Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images/Proposal:Leave everything as they are (no change is necessary)

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

↑ Intro

<- General discussion | Proposal:Leave everything as they are (no change is necessary) | Note on NOTCENSORED/AGF paradox ->

Proposal:Leave everything as they are (no change is necessary)
Proposal: Leave everything as they are. No "hat-note", No "universal image-toggle", No "article-neutral hatnote" or whatever change that is being proposed is at all necessary (they are all fully redundant and for good reason). Simply direct the offended people to the page WP:NOSEE. Wikipedia Editors need not take lofty steps to appease excessively delicate sentiments. Why and if So, what's the solution? [Note: Most of us must agree that no human, or cohesive group has the right to dictate rules and regulations that curtail legitimate freedom while unnecessarily affecting others, just to appease their fragile sentiments or to make others bow down to the laws of their religion. That will not be productive for wikipedia community and the longevity of the free-flow of information.]

Argument about the existence of Wikipedia Images is needless since there are options to individually choose not to display them (by simply tweaking one's browser and/or preferences in wikipedia)? Problem: Some people get offended by some images and demand their censorship but,

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

Quoting User:Mitch Ames:
 * I acknowledge that "hiding" images is not literally the same as "removing" images, but to me the spirit of the policy is clear: Wikipedia will include the information, and the onus is on the reader not to look at, rather than on Wikipedia not to show it.
 * More specifically:
 * Yet by providing a hatnote telling people how to hide the images we are in effect trying to guarantee that the article will be acceptable - a direct contravention of WP:NOTCENSORED.
 * I don't believe it is our business to tell people how to follow their rules (not looking at certain images) when they are not our rules.
 * I don't believe it is our business to tell people how to follow their rules (not looking at certain images) when they are not our rules.
 * I don't believe it is our business to tell people how to follow their rules (not looking at certain images) when they are not our rules.

To make it clearer : The onus of avoiding/hiding (purportedly) offensive content/images based on religious precepts, does not fall on the editors or policy-makers of Wikipedia, the onus of taking all necessary steps to avoid those images is on the individual who is reading Wikipedia. This "image toggle" or "toolbox element" or a "hatnote" whatever that is being proposed is, A. utterly redundant, B. redolent of unequal treatment of information based on creed and C. a symbol of undue weight to the controversial side of argument spectrum because a permanent image-toggle in the left-hand toolbar as an option to hide images, will unavoidably reflect a specific POV and can be seen as an impetus towards self-censorship from Wikipedia itself. That is not helpful.

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

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

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

Support for this proposal

 *  Weak Strong support (moving to strong after clarification issued). I have above supported a universal hatnote - essentially an extension of the current function to make it easier to find for the uninitiated. Like, in the left-hand toolbar. Just not on any one article. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 17:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to make it crystal clear that while a devout Muslim may be offended to see a depiction of Muhammad on Wikipedia, (s)he is likely not going to be surprised or "astonished" for such a so-called "offense". Wikipedia's (just like any other encyclopedia's) habit of including depictions of historic figures will only astonish those people who haven't heard of Wikipedia's policies (Wikipedia need not compensate for readers' nonchalance towards Wikipedia's explicitly stated policies), and then suddenly decide to look at Wikipedia's article about Muhammad without having stopped by any other biographical article previously. That is a very improbable scenario, and so unrealistic that even if principle of least astonishment applies here, as few advocate, it is unreasonable to modify Wikipedia practices on such a basis. Thank you! :) Brendon is   here  09:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


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


 * "Tolerance" (actually, "Intolerance in the name of tolerance") seems to be the idol of the age. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 10:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation is wrong. It's quite the contrary to what you say, if somebody has configured his/her browser or the preferences to hide specific images (which offend their sentiments) then (s)he won't have any fear of visiting the Wikipedia and thus it would actually expand Wikipedia's audience range. And yes, Wikipedia is inflexible when it comes to their policies. Should it not be, not even for its own policies that are majorly responsible for the flow of information? Does Islamic demands to deprive other non-Muslims of the right to see relevant images in an article reek of tolerance? I don't think so. I don't think Wikipedia has to pander to or pamper the intolerant demands of Islam. :) Brendon is   here  18:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Brendon, I think we may have naturally gotten my wires crossed.   While we have initially proposed an article-specific hatnote, the feedback from that has suggested that an article-neutral toolbox link is far more popular.
 * I understand the confusion, there's been a lot of ideas floating around. At this point, I think image toggle has to be "article neutral" (all articles) and "less intrusive" (toolbox, not hatnote) .  --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hector, please read the following carefully. All I'm saying is that the onus of avoiding offensive content/images based on religious precepts, does not fall on the editors or policy-makers of Wikipedia, it's on the individual who is reading Wikipedia. And fortunately the readers also have an option for doing just that. Hence this "image toggle" or "toolbox" or whatever that you're proposing is utterly redundant and gives undue weight to this side of the argument spectrum. Brendon is   here  12:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


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

Opposition for this proposal

 * The page WP:NOSEE should be deleted. It does not belong into the project name space. It can't be the purpose of an encyclopaedia to help their readers to censor themselves, or to help institutions (Christian Schools, Madrasahs etc.) to hide content for their members. Any user is free to host CCS function in their own user name space, and share it there with other users, but definetly not in the official project space, --Rosenkohl (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Uhh, why? &mdash;SW&mdash; converse 12:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why what? --Rosenkohl (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


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


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


 * I'd say it expands Wikipedia's audience range. It does not bar any body from visiting the wikipedia website just because he/she doesn't want to view some specific images. You cannot force any information on to someone. Thus, it presents an alternative. That's the idea behind that option. :) Brendon is   here  16:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see any reason why educating users on how to use CSS to customize their viewing preferences is problematic in any way. &mdash;SW&mdash; speak 18:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


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

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


 * No, Wikipedia should not, and can't anyway, give the readers any option which they already have on their own. You are perhaps confusing an encyclopeadia with advice literature, see WP:NOTMANUAL:
 * >>Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes.<<
 * Wikipedia should not insult the technical intelligence of School directors etc. by even offering them advice on how-to block pictures for their students. Are you for the freedom of religious communitys to ignore images of wikipedia and then in favor of offering help to self-censorship due to some needless and utterly inconsiderate demands based on people's fragile sentiments and religious beliefs, depriving all other readers (most of whom don't mind seeing images) of the opportunity to see the otherwise very decent images? ;-\ --Rosenkohl (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Your "What Wikipedia is not" page says:
 * Firstly, WP:NOTMANUAL is not relevant in this discussion. You should bring that up on the talk page of WP:NOSEE. Not here. Secondly, WP:NOTMANUAL does not say that "Wikipedia should not, and can't anyway, give the readers any option which they already have on their own." Thirdly, WP:NOSEE is not an article. The talk page clearly states:
 * So, everything you said totally went over my head. All I'm saying is that the onus of avoiding (purportedly) offensive content/images based on religious precepts, does not fall on the editors or policy-makers of Wikipedia, it's on the individual who is reading Wikipedia. And fortunately the readers also have an option for doing just that. You cannot force your unwanted information on to anybody. Furthermore, as an encyclopaedia dedicated to transmitting all kinds of information, it's wikipedia's job to let readers know about this option too. Especially when a group is gratuitously and constantly bellyaching about the existence of relevant and decent images just because some dead self-important guy from 7th century Arabia told them to not depict him and somehow few of his extremist adherents even expect everybody else will cater to their views. ;-D Lastly, you must know that "should" is an ambiguous and highly relative term, and that could be misleading. Brendon is   here  12:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So, everything you said totally went over my head. All I'm saying is that the onus of avoiding (purportedly) offensive content/images based on religious precepts, does not fall on the editors or policy-makers of Wikipedia, it's on the individual who is reading Wikipedia. And fortunately the readers also have an option for doing just that. You cannot force your unwanted information on to anybody. Furthermore, as an encyclopaedia dedicated to transmitting all kinds of information, it's wikipedia's job to let readers know about this option too. Especially when a group is gratuitously and constantly bellyaching about the existence of relevant and decent images just because some dead self-important guy from 7th century Arabia told them to not depict him and somehow few of his extremist adherents even expect everybody else will cater to their views. ;-D Lastly, you must know that "should" is an ambiguous and highly relative term, and that could be misleading. Brendon is   here  12:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So, everything you said totally went over my head. All I'm saying is that the onus of avoiding (purportedly) offensive content/images based on religious precepts, does not fall on the editors or policy-makers of Wikipedia, it's on the individual who is reading Wikipedia. And fortunately the readers also have an option for doing just that. You cannot force your unwanted information on to anybody. Furthermore, as an encyclopaedia dedicated to transmitting all kinds of information, it's wikipedia's job to let readers know about this option too. Especially when a group is gratuitously and constantly bellyaching about the existence of relevant and decent images just because some dead self-important guy from 7th century Arabia told them to not depict him and somehow few of his extremist adherents even expect everybody else will cater to their views. ;-D Lastly, you must know that "should" is an ambiguous and highly relative term, and that could be misleading. Brendon is   here  12:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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


 * That gives me the impression that you believe that "to let others know about this option too" was part of the encyclopaedic mission of transmitting information about real objects by describing them — but I didn't say that Wikipedia must help its readers by providing unencyclopaedic information in shape of articles also. And please stop picking on the phraseology. A "how-to guide" is what it is.
 * As a side note, I'm not aware of a dead guy from 7th century Arabia who in his life time would have told others not to depict him — but is that point in the favor of the proposal of an image toggle in the left-hand toolbar? I think, it's all the more reason against the credibility and for the gratuitous nature of this phenomenally redundant and unfair demand.


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




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


 * Well, not I did make a proposal, but you did. Actually I fully agree with the part >>The Solution: If you don't want to see any media content especially images you may hide them as "inappropriate for you"<<. What I do disagree with is the page WP:NOSEE in its current form. But if I understand you correctly, having the page WP:NOSEE is an essential part of your proposal. I had tried to explain some days ago somewhere above why the page WP:NOSEE as part of the official "Help:"- or "Wikipedia:"-namespaceis fundamentally unencyclopaedic, --Rosenkohl (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "What I do disagree with is the page WP:NOSEE in its current form." - Bring that up in the talk page of WT:NOSEE. Here, it is irrelevant whether you agree with WP:NOSEE or not. "having the page WP:NOSEE is an essential part of your proposal." - No, you didn't understand me correctly. The existence of that page isn't really essential for my proposal to stand firm (i.e. wikipedia permanently hosts that page or not, doesn't matter) . What matters to me is the information being purveyed by that page. That page helps me to the extent it reduces my job, that's all. If that page didn't exist I would've had to find another alternative to get that information out. And, it would be hectic. But since that page exists, I don't have to waste my time in tedious work of gathering information about browsers (even if somebody removes info from the page, I can always just cite an older version of that page or just reproduce all the information here) . BTW, that page has been nominated for deletion in the recent past but the consensus quickly began to rise in favour of preserving it. Brendon is   here  23:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


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


 * "they are not offended at seeing the images, but rather at the fact that the images are being published." — I understand your point (Your username seems a little odd though).
 * Like I've been reiterating for many days, labeling an Image as "sacrilegious material" or "offensive material" is NOT a sufficient ground for removing or veiling any picture. WP:PROFA states,
 * 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.
 * Besides, Inclusion of depictions/portraits of Muhammad is not considered to be a vulgar or obscene or an uncivil act by wikipedia standards. Wikipedia serves a broader range of audience than just Muslims and many of whom don't consider depictions of Muhammad to be a vulgarity.


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


 * That's exactly why this option is all the more relevant for showing that one cannot meddle with Wikipedia policies, if some few people are really offended they are welcome not to see those images. But they, at any moment, cannot demand a special treatment or concession or modification of long-held Wikipedia practices and policies to appease their hyper-sensitivities predicated upon religious tenets. If I've learnt anything from the policies of wikipedia it is this that "XYZ are offended" is not a credible rationale for removal of appropriate content. Why don't people get it, already? They are offended, so what? I'm fed up with these kind of irrational, unfounded, gratuitous demands from religion and all their rationale revolve around the line "they are offended", so what? So what?? So what? Brendon is   here  09:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment

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


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


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


 * "That you propose every 'intelligent man' must agree with your personal opinion of expecting to see depictions of Muhammad in this article is, quite simply, untrue." - then suggest to me what adjective should I have used? My mistake, I should have written any intelligent or foolish man would expect (at least won't be shocked) to see depictions of xyz in an article about xyz along with other relevant information (be it about Muhammad or Jesus or Moses). What general people would be surprised to see is an exception to that rule of "equal treatment to everybody regardless of class, creed, color". What general people would be shocked or, rather insulted, to find is special concession for Islam due to Muslims' sensitivity. If you find the principle of equality to be distasteful too then I could not care less about what according to you is not distasteful. I think you must be aware of the phrase "soft bigotry of low expectation" (note:I am not saying you or anybody are bigots) . People would be shocked to find that here in wikipedia. To expect that wikipedia will cater to or bow down to rules and regulations of Sharia will be shocking. And as a matter of fact, I find your comment mildly distasteful too. So what? I'm not asking anybody to block you, because you didn't break any policy of Wikipedia (I think) . Same goes for images in Wikipedia. :) Brendon is   here  13:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Update - After giving it a thought, I rephrased that specific line. Sorry if it hurt you! :) Brendon is   here  13:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


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


 * "The solution is to add an image toggle to all articles and call it good." - No that's not the solution, that kind of extra-leniency, sufferance or submissive thinking with regards to the unreasonable, unfounded (and gratuitous?) demands that contravene several valid policies of Wikipedia, is actually the problem. Anything else is a minor issue. It's not a crime to call a spade a spade. Nor is it insensitive to exercise our editorial rights. We should not accommodate irrational demands. The thing is if anybody is offended by a picture which doesn't show any nudity or isn't abjectly irrelevant to the topic, then it's his problem. The onus of coping with reliable information that has been transmitted by Wikipedia, falls on the individual reader. If somebody doesn't like what is being published because it simply appears to him as sacrilegious, it's not wikipedia's problem. It's completely acceptable, and to some extent even essential, that an article about someone contains portraits/depictions of him (for the purpose of either making him recognizable or showing how the primitive/medieval culture viewed him). :) Brendon is   here  13:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * John, I fully understand where you're coming from (and I see your point) but, I seriously don't think that people's redundant sensitivity is worth an image toggle in the left-hand toolbar. If some few readers cannot adjust themselves with the otherwise innocuous or harmless arrangements and practices of wikipedia because of their religious commandments, then it's not Wikipedia's responsibility to indulge those demands. (They must take necessary steps to avoid seeing those images as opposed to asking wikipedia to take down or hide those images which will eventually be superfluously disruptive ) I also think that most of us (and some among them wittingly) are committing Argumentum ad populum, Tu quoque fallacies over and over again. But you yourself beautifully pointed that out by saying, "We don't censor Swastika, Holocaust (or Holocaust denial), Cunnilingus, Fisting, or Fellatio. Wikipedia caters to no other point of view, religious or not. It is not Wikipedia's job to censor images (as per the WP:DISCLAIMER) or anything else, to reinforce any form of bias or superstition. What's next, remove pictures of the cross because Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons object, remove descriptions of sex acts as immoral?" I fully concur with that view of yours. An image toggle is not going to be conducive. Splitting hairs over inconsiderate, gratuitous demands is going to make matters worse. These actions will reek of wikipedia's extra-indulgent behavior. Brendon is   here  15:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with Brendon111. Permitting to eliminate images it's equivalent to introduce "a specific point of view". No to offending images just as to offending words. Every faith has to be respected, but no to every form of religious or political arrogance. Wikipedia is not mandatory. --Pigr8 (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I didn't read all the stuff up there, but just the last paragraph, so my agreement doesn't extend to any offensive concept there exposed.
 * Actually, I support the universal toggle in the left-hand toolbar, as it would be useful for Reformed Christians in articles on Jesus, teetotallers in articles on alcohol, people with PTSD who read about something that might trigger an episode, nudity or pornography in articles where someone just wants to learn non-visually, etc., as the current image-hiding options are either universal full stop and designed for bandwidth-saving (the ones built in to the browser) or really fucking hard to figure out where they're at or how to activate them; I still don't know how to block specific images or articles of images or classes of images on Wikipedia, and I was a damned information security consultant! So, a universal toggle for images in the left-hand toolbar, under "toolbox", near "expand citations" or "what links here", can do no harm, but can cause benefit. It's not even related to Muhammad; this was just an opportune moment to bring it up. Thus, it should be implemented. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 22:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the following carefully, John. You might be stepping on to a deadly trap which will do more harm than good. All I'm saying is that the onus of avoiding offensive content/images based on religious precepts, does not fall on the editors or policy-makers of Wikipedia, it's on the individual who is reading Wikipedia. And fortunately the readers also have an option for doing just that. Hence this "image toggle" or "toolbox" or whatever that you're proposing is utterly redundant and gives undue weight to the controversial side of argument spectrum because a permanent image-toggle in the left-hand toolbar as an option to hide images, will unavoidably reflect a specific point of view and can be seen as impetus towards self-censorship from Wikipedia itself. That is not helpful. Therefore, the people with PTSD (a tiny minority of the audience which wikipedia serves) should be separately advised to minutely follow the steps on NOSEE or avoid the pages. Image toggle is fully redundant. We should not use this RfC to serve our own personal interest. If we start modifying Wikipedia based on anything but reliability of information, then it  will  may prove to be fatal (and I guess, it won't be fatuous to assert this change will serve as a slippery slope to numerous other absolutely redundant adjustments which may eventually morph wikipedia into a ludicrously dysfunctional accumulation of Information denuded of much-needed realism but looking to please everybody) . You cannot please everybody at the same time. And Secondly, Neither Wikipedia nor this RfC is not about PTSD patients; this RfC about Islamic demand to hide Muhammad's images. I don't see many PTSD people trying to take down Wikipedia images. Arguments about obscenity, lewdness are completely a separate issue. Thank you! (You and I are on the same side here.) Brendon is   here  12:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

@Matt, "I do not find images of Mohammad "welcoming", I find them unnecessary and religiously inflammatory. There are a billion Muslim people in this world (no matter how many would accept the image or not) - it's not just some cult" — it's a logical fallacy to claim that just because there are supposedly millions of Muslims concerned or offended (inflamed?) by the very existence of images, wikipedia should not use those images.

"I actually applaud the people who merely quote the lamentable "NOTCENSORED", as they have at least refrained from sharing their possibly-offensive opinions." — I couldn't care less if you're offended by my freedom of expression.

"I don't think the world is remotely interested in Wikipedia being a soup containing everything it possible can. It would be a toxic stew riddled with flies." — Your opinion is, at the end of the day, your opinion. But, I think you should read the following:

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


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


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


 * Symbol comment vote.svgComment Quoting a relevant policy where it is especially applicable, I would say, is not "ridiculous." Also, we are not a uniform encyclopedia, but neither should be consider treating this Mohammad page as a special exception. Pages should not be considered exceptions simply because they become the focus of vast amounts of external pressure or because external petitions exist. Also, as a reminder, comments that focus more on the issue are more constructive than comments on the commentator.--New questions? 16:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, amongst the general silliness, he told me to "read it" when I'd very-clearly given my opinion on it and surrounding it. If you think that is clever I would say that you do not realise how 'disruption' can be judged on Wikipedia - it does actually go a little deeper than simple black and white AGF - or beyond all Wikilawyering in fact. The endless repetition and quoting of policy can wear the readers down - I forget the specific names of them, but there have been plenty of WP:'s written for that kind of 'debate'. I'm not comparing anything to my own comments, I'm just stating a fact - and you in linking arms with him are just doing exactly the same thing: misreading, mis-assessing, and Wikilawyering around the outskirts of someone's point. I've seen it all a million times. It's just one of the things that makes debate on Wikipedia such a headache for almost everyone. There are quality 'Wikipedians', there is just not enough of them to balance this kind of debate. The scales have always been imbalanced. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "I'm not comparing anything to my own comments, I'm just stating a fact" — all I can see is the evidence to the contrary. Why are you so upset, calm down a bit. Your comments don't seem to be conforming to WP:AGF at all. Hence, my suggestion to you would be don't comment until you relax. Brendon is   here  10:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Matt, I see here that you tremendously lack good faith. And you wrote,
 * And I find your opinion immensely abominable. So what? Do I want you to get blocked from wikipedia? ;-\ Brendon is   here  11:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the genuine improvements in Wikipedia over the years is that admin aren't so quick to block at the demands of such obvious dime-a-dozen wind-up merchants any more. Unfortunately they can't limit the amount of toe-bouncing editors either. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the genuine improvements in Wikipedia over the years is that admin aren't so quick to block at the demands of such obvious dime-a-dozen wind-up merchants any more. Unfortunately they can't limit the amount of toe-bouncing editors either. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


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


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


 * "pictures of Mohd. are unimportant to the quality of the article about him." — I don't agree. I don't, as a matter of fact, think that it's a sufficient reason to remove the images, either. God is not consistently depicted the same way throughout history, but we somehow found a picture to use without controversy. Don't deceive yourself, this discussion is about censorship and catering to the demands of a religion, not about a survey of depictions used in sources. Trying to state another's offense risks while implicitly patronizing their irrational demands, is not particularly very conducive. Finally, the ancient people who used these images to illustrate biographies of the prophet found them educational. So, the idea that they "add nothing" is refuted by the material itself. :) Brendon is   here  10:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * The job of images is to illustrate events/information. And those images do that nicely. As for the question of what they actually add, I'd say they provide a vivid description and a better understanding of how the past cultures viewed those events.
 * Matt, I would like you (i.e. not mandatory) to read the primary contention of this proposal above. You are missing the whole point behind the policy WP:NOTCENSORED. Thank you! Brendon is   here  13:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Matt, I would like you (i.e. not mandatory) to read the primary contention of this proposal above. You are missing the whole point behind the policy WP:NOTCENSORED. Thank you! Brendon is   here  13:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


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


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


 *  "That's enough now Brendon." — No, I don't think it is enough, Matt. You need something more. Tone yourself down a notch please. It doesn't seem exactly compliant with WP:AGF policy. Like I've told you earlier, Wikipedia is not mandatory (albeit, I don't want you to leave). If you are inherently opposed to the idea of "no censorship solely based on religious sensitivity" then I think RfC is not an appropriate place for you to meander about and recklessly spray your inapposite, unbecoming and rather impertinent views all over.
 *  As User:New questions said, you ought to spit your counter-productive, witless abhorrence regarding WP:NOTCENSORED policy on its talk page, not here. You have to go step by step. Here, it is only disruptive. Brendon is   here  13:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Brendan

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

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

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

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

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

If you could avoid chanting policy, like a fundamentalist clings to religious diktats, in your response, that would help things enormously.--Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I respect your approach, Anthony. I really do. However, I don't concur with you that much.

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

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

"you assert that in an encyclopaedia, sensitivity of the reader doesn't actually matter. This principle seems to underlie most of what you push here" - Like i said earlier, in an encyclopaedia, not sensitivity but verifiability, <li>fidelity to the true nature of information in representation and <li>the quality of information</ol>
 * are what count. If anything, anything at all, clashes with these pillars (not to mention, which have been majorly responsible for the free-flow of information without much problem) then I think it's better to reject that thing than to reject the policies altogether. What I meant was the pillars of Wikipedia are not at the mercy of people's delicate sentiments in Wikipedia (I mean no offense). The pillars of Wikipedia are undeniably of paramount significance.

<li>"Of course this point has been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere, but I wonder if you can bring a fresh perspective to it by explaining why you think that is the case." - fresh perspective? Why do you assume that presently the opinions which are scattered throughout this RfC, are not sufficient? <li>"reader sensibility should be subordinate to educational value" - YES, I agree! <li>"If you could avoid chanting policy, like a fundamentalist clings to religious diktats, in your response, that would help things enormously" - It's your opinion. I don't share your views. I think Wikipedia policies are not to be opportunistically disregarded whenever it seems convenient nor are they negligible. On the contrary, I believe here they are all the more relevant. That's why they are there in the first place. To give editors a good Idea of the mechanism and bounds of Wikipedia. And I also implore you to focus on content rather than picking on minutiae of rhetoric and phraseology. <li>"large proportion of editors here argue that" - Firstly, who knows how large? And secondly, simply positing that a large proportion of editors argue in favor of something, doesn't necessarily make it the right thing (Fallacy:Argumentum ad numerum). </ol>
 * And don't worry, if that "large proportion of editors" form the majority it will reflect here in the RfC. I hope this helps. I am not looking for dispute here. Brendon is   here  03:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

We ignore all rules to improve the encyclopedia. If improvement cannot be demonstrated, then there is no reason to ignore any rule. The chief assertion here is that it would improve the encyclopedia for being more sensitive to moderately strict Sunni Muslim readers, and that it is of no value on the Mohammad page. Now, I would say that former should be of no issue, and the latter has been thoroughly contested. There are many things that would be sensitive to moderately strict Sunni Muslim readers, but I do not think we need to do those things. It could be argued that this is the most prominent and fundamental among the things that would be sensitive to moderately strict Sunni Muslim readers, and that they are a large portion portion of this population, but the key point is that they are not the entire population, and it would be against NPOV to acquiesce to the demands of any group, even if they are 30% of the world population, and it does not matter if it is just one or a thousand demands. The reason why we should not make an exception here to NOTCENSORED is to uphold NPOV, and NPOV is one of those things that are not negotiable, not subject to any exceptions under ignore all rules. This was made explicit from the very beginning of the encyclopedia here. --New questions? 06:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Are you saying that we have to make an exception in this case and just take down images in order to avoid offending some sensitivities?" Have to? Ummm no. Consider? yes. Again, your response is based on the false axiom, "sensitivity of the reader doesn't actually matter." I invited you to explain that nonsense proposition, not just assume it in your answer.


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Correction: moderately strict Sunni Muslim people think that it is offensive. To suppose that it is offensive in the first place is to favor the one POV already. In fact, to suppose that anything is offensive is itself POV.--New questions? 08:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Unnecessarily putting images on a page that repel a large group of readers works against that aspect of the mission." — You think Depictions of Muhammad (drawn by muslims themselves) in an article about Muhammad, is unnecessary? You are kidding, right? And "large group"? Argumentum ad populum again?
 * I repeat, this RfC is not the right place to discuss anything that transcends the topic namely, images of Muhammad in article Muhammad.
 * "You both seem to be blindly (by that I mean without any discernible rationale) advocating that we ignore the offensiveness of our content." - No, we're neither advocating permanent indifference to offensiveness nor are we pushing to do that blindly. Read my previous comments again. I see you're quite adept at attacking straw men. And BTW, the onus of providing proof (i.e. credible rationale) doesn't fall on those who just want to follow the status quo, it's on those who are gratuitously trying to create an exception to that. "you have added such a wall of text that you are effectively stimying pertinent discussion." - You mean according to you I should write less? You did right by clarifying that it's your opinion. Lastly, I would request you to pay heed to Belorn's comment below. Brendon is   here  14:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Does the sensitivity of the readers matter?
This question was made above, so here is an attempt to answer that. There is three potential answer to this.
 * 1) Majority tyranny. If 49% say something is offensive, and 51% say its not offensive, then the subject is decided as not offensive.
 * 2) Minority tyranny. If any group claim something to be offensive, it is offensive and need to be removed/fixed.
 * 3) "Logic" tyranny. Everything is based on objective facts and rationality. "I feel offended", or "I do not feel offended" is in this context irrelevant and should not effect any article or Wikipedia policy.

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

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

Ending question. As there are exceptions, Laws and BLP, should we make a new exception here? Laws and BLP has clear and bright defined lines on when and how those exceptions are made. Religion and culture do not have those clear and bright lines. Religion and culture also differ from country to country in ways that are often contradictory to each other. Even if we tried to follow all that there is to culture and religious morality, we would fail. The solution is better and clearer not to make exceptions for culture, religion, or personal beliefs. Belorn (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more with Belorn. Very logical. Very, Very logical. I salute your realistic and very intellectual comment. Thank you! :) Brendon is   here  20:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like to see logic abused like this. It seems to me that you have a destination and have drawn out a path to it here - doing that is entirely unscientific. You've concocted a spurious 'logic v's Wikipedia addressing sensitivity' argument that to me is just bunk. And it's just nonsense to give a set of options like that.


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


 * To actively prevent any article being read by the most amount of people (as you and some others are effectively doing) can very easily be called censorship itself. To claim that clicking on a picture to see a picture (and potentially people could do just that) is "censorship", is absolute and utter nonsense. To suggest that using some common sense (as happens all over Wikipedia) will open doors to 'mayhem' all over the encyclopedia is insidious bullshit. Guidelines can make things as broad or specific as you can envisage them and make them, and nobody cries foul when they do just that.
 * I've suggested this idea/guideline change on talk, and will probably just go ahead with it at some point (not here - it's too long now I feel, but elsewhere), as nobody has expressly objected. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "To claim that clicking on a picture to see a picture (and potentially people could do just that) is "censorship", is absolute and utter nonsense." - No, it is not nonsense. Any act of suppressing relevant information (pictorial or otherwise) amounts to censorship at least to some extent. A "hatnote" in Muhammad article would be nothing short of giving special credence to Islamic tenets; as a matter of fact, "Universal image toggle" reflects a specific POV (namely POV of the offended people) and will be seen as an impetus to self-censorship by Wikipedia itself. None of these is the goal of Wikipedia. People's sensitivities matter very very little in comparison to long-standing Wikipedia policies. Brendon is   here  21:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Doing my best at keeping good-faith in mind while reading that, but this comment will have to show if it worked. How is it that the basic suggestion; changes to Wikipedia should be based on rational arguments, in any way resulting in Wikiepdia turning to a Orwellian fascist state? It sound crazy, so please, provide some detailed explanation on how one can reach that conclusion. Please use pictures, or if you prefer calligraphy :)


 * Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project based on an openly editable mode (About), so yes, Wikipedia can be described as presenting the most accurate and fairly-balanced information, to be read by potentially the broadest possible group of people. The way it manage this, is by being a web-based free-content encyclopedia. I do not think you actually meant to use the word "potentially", but rather, want Wikipedia to be: A encyclopedia read by the most amount of people as possible . No, this is not the goal. Had this been the goal, Wikipedia would encourage soapboxing, Scandal mongering, Opinion pieces, social networking, and newspaper articles as all those would increase the number of readers. Wikipedia is explicitly NOT out to get as much web "hits" as possible, but rather to be a encyclopedia ! I rather have a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project than a non-offensive, image-less and perfect work safe site with all white empty pages with no text, no image, or content! I don't think that is actually what you are suggesting, but the amount of hyperbole being brought around in your comment surely suggest it. (as for show/hide concept, my comments will be made there and not here) Belorn (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Try this for AGF you moron: you just based your entire above argument on me "not really meaning" to use the word "potentially". Jesus. Matt Lewis (talk)
 * Moron? "insidious bullshit"? What is this? - (I don't know about Belorn, but I resent your way of talking and find it truly uncivil) Why do you have to be so uncivil and personal, matt? Brendon is   here  21:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)