, Scandal mongering, Opinion pieces, social networking, and newspaper articles as all those would increase the number of readers. Wikipedia is explicitly NOT out to get as much web "hits" as possible, but rather to be a encyclopedia! I rather have a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project than a non-offensive, image-less and perfect work safe site with all white empty pages with no text, no image, or content!" New addition: I see you also based your whole point here on the assumption that religious injunctions (I'm not sure if there are any, but for argument's sake) that forbid images to be displayed online, apply to Wikipedia. So, your assumption is in direct contradiction to WP:UNCENSORED. This is how you compel me to partially reproduce a copy of wikipedia policies verbatim. I'm not to blame here if start doing that. Brendon is   here  22:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply to Matt Lewis: Reliable sources can be a good way of finding out the points of views that certain people hold. However, even if a thousand reliable sources say "group X says that something is offensive," it only shows that it is group X's point of view; it does not prove that it is "absolutely and objectively offensive," if such a phrase means anything at all. By the way, the offense taken by Muslims is not ignored; it is duly noted in the relevant articles. However, to do anything policy-wise on the basis of a point of view is to favor that point of view.--New questions? 20:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Having a guideline on forbidden religious imagery does not somehow treat other images unfairly. Look, any issues surrounding other images are issues with those other images - MOS:images can have as many sections as it needs, as do all MOS guidelines. If you read my proposed text it is an entirely specific and recommended action, and even allows for article-specific consensus. And it's all linked to choice. It's not censorship, it's just standard encyclopedia building. Show me one without extensive compilation guidelines - you won't find one. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Without a good rationale to single out religious imagery other than "it causes offense," it does treat other images unfairly, especially since other images can also be considered offensive just the same way as for religious imagery.--New questions? 23:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. And who judges what is sensible and what is not. Who judges what is offensive and what is not? Who can so boldly (and fallaciously) claim to speak for the "most"? No one. It's absolutely needless. The proposal above sums it up. Brendon is   here  18:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

We make judgements about what is offensive all the time. See GFFENSE. By including images that are merely decorative, but which we know exclude a large number of readers who would otherwise have an interest in the article, we are slanting the article away from those readers' viewpoint, which is an effective form of censorship.--agr (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. By placing a 'forbidden' image under someone's nose you are essentially making it impossible for them to read the article at all. I do think it's worth having a specific guideline here though, esp as it can refer to per-image toggle graphics (in an 'off' state), which presumably is possible to do. Wikipedia is just too inherently inclusionist to never show things like this at all imo. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * People can view the entire website with images disabled. It is not very difficult to do so, as most standard browsers have such a feature.--New questions? 23:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How kind of you to allow them that. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is correct. People can already view the entire website without images. So no further measures are needed.--New questions? 03:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is what the above proposal is all about.
 * "By placing a 'forbidden' image under someone's nose you are essentially making it impossible for them to read the article at all." - 1. Even if some images are offensive in nature (which I don't think matters in an encyclopaedia any more than the font-name) it's a logical fallacy (namely, Camel's nose and/or Foot in the door) to claim that it makes it impossible for any sensitive man to read the article at all. Come on, no healthy person is going to get an heart-attack or something (only then it will make it truly impossible). 2. I think User talk:New questions above has expressed it finely. No need for me to repeat it again. (see proposal above) Brendon is   here  18:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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

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


 * The "merely decorative" argument has been explicitly and categorically rejected by many who have participated in this RfC. The images are included because most editors over the years feel they are directly related to and supported by the text of the article, and their removal world make the article a poorer work. Tarc (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable sources that say the images depict what Muhammad actually looked like, quite the opposite; so, yes, they are just decorative. And yes, in general, decorative images are valuable and not including them can make an article poorer. But excluding a large body of potential editors who have a strong interest in the article does much more damage to the article's integrity, in my opinion, than any of the proposals on the table here. GFFENSE suggests balancing such concerns, not taking the most extreme position. --agr (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Also, the pictures do show how that one part of Islamic culture viewed or depicted him. Besides, the claims of offense aren't floating around because pictures are "decorative" (a quality which is at least essential to an article's quality in your own opinion), are they? The truth is the opposite, you're only devaluing the contributions of the images by derogatorily labeling them as "merely decorative", because of the claims of offense (or is it because you are offended? Just curious). And BTW, decorating an article with relevant images is not a "mere" (as in trifling) act, finding appropriate images requires just as much diligence and hard-work as anything else we do in wikipedia.
 * In fact, editors are allowed to decorate their articles with pertinent images and all they should make sure is that the images are treated in a proper encyclopaedic manner. Brendon is   here  00:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have reliable sources for the claim that Muslims (who were not "ancient" btw) including figurative depictions of Muhammed in manuscripts did so for "educational," reasons? It is safe to assume that they had reasons to add the depictions, but to assume that it was consciously in service of "education" in the sense of what we're trying to do here in a modern encyclopedia is not something you or I can do. So where are your sources? To anyone who knows a lick about Muhammad as a cultural/historical figure it does actually come as a shock to see depictions of him in an article about him. In fact that's the very point of arguing against using these images as educationally distorting. I hate to say this but Brendon your perspective appears to be filtered through a narrow cultural (and historical) imperialism, through which apparently you assume that only your particular Western, modern version of reality is sensible. In fact much of this discussion reeks of the same and it's a down right shame. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your questions are as irrelevant and as inane as the question "do you have a reliable source (reliability is sometimes subjective also) claiming that Muhammad was even a human?" (Do I need to elaborate more?)Is it not obvious why they drew Muhammad's portraits? And why are we now talking about primitiveness of images anyway, I thought we were talking about the relevance of offensiveness of images. What does it matter if it was 8th century or 9th century when they depicted Muhammad? While depicting any other historical personality we don't ask these questions because they are not pertinent. Regardless of the age of these images they are depictions of Muhammad by Muslims themselves. Muhammad is constantly depicted even today. My point is muslim people still draw pictures of Muhammad. And if you want an exact date or more price time-length, then I think you should talk to User:Johnbod. Brendon is   here  18:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Narrative images illustrating sections on mythical or historical events add (1) prettiness (2) an aid to visualization and memory and (3) examples of historical styles of depiction - a subject utterly irrelevant to the sections they illustrate. Does that value outweigh the disaffection they cause? I believe it does not. Adding images that are both of little value to the section they're illustrating, and offensive to many readers, works against this project's mission to make knowledge as widely available as possible.


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


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


 * We should not take account of offensiveness, since offensiveness is always subjective. Unless, of course you can find a way for something to be "objectively" offensive, which I do not quite believe to be possible.--New questions? 13:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "But the notion that sensitivity of the reader doesn't matter is deeply irrational and dysfunctional" - I can sense some abhorrence and undue acerbity in this apparently illogical and overly-simplistic comment. "a subject utterly irrelevant to the sections they illustrate" - It's your opinion. Do you really believe (let alone proving it) that a depiction of Muhammad receiving his first revelation from the angel Gabriel (From the manuscript Jami' al-tawarikh by Rashid-al-Din Hamadani) or a depiction of Muhammad where he is prohibiting intercalary months during the Farewell Pilgrimage is not relevant in Muhammad article? Well, guess what, I don't hold your view nor I am impressed by your weak attempt to justify censorship. Brendon is   here  18:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's absurd. By the same logic civility is "subjective" so lets get rid of WP:CIVIL. In fact even "vandalism" is subjective, requiring editors to make a judgement call about how someone's edits are affecting the project and perhaps more importantly making a judgement call that those effects are themselves unwanted, so let's get rid of WP:VANDAL. What we do when we make decisions here is by its nature "subjective." The "that's subjective" argument holds about as much water as the Sahara.Griswaldo (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


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


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

@Griswaldo, I don't think that all our policies are subjective. Most of acts of vandalism are treated delicately and I'd say there is not much room for subjectivity there. But, even if they are partially subjective, we have a scope to build up consensus for or against that. That's how Wikipedia works. But the bigger point is why are we talking about subjectivity? Yes some people are offended that's a fact. But so what? Offensiveness is not a relevant reason in favor of deletion of content. Brendon is  here  18:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Offensiveness" may or may not be a relevant reason to present a subject matter in one way or another but it has nothing to do with subjectivity. That's my point. So if you are trying to argue against offensiveness as a relevant reason then find a sensible argument. That's all I'm saying. "It's subjective" is nonsensical for the reasons I've outlined already. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think, I'm confused. Are you saying that “"Offensiveness" ... has nothing to do with subjectivity”? One thing may be offensive to you though I do not find it unsavory, that's subjective. I'm quite certain that you're saying something else. Oh I see, “"It's subjective" is nonsensical” - No that's not nonsensical and this RfC is itself the proof of it. Now you may say that "subjectivity" alone cannot be cited as a credible argument for or against deletion of pertinent content and I concur with that much. But again, who is the one actually citing "subjective" issues alone as credible argument for or against censorship? Who is doing that? I mean, is it me? Brendon is   here  19:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are confused but I don't know how many times I can repeat the same thing before you understand. Of course offensiveness has to do with subjectivity but ... here's the important part ... SO DOES EVERYTHING ELSE WE ADJUDICATE HERE. This means all policy is subjective. What I said is not that offensiveness isn't subjective, but that the subjectivity of something is not a logical reason for dismissing it as a basis for policy or more generally for acting in some way or another (which is what you are trying to do). You are the one citing "subjectivity" as a basis for arguing against offensiveness and that is nonsensical. I'm not repeating myself again. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not everything is subjective. This sort of generalizations are not very conducive. And also, coherence helps. Yes, wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia. They are based on mostly experience and opinions (so is science and thus consensus of sane people matters in science) . Who has disagreed with that? For the record, something that is subjective is based on personal opinions and feelings rather than on facts. And I am even saying that just because Policies may be modified/ignored, it doesn't mean they need to be modified/ignored. Why are we talking about subjectivity? Can we just stop talking about "subjectivity"? The demand of censorship, based on claims of offense, is subjective but that's not only reason why we should not work upon it, another important reason is it stifles the flow of information and unnecessarily curtails editorial freedom which in turn works to the detriment of the mission of any encyclopaedia. "I don't know how many times I can repeat the same thing before you understand." cheers! Brendon is   here  20:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)