Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images/Question 1a

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

<- Intro Question 1a Question 1b ->

Question 1a: Should there be an instructional hatnote?
(place answers under the subsections below)

Support 1a

 * Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems to me to be an appropriate application of WP:IAR. FormerIP (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is entirely appropriate for this unique situation. -- Ja Ga  talk 03:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Invoking IAR here is justified.  But in practice, instructions have been too difficult for all users to follow.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * very much second choice as wikipedia is an encylopedia so the images should be there but an encylopedia should not put barriers real or perceived in users way. Edmund Patrick – confer 07:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Needed-- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 07:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Both factual (educational) and functional, so fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First Choice: R.E.S.P.E.C.T. and principle of least astonishment. --Advocado 15:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * support This is not censorship, this is fairness to readers. This is not a barrier; the easiest thing is to go right on ignoring it--if it said the inverse, "click here to see how to show the images", as in the ill-fated and community rejected WMF resolution, then it would be a barrier. But there is no harm from telling people what the available options are (it also has the advantage of right at the top defusing some frequent objections).  DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: that is the purpose of the hat notes and this is an essential given the contention. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Best option on the table. Even better would be simply not to allow the Muhammad pics at all. The negligible education value is outweighed by the distress and alienation they cause to large numbers of devout Muslims. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support A reasonable accommodation to millions of Muslims that preserves the content and illustrations for all readers. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Images portraying Muhammad are offensive to Muslims who represent 1 in 5 people on the planet. No doubt, Wikipedia is a place where many of them may come to read this article. Furthermore, no actual pictures of Muhammad or portraits painted while he was alive do in fact exist. Why bother to include them in the article when they serve no purpose but to inflame? We don’t show pictures of paedophilia to those who want to read about the subject nor do we show lynching photos in the African American article. Respect first. Forcing western perspectives about what is deemed acceptable in the west seems out of place and entirely insensitive in such an article. Finally, at least two of the current images are attributed to a Jew, which only adds insult to injury and seems somewhat suspect when Islam itself expressly forbids such depictions. Adding a hatnote seems to be both a sensible and sensitive option that will allow all readers to see or shield content as they themselves see fit. Wikipedia has no place in putting its readers in awkward, if not humiliating, positions. Veritycheck (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Makes sense. Arguments stating but we don't do this for swastika or sexual... are somewhat silly. An RFC on those would end up having the argument but we don't have them for Muhammed. It's not a contravention of WP:NOTCENSORED as a single click allows users to get to the relevant images. Those that are most interested in Muhammed are the ones that are likely to be offended by the images. It actually improves the article in relationship to getting information of relevance to the intended audience.  PuppyOnTheRadio   talk  07:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It seems to me to do no harm to anyone, and some good to some (as would 1b). I would suggest though, that (as I believe is currently the case) when the page loads it is unlikely that one of the potentially offensive images  is visible at first (i.e. not in the infobox or early in the article).  This is not censorship, but a means to allow users to block something they might not want to see, while reading a topic they may well want to read. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Further to this, and to the arguments about not doing this on sexual/nudity/swastika/... articles - we could, maybe we should, lets discuss, but elsewhere. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Support first choice. I can't believe the people who are citing "NOT CENSORED."  The option is for the viewer to make the choice based upon his/her personal views.  Wikipedia is not censoring the items, but only offering others a means to read the article in a manner than would not offend them and conforms to their religious stance.  To oppose giving a person an option to adhere to their religious convictions is intollerant.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 14:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support and Call for Clarification Those who oppose citing "NOT CENSORED" are in danger of having their votes not counted for having an invalid reason (giving someone a choice is not censorship). This should be made clear and they should be given a chance to change the reason they give. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, I'm very skeptical of calls to WP:NOTCENSORED. The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to disseminate knowledge freely worldwide. The question then becomes: how best can we serve our readers? A significant population on this planet finds depictions of this man immensely offensive; we should honor their requests in some reasonable fashion then. Give them an option to opt out. I doubt this will make a dent in the complaints we receive, but it would help those moderate few who are willing to meet us halfway. For the record, I support any measure that accepts a pluralistic solution. We're a multifaceted, multicultural society; to neglect that would neglect our mission. Blurpeace  23:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. This seems like a useful accommodation.--Srleffler (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This seems the sensible the thing to do, considering the diversity of wikipedia's readership. Mathsci (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Not censorship, but a basic respect and right of choice. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems like a possible solution. -- J N  466  13:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Apparently a lot of people don't understand what "censored" means. This ain't it. Volunteer Marek 21:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Support- How could it hurt anyone to ignore censorship rules for such a special case where it would be optional to avoid viewing images that may be sacrilegious? Bzweebl (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support— Djathink imacowboy  05:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It is a Founding principle "4. The creation of a welcoming and collegial editorial environment." A hat-note is a no-brainer. Penyulap  ☏  14:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent idea. The hat-note will reduce the offence caused to some users without introducing censorship. Thom2002 (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Seems a sensible solution. We can't compare showing these images with showing educational images of sex and violence. Epbr123 (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - couldn't hurt, definitely could help. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support appropriate instruction provided to readers at at appropriate point. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Reasonable accomodation and something that might could also be used to screen articles with adult content. Cla68 (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that "There are a lot of articles that could potentially offend people. We need to develop a clear policy that covers all of them. (...) --Tango[odp] (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)" - but I disagree with "Having special cases could do more harm than good." - I think that it may be a good place to check this solution Bulwersator (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC) BTW, "WP:NOTCENSORED" chants are funny ("the only actual censorship being discussed here is an attempt to censor the instructional hatnote itself. --Guy Macon[odp] (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)") Bulwersator (talk) 07:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This seems a reasonable way to deal with a unique situation, and clearer than 1b. Anaxial (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support sounds like a good compromise
 * Strong Support - burdak (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Probably won't stop complaints from total fanatics, but for the rest of the world it's a very reasonable and logical solution. Florestanová (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a completely reasonable compromise, considering that such a large segment of users will be offended by the images. Opposing on censorship grounds is just silly – we should not be the ones to decide whether we allow individuals to self-censor themselves (actively obscuring the way to hide the images is close to deciding it for them). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - obvious solution. There is no good reason not to do this. Robofish (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unstoppable Support - This seems an unstoppable, mandatory compromise, since many editors are determined to force images into the article, regardless of how peculiar or unnecessary, when the fringe article "Images of Muhammed" allows a place to show shocking images, for proper balance. A similar hatnote warning could also be used to warn readers if the "Jesus of Nazareth" article contains 18 "Jesus-porn" parody images, or article "Murder" contains videos of actual murders-in-progress, or any similar case where unusual images or videos have been forced into an article, in direct of opposition to WP:UNDUE and wp:FRINGE-mongering of peculiar images. Also, the hatnote cannot be stopped, per wp:NOTCENSORED, which even allows a hatnote to warn people of fringe information in an article. Hence, this discussion can be wp:SNOW-closed as "Unstoppable Support per wp:NOTCENSORED allowing any non-vio hatnote. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The article is fine as it is (30 March a.m.), but it does no harm to give readers a choice. Apuldram (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This is a minimal compromise. The images keep devout Muslim editors away and is a form of censorship in itself. --agr (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Seems like an appropriate idea. Student7 (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support There shouldn't be any problems with giving people guidance in a situation where they may need it. FurrySings (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support for both 1a and 1b. It's not censoring, it's enabling people to make a choice, which is skirting the lines of self-censorship, but not crossing it. Let's not make broad sweeping judgement here about other things that may or may not be affected by the precedent here. This situation is fairly unique, and may the situation arise that more/many articles get the same treatment, which I don't predict, we can always come back to this, and decide it was not a good idea. Lets take the pragmatic approach here. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I recognize that the no disclaimers guideline is a community consensus that goes against this proposal. My real position is in opposition of the "no disclaimers" policy.  This just happens to be a good example of why I think disclaimers are a reasonable thing to have in Wikipedia. (Lexandalf (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC))
 * Support: Sounds like a pretty good solution that would lead to greater stability in the article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Clearly, a vast majority does not mind seeing the picture or even welcomes it. But there is a significant minority which finds it offensive. Strongly religious people treat such matters very seriously. I do not really see why we have to make a point in a pretense anti-censorship by not respecting the religious minority's sensitivity. In fact, not showing the picture is a sign of tolerance, respect and courtesy, even if we find the ban on Muhammad's images unreasonable, or even ridiculous. I would even go farther and move all representations to a separate article, but this is clearly not a solution which could be accepted here. Probably unnecessary caveat: I am completely a-religious, but I think that respecting minorities' quirks is just a nice thing to do. I would treat it as a censorship thing only if Wikipedia was threatened or terrorized. Pundit | utter  15:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Support In the library where I work the rule of thumb is, "If you don't like it, don't read it." This option allows any visitor to easily make that choice. Carptrash (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Does your library have such a disclaimer on the cover of every book that might potentially be offensive? That is essentially what this amounts to. Wikipedia actually already has a general disclaimer elsewhere.--New questions? 21:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This is a reasonable solution for a unique problem. It's courteous and respectful. Providing a simple way to inform readers that they can view the article without images could effectively increase the accessibility of the article. At a time when we're trying to expand Wikipedia beyond its English/Western roots, a small compromise such as this feels appropriate. Gobōnobo  + c 18:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per DGG, Gobonobo, and others in between. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support (like Gobonobo) -- Aflis (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - While I believe that those who feel viewing images of Mohammed is idolatrous are mistaken about their own religion, I respect their POV. However, Wikipedia should be uncensored. I believe that the hat note is the best solution to this dilemma.  The default should be to have images, but people who want them off should be free to do so.  The hate note just aids a reader to do what they could do on their own if they knew how.  To argue that providing people this information is censorship is a ridiculous position, IMO.  If Wikipedia is partially about freedom, then that includes the freedom to follow one's religious conviction by turning off the images.   :This article presents a unique situation, so no precedence will be set.  However, even if one was set, it would not harm Wikipedia in any way. Allowing readers to turn off image censors nothing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - as long as Wikipedia doesn't take this a step further (ACTA style) and limits these kind of solutions only on this article.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Others have rightly said that this isn't censorship. The other objection is that it opens the floodgates for anything objectionable. Slippery slope fallacy: This is very different from profanity or sexuality articles. This is an article that Muslims will have a particular interest in, whereas anyone who objects to overt sexual content can be reasonably expected to avoid those articles. -- Perey (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC) (PS: Proposal 1b is also good, but seems to be more involved, so I'm putting my name down on 1a.)
 * Strong Support I believe this is the most fair option to all readers. I strongly oppose all censorship, particularly that which is put forward by a very vocal religious authority. Display the pictures, allowing open-minded individuals to see the images; while still giving those with strong convictions the ability to hide those images. Amarand (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support and better delete the images. Please consider the WP:CENSORED. Better create the articles Muhammad w/o images. Mbak Dede (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Support As per Gobonobo Kiltpin (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose 1a
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What would be the purpose? I am skeptical that this would reduce the number of complaints. Those who complain generally come to the article for the purpose of complaining about the images, because it is well known throughout the world that the article has them. As such, it offers no benefit for the vast majority of the audience for the English Wikipedia, but rather merely gets in the way of the article, in a similar way that being forced to jump through digital rights management hoops gets in the way of honest users who are just trying to install some software. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:CENSORED. We're not about to put disclaimers on every article where people will be offended, e.g. Virgin Killer, etc. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with both of the above. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 01:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per the above reasons. Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic information on any subject for which encyclopedic information can be provided. It is not here to cater to sensitivity-induced religious shenanigans. Case in point: I don't like people raised in my religion abandoning it for an atheist or agnostic lifestyle, but I have no plans of going to the articles which may discuss this matter and requesting that the information be removed. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I hate these nonstandard hatnotes. I wish the one on WikiLeaks was removed too. --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It starts with images of Muhammad and ends with spoiler warnings for articles on TV episodes. This might reduce drama on one page, but would increase it just about everywhere else.  Good raise  03:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are always going to be subjects and images of all types that offend someone. Speaking generally with no knowledge of percentages or numbers, Jews are offended by the Nazi swastika, and African Americans by the Confederate flag. This does not mean the images should be pulled from or hidden within the articles. I grant that this discussion may be for a more extreme case than others, but it shouldn't be given exception just because it makes some people unhappy. — CobraWiki ( jabber 06:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose As Per WP:NOTCENSORED. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 08:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Headbomb and others. —  FoxCE   (talk • contribs) 08:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as per WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:DISC. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Islamic Wikipedia. Some people may be offended by the images, but we should not treat this risk of offence any differently to the way we treat the risk of people being offended by images of naked bodies, by rude words, or by ideas that they disagree with. The general disclaimer must be deemed sufficient for all articles, otherwise we'd end up with disclaimers on all sorts of things. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:CENSORED - In an encyclopedia, sensibilities don't count. Denis Barthel (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia is not censored and it is reasonable to expect that a substantial biographical article on someone will show a depiction of him. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Opppose; although usefully addressing one of the main issues (i.e. providing a way for those offended to access the page) it does go strongly against our stance on disclaimers - and if we allow one, more will follow. --Errant (chat!) 09:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Wikipedia is not censored, it is a medium of enlightenment.--Aschmidt (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We shouldn't add disclaimers to some particular articles based on some issues being sensitive to certain groups. This is not a unique case, and the same would hold true to so many other articles. This one just happens to belong to a major religion's viewpoint and thus garnered much more attention. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - too slippery a slope.... Soosim (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per No disclaimers in articles. If we have a disclaimer here then we'll sprout them on every article someone finds offensive. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Thryduulf directly above. If we put a disclaimer here, then they'll start showing up everywhere. --CapitalR (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - should be no censoring/ no disclaimers Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NOTCENSORED. There are a lot of other potentially offensive images in various articles, none of which have (or need) a disclaimer hatnote.  There is a reasonable expectation that if you look up an encyclopedia article on Muhammad, you'll see some portrayal images of him.  If you can't handle looking at such images, then don't look up the article in an encyclopedia.  &mdash;SW&mdash; soliloquize 14:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This simply flies against the spirit of NOTCENSORED & in agreement w/ others above, this is the 'slippery slope'. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 14:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is the English-language Wikipedia. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that an article in a Western encyclopedia is unlikely to be bound by Islamic traditions, which makes a hatnote redundant.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:27 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CENSORED and above. Kelly  hi! 14:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CENSORED Niteshift36 (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Religious objection is IMO not sufficient grounds to invoke WP:IAR regarding disclaimers. A reader visiting the English Wikipedia should expect to see a Western, secular treatment of religious material.  Not material that is presented in deference to a conservative interpretation of one particular religious group. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would suggest neutral POV means offensiveness should be judged from well, a neutral POV. There are Muslims who find *any* depiction of nature offensive.  There are Christian and Jews who find the use of the word "Jehovah" offensive.  Shall we cater to them as well? Kouhoutek (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose—As has been mentioned elsewhere here, the opposition to depictions of Muhammed does not tend to come from those who wish to use en.wikipedia without being offended (those users are generally going to be rational enough to understand what to expect from a secular western organisation, and have the option of using their browser's image settings to much the same effect); any solution which caters to a group that isn't the contentious one isn't worth pursuing. GRAPPLE   X  15:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - 1) per principle of least astonishment (I would be astonished that a neutral encyclopedia bowed to religious interests), 2) per WP:NOTCENSORED, and 3) avoids creating precedent for subsequent special interests requesting special versions of WP articles. --Ds13 (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If any hatnote is used I'd prefer the shorter version. Alexius  Horatius  16:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as per WP:CENSORED. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I find it doubtful that the average user would find this solution anything but frustrating. It requires a multi-step process that demands a level of knowledge of Wikipedia's inner workings that goes beyond that of an average user, and thus is somewhat of a non-solution.  scisdahl  ( t • c ) 16:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CENSORED. -- Alexf(talk) 16:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Sorry, WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't come with a "... except when we think there might be someone out there who is really offended" caveat. As has been stated, this is the English Wikipedia, not the Islamic Wikipedia.  (And come to that, while we're contemplating catering to the orthodox, if Islam strictly enjoins us not to depict the human form, why are there numerous photographs and artwork on the article for Muhammad on the Arabic Wikipedia doing just that?)  Ravenswing  16:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Censorship issues aside, Wikipedia articles are at times repurposed for print or other media, and so should not contain content specific to the Web, such as instructions to "click here".  Sandstein   16:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. My response to 1b applies here too. There's plenty of material on Wikipedia for which there are more practical reasons to provide this kind of header, yet we don't. There's no particular reason to cater to this mere "it's very offensive" plea. Equazcion  ( talk ) 20:18, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't like using the slippery-slope logic, as it is far too often twisted and turned into a tool for pressing illogical viewpoints, but in this case, I have to agree with the general feel.  If we have to put a hatnote on this article, how long before we have to put stuff like that about other potentially offensive articles?  Wikipedia already has a content disclaimer, and that should be sufficient to cover every article on Wikipedia and which does, itself, contain links to instructions for filtering images.  If there is any problem here, it's that the disclaimer is not more visible on the main page.  My view is that we need to make links to the disclaimers much more visible on WP's main page (instead of just a tiny little link at the bottom). Sleddog116 (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NOTCENSORED. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose -----&#60;)kmk(&#62;--- (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Slippery-slope arguments aside, these sorts of issues are the very reasons we have WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:DISC.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 03:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I hate slippery-slope arguments, but this appears to me to be a legitimate circumstance in which one can be made. Setting a precedent such as this would open the door to unnumerable requests for similarly structured articles, which is not what we're about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above. Slippery-slope arguments are sometimes valid and this is certainly one of those times. WP:NOTCENSORED either applies to all articles or none of them, not some articles only. If you don't want to read an encyclopedic article about a subject (i. e. one that contains all relevant information), then don't read an encyclopedia. Regards  So Why  12:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SoWhy (slippery-slope and NOTCENSORED). cmadler (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per comments above. mge o  talk 17:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose --Voyager (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Amatulić Darkness Shines (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose the wording is a partisan statement on a religious matter and outside of the scope of Wikipedia -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I didn't think we censored things around here. People have a choice, don't go to the page.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per WP:NOTCENSORED. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 02:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per WP:NOTCENSORED --Neozoon 00:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per WP:NOTCENSORED. ~ Feedintm Parley 01:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NOTCENSORED To do this starts a slippery slope: the next campaign will be "images off by default", then "paragraphs critical of the subject optional" then "critical paragraphs off by default". Then it will be images in library books "I wandered into your library and I happened across an image I don't like..." Woz2 (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per WP:NOTCENSORED. --ST ○ 11:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but I'm being contrarian: I don't think WP:NOTCENSORED is at all relevant given that all this would do would be to make WP:NOSEE a bit more public and thus more inclusive; and I'm pretty uncomfortable with my own thoughts fitting into the same section as some of the racist claptrap above, but here I am. I think the (perceived) problem is really more with the fact that the images are there at all rather than whether any individual has to see them (then again, as a non-religious optimist I'm prone to those sort of overly-generous interpretations of religious doctrine); and, secondarily that such a hatnote would limit the "opt-out" option to users with accounts, which is a much more worrying slippery slope. – hysteria18 (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose No disclaimers in articles Redtigerxyz  Talk 17:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per WP:NOTCENSORED.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. If you are easily offended, go somewhere else. Jeff Song (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bizarre that this is being considered for Muhammad but not for sexuality related articles. OSbornarfcontribs. 21:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:NOTCENSORED should never be compromised by the slightest of ways.
 * Oppose. This article shouldn't be singled out for a special hatnote. -- &oelig; &trade; 07:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per WP:NOTCENSORED. Would set a worrying precedent. Davidelit (Talk) 12:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NDA and WP:POV. I'm not prepared to support a one-off, special case scenario designed to placate those interested in censorship.  If we want to make instructions and ability to modify personal settings for Wikipedia as a whole more visible, that is fine.  This, however, is not. Resolute 15:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose, per like 20 policies that we would never be consider violating in any other case.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  21:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is going to be absurd. Some people really should ask themselfs, if they understand the idea of wikipedia. WSC ® 21:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Using a hatnote for a situation like this would set a bad precedent. Furthermore, one should expect artistic representations of Muhammad when viewing an article on him, so a hatnote seems unnecessary. Silver  seren C 22:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose - to borrow partially from the words of others, this would de facto concede that this content is objectionable, agreeing with a specific point of view. We must not make that sort of editorial decision, especially if only Islam related articles have this treatment. The sensibilities of those calling for censorship are fundamentally different from the ideas Wikipedia exists on, especially since the Muslim objection is not that they see the image but that anyone sees the image, which this proposal would not address. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  01:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per WP:CENSORED.  Toa   Nidhiki  05 
 * Oppose. I do not see any point in hatnote. Ruslik_ Zero 15:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For many of the reasons above. WP:CENSORED; bad precedent; slippery slope; etc. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for WP:CENSORED and others. I don't agree with the slippery slope arguments, but I also don't think an exception should be made for one particular religion - even if it is a major world religion. I would support a general setting, allowing users to turn off all images across wikipedia - that way, sexual images, swastikas, images of Muhammad (PBUH) etc would be blocked. Then, for users who have turned of all images, allow them to turn *on* images on a per-article basis, once they've read the article and metadata for each photo, and are comfortable seeing it. --Karl.brown (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for WP:CENSORED and just about every other argument in this section.Thelmadatter (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose weakly. Any images should be below the fold, as in [the pregnancy article.] NSFW. There are places in the world where it is dangerous to open such an article; there should be a clear indication of what the article contains before scrolling down. (have changed my mind on this after reading what others said about disclaimers.) Neotarf (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Gentle oppose. This is a reasonable proposal, and dismissing it per "WP:NOTCENSORED" is part of the problem here, not part of the solution. This proposal is not contrary the policy that content should be uncensored, but is instead contrary to the guideline that there should be no disclaimers. So the question is whether it should be allowed as an exception. In my view, allowing it is an admission that there is something out-of-the-ordinary or unencyclopedic about the way we treat Mohammed images: far better to make sure our treatment is encyclopedic than issue disclaimers. Consequently, those who share my view must also recognise that this is an obligation, not a carte blanche. Readers who understand Wikipedia well enough to expect spoilers in plot sections should not be surprised by our treatment of religious content. Geometry guy 23:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per WP:CENSORED. miracleworker5263 (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is no censorship, so I don't know why so many people are opposing "per NOTCENSORED", but I don't think it is wise to make a special case for this article. There are a lot of articles that could potentially offend people. We need to develop a clear policy that covers all of them. Having special cases could do more harm than good. --Tango (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Readers do not have any reasonable expectation to not be offended by what they find on any Internet website. A disclaimer would only acknowledge that some might find it offensive, and while it may be an act of respect in person-to-person interaction to not offend someone's beliefs, Wikipedia should not selectively show obeisance to any sect, religion, political persuasion, etc. Rkitko (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per WP:NDA and WP:CENSORED -- Laber□T 08:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Will open the door to disclaimers and warnings elsewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Redundant with Content disclaimer. --illythr (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I originally started writing up my "Support" vote, but the more I thought about it, and the more I read (especially No disclaimers in articles), the more I came around to the "slippery slope" side. There is no fundamental difference between this and pornography; both are expressly forbidden to be viewed by Muslims. Indeed, pornographic images are expressly forbidden to be viewed by a number of religions. Since the community always comes down strongly against content warnings for pornographic pages, and I am in agreement with that position, I must, in all fairness, oppose this proposition. The most important thing is not tolerance of all groups (we certainly don't tolerate child pornographers and militant neo-Nazis) but equality. If we do not give consideration to that which is forbidden by other religious groups, then we cannot in this case either. - Running On Brains (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Adding an article-specific hack is just bad policy. Implement a global feature that hides images in any article if you have to. --Dmitry (talk•contibs) 22:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Hatnote ought not be specific to Muhammad, or any other subject.  Amandajm (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * opposee We can't pick and choose which particularly forms of objectional content are considered bad enough to need a note. Should we by this logic include hatnotes on the evolution article because some extremist Jews and Christians find them offensive? Or should we include a similar disclaimer for one of the religious figures from other religions that object to depictions of their major figures? Are we simply going to do so based on which groups happen to be more vocal? This is not NPOV by any stretch of the imagination. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as generally unencyclopedic and violative of the spirit of WP:NPOV. Slippery slope arguments are sometimes facile; this one is not. Adding a disclaimer to avoid offending some readers on one article will either open the floodgates on other articles or create a double standard specific to a subset of Muslim users. Rivertorch (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Opport, slippery slope. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia does not carry disclaimers other than the general disclaimer - David Gerard (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia does not carry disclaimers other than the general disclaimer. What's next "This article on evolution contains the statement that common descent is supported by all available scientific evidence. If you would like to view the article without any science, click here for instructions." Hipocrite (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This would represent the complete abandonment of pretenses to neutrality. Abyssal (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CENSORED.  Spencer T♦ C 21:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I find images in some wikipedia articles quite disturbing, and I avoid looking at them. Each of us has differing sets of things we would rather not see.  Wikipedia would become very complicated, if each article had to disclose what things might be disturbing and why.  As long as images are legal and contribute to the value of the article, they should stay. Wikfr (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Opposse As this would open up similar measures to other articles, which would be the wrong direction for this project.JHS nl (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: We don't censor articles on nudity, nor should the images in this article be 'covered up' to protect the sensibilities of some readers. This proposal is a rehash of the previous discussion on hiding pictures that some may find objectionable. WP is an encyclopedic work, not a fake censored encyclopedia; those who are offended by our principles have the choice of looking elsewhere for their knowledge -this encyclopedia should not be forced to change its standards to conform to their cultural, religious or idiosyncratic beliefs, a serious mistake which would inevitably lead to greater and greater restrictions on our works demanded by such groups. HarryZilber (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Oppose" this goes against the spirit of wikipedia. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * for this request eventually will have effects on other language versions: oppose - this thing we are working on together is to be an enzyklopedia, not biased in any way so not biased religously. If there are scolarly established reasons to include a historically confirmed image in the article, there is no need for a disclaimer like this. regards --Rax (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CENSORED. Even though there are limits to everything, also the rule that Wikipedia is not censored, I belive this is well within the limits. As the summary before the Rfc show there is in reality no actual picture of Muhammad, and those that is used in the article is from islamic artists. Ulflarsen (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose strongly WP:CENSORED - Even the proposal of such an action seems absolutely disgusting. I tell you why. In an encyclopaedia, not sensitivity but verifiability along with the quality of information is what matters. Wikipedia must not capitulate to the extremely wicked and unfair demands of some people (which will eventually curb the flow of information). Wikipedia must not mollycoddle pander to the ever-increasing, unreasonable and incessant demands of any religion (no matter how much is its penchant for gratuitous communal violence). Thank you! :) Brendon is   here  07:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Hatnotes should only be used as an exception, as common use of hatnotes over controversial articles would be disruptive and bring undue weight to the controversial side of the topic. If a hatnote is to be used, the argument for inclusion should describe why we should make an exception in this case. Belorn (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose This would be adapting our content to not offending the Muslim minority. Wiki-Taka (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per existence of the article Xenu.-- Gilderien Talk|Contribs 18:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as illogical. AFAIK, the issue Muslims have is with creation and distribution of depictions of Muhammad, not with viewing them. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as unecessary exception. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 07:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per JoshuaZ.-- В и к и  T   15:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia is not censored and it is reasonable to expect that a substantial biographical article on someone will show a depiction of him.--Nemissimo (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose what's next? This article contains medical images, if you want to hide them please click here? This articles depicts the Kashmir border according to the current political situation. If you want to see the border according to the official position of India, please click here? -- Liliana-60 (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is not a censoring argument so much as NPOV. The basic question is: are we going to have a precedent for every group that has an objection?  For example, many orthodox and pious Jews will not write out G-D, because an electronic medium has the potential to be erased, thus "destroying" said name.  Orthodox Jews will not listen to women sing, or view pictures deemed "immodest" (not just pornography, but things like bare arms and legs, etc., which is why there was an image doctoring issue with The Forward (IIRC) last year.  Nazi symbolism is banned in Germany, but we have swastikas on en articles.  We don't block Evolution for creationists.  My point is that if we change for one group, we set a precedent for everyone that lobbies for it. MSJapan (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is religious based censorship. Wikipedia is not in the business of humoring the neurosis of people. Lots of people are offended by lots of things. Porn? Nudity? Etc. I vote no. Why censor on religious sensitivity grounds and not others? Let them complain. That's what censors do. --Benjamin 00:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I would support such a hatnote if Muslims believed that viewing such an image would cause them personal harm (such as punishment in the afterlife). However this is not their belief - they are not upset that they are seeing the images, but that we are publishing them. The hatnote's prominent placement would serve only to disrupt the article flow without resolving any concerns, and could lead to a precedent where all articles containing any sort of controversial content get disruptive hatnotes - which would in turn lead to disputes over whether those articles contain controversial content or not, a very subjective call in many cases. Dcoetzee 03:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Many religions are offended by many distinct bits of image and content on WP. Why make an exception here? IronDuke  14:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For such a superstition: oppose. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose consistancy above all else, Indigenous Australians dont repeat the name of a deceased person do we also then remove those reference to them. Its slippery slope when we treat something different for reason outside of Wikipedia issues WP:IAR is there overcome issues that would normally prevent the functioning of WP its not there to for outside groups to dictate how article are written WP:NPOV seams to be ignored by such solutions Gnangarra 23:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Gives special prominence to a certain viewpoint, and violates the spirit of both WP:DISC and WP:DISCLAIM. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 23:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - some mossback muslims will always coplain about something. First its pictures of Mohammad, next its pictures of women without burkas and in the end you have to delete improper articles about leading wrong believers or evil books. Give them an inch an they will take a mile. Weissbier (talk) 08:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per SoWhy. Khazar2 (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose this again? Categorically oppose all image hiding. TotientDragooned (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. To maintain NPOV, Wikipedia should not accommodate any cultural norms (except those prescribed in the Manual of Style). All articles are already covered by a general disclaimer. — Kpalion(talk) 07:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose Wikipedia should not pander to certain sections of world society. Tony May (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose It creates a special case and an implicit acknowledgement that the material is in some way objectionable. Mark Shaw (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sets a precedent that could make other controversial articles a nightmare. RubberTyres (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose We are not going to remove the WP:DISC guideline and we should not treat this article as a special case. This article should be treated like any other article in terms of content.--New questions? 18:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The images are either relevant to the context of the subject or they are not. If they are not then remove them. If they are then giving the reader an "opt out" is not in the best interests of the dissemination of knowledge. Betty Logan (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons as Ëzhiki, also religious fanatics have many reasons to stay away from wikipedia and a hatnote will not make them return. - Richiez (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose It gives undue and functional weight to a minority opinion. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Oppose I think it sends a poor precedent for any article that could be deemed 'sensitive' -- Pat talk  02:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose To put a hatnote on this article would be to step onto a very slippery slope. There are many kinds of perfectly encyclopaedic, factual, historical content (including, but not limited to, historical depictions of Muhammad) that one group or another may find offensive or blasphemous; and if we put a hatnote on this article (and any others that may reasonably contain depictions of Muhammad for sound encyclopaedic reasons), then why should we not put a hatnote on every article with encyclopaedic content that some broadly identifiable minority of the population has decided to deem objectionable? And if we do that, then - given that one or other portion of humanity will find, over time, a way in which to be offended by almost any conceivable factual report of any matter worth reporting in an encyclopaedia - what kind of an encyclopaedia will we be left with? It will be one riddled with mechanisms for censoring much of its most interesting content from the eyes of its users. Such an encyclopedia would be of diminishing educational value. It is not Wikipedia's fault that some people, Muslims and others, have depicted Muhammad; but it would be Wikipedia's fault if it helped its readers hide this historically informative truth from their sight. See also: WP:NODISCLAIMERS. zazpot (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - we don't give instructions like this for our articles on aborigines in Australia or the Amish in the US - should not here either. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is an article about Muhammad in a secular encyclopedia. It is not a corner of Wikipedia in which Islamic ideas take precedence over the norms in the rest of the encyclopedia. --Nigelj (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose according to No disclaimers in articles. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - if we create a special case for this one then we are opening us up to setting special cases elsewhere. Gillyweed (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Opppose 1a - per WP:DISCLAIM, mainly.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 16:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose no reason to treat this article differently than the various other religious/biblical/divine figures for which no "warning" seems to apply, despite a large population for whom depictions of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity runs afoul of "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above..." Exodus 20:4-6 (KJV) of course, it goes on to say "... or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." so under that premise virtually all images ought to have some warning. Since that's NOT going to happen, to single Mohammad out seems a bit odd. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, on the grounds both of Wikipedia is not censored and No disclaimer templates. We do not treat any other article this way, including articles with images that are NSFW or would be shocking to a large number of readers. Image:TrangBang.jpg would very likely be shocking to a lot of people, but we do not hide it. Making a "special exception" here would violate neutrality, one of our core standards, and so we cannot do it. We do not censor relevant information based on the possibility of causing offense. Ever. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose par WP:NDT. The article space itself should be limited to pure article content, and should therefor not contain disclaimers which are not article content. Our medical article's have a disclaimer on their talk pages stating that Wikipedia should not be used to diagnose diseases - should they also be moved to the main article space? In a similar vein of though - some student fraternities, sects and so on have an internal code of secrecy, which means that members may not read some details regarding the organisation - should they also have a hatnote? The problem i am trying to sketch is simple - offensiveness is simply an opinion, and you cannot correctly or reliably classify article's on this basis. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose WP:NDT trumps WP:NOTCENSORED in terms of argument, the hat note itself would set a dangerous precedent. WP:DISC states the stance clear enough that material can be offensive or objectionable. Wikipedia would end up breaking its own guidelines by making special exceptions to a particular view. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is already covered in Content Disclaimer at the bottom of every page.  EngineerFromVega ★  07:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Spoiler says: "The 'No disclaimers in articles' guideline details why spoiler warnings are not used on Wikipedia." Nevertheless, for readers interested in comparative future research, a hatnote like "This article includes depictions of a prophet" could be added to the top of every illustrated page in Category:Prophets, --Rosenkohl (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional discussion of 1a
I count 30 different people who have invoked WP:CENSORED or WP:NOTCENSORED. None of them has explained the reasoning behind applying a policy that reads "Wikipedia will not remove content..." to a situation where Wikipedia is not removing any content. Censorship says "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient...". Again, what is the logic behind calling something that does not suppress anything "censorship"? Which part of WP:CENSORED applies? Can anyone give a direct quote from that or any other policy that says we can not or should not give people a choice as to whether to view images? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * People always have the choice to not view images; they can choose to simply not read the article in the first place. The project is not obligated to provide a mechanism of choice for them.  I view a hatnote in the same way I viewed the Tipper Gore-instigated parental advisory stickers on my Blackie Lawless cassettes in the 80's.  If people don't want to hear music with naughty words, they can listen to something else.  If you don't want to see images that offend you, go somewhere else.  Who are you (a general you, not you specifically) to categorize my music as offensive?  Who are you to put cautionary note on the top of an article I am interested in reading?  Let the listener and the reader, respectively, judge for themselves without your preconception of "it offends". Tarc (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The above appears to be an argument against the hatnote, not an explanation of how WP:NOTCENSORED applies. I am looking for an explanation for how so many people appear to be seeing something in WP:NOTCENSORED which isn't there. There is a difference between putting a parental advisory sticker on a cassette and making that cassette unavailable because of its content. Both are undesirable, but the latter is censorship, the former is not. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If a work of art is not presented in its original form, then by definition it has been censored. Clear enough? Tarc (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Not clear at all. Please describe, in detail, exactly how an instructional hatnote changes the form of any work of art. What does the work of art look like before and after this alleged change? What mechanism does the instructional hatnote use to make the change? It appears to me that the only actual censorship being discussed here is an attempt to censor the instructional hatnote itself. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that censorship generally involves more than simply declining to provide technical instructions. It usually involves blocking certain manifestations of thought or expression from a target audience for cultural or political reasons. Having a page in project space showing users how to block images—and even linking to that page from every article—wouldn't be a problem because it would be across the board, neither topic- nor user-specific. Having such instructions at one particular article is something else again. While it wouldn't constitute censorship per se in and of itself, it would promote and could even help enable actual censorship. The cassette analogy is flawed. To extend it, however, let's be clear that the work of art in question isn't one or more images within the article but rather the article itself. The proposed hatnote isn't so much instructional as anti-instructional in that it facilitates the willful, continued ignorance of a certain subset of Wikipedia readers. (Note: I didn't make or support the censorship claim in my !vote because I don't think it's the main argument against the hatnote. I do think it's a valid argument, though.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you explain why it is that you think the invoking WP:NOTCENSORED is a valid argument? How does giving someone a tool that allows them to freely choose to view or not view images fit any reasonable definition of "censorship"?


 * I just counted again, and by my count 42 people have WP:NOTCENSORED as their primary or only argument, 40 have made all other arguments combined, and 5 did things like writing "oppose" with no explanation. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mitch Ames explains the policy relevance below better than I could. My comment above was really speaking to the spirit of non-censorship—the principle which gave rise to the policy. As I said, the hatnote would promote and could help enable censorship; i.e., it would conflict with the principle. That's why I think it's a valid argument (in the broadest sense). Rivertorch (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The essence of WP:NOTCENSORED is that the definition of objectionable content is inherently personal and can not be used as an argument for including or removing content. Hatnotes are part of the content of an article in the same way style is, it forms the article, thus WP:NOTCENSORED do bring valued guidelines in how we should behave when when editors want to change an article to address concerns off objectionable content. Belorn (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to chime to to say that No Disclaimers is a very weak stance for an issue of this magnitude. NODISCLAIMERS is not a Wikipedia policy, there are numerous exceptions to it already.
 * Muhammad images are the most notable case of image offense on planet Earth, and we all know that as an objective fact-- our readers are routinely reporting negative emotions because of unexpectedly viewing images.


 * Removing the images themselves is off the table. NOTCENSORED is what makes Wikipedia Great. But is this "NoDisclaimers" guideline really more important than the feelings of so many of our fellow human beings?


 * A quarter of the world is Muslim-- there are more Muslims than there are residents of China. That's a LOT of Wikipedia readers.  Is it really so bad if we offer these readers a brief description of our article's contents?


 * I totally understand that NOTCENSORED is the core of Wikipedia. When we remove content for being controversial, we are no longer Wikipedia.
 * Bbut NODISCLAIMERS is not a policy, there are many exceptions to it already. Given the gravity of this issue, I'd be tempted to cite Ignore All Rules, but in truth, NODISCLAIMERS doesn't rise to the level of a rule.


 * The open problem is certainly preserving NPOV/neutrality as we consider the generic case-- in future, precisely when is it appropriate to inform readers that some of their peers are distressed by a page. I have great understanding of that particular concern, and we don't have a firm answer yet.


 * But I just want to push back against the NODISCLAIMERS citation.  A very narrow problem exists-- it is real:   sometimes our readers experience unwanted, unexpected negative emotions because of our articles.  There can be a complex religious or cultural cause, or it can also be as simple a gross medical image or scary image of spiders.  This problem is real, and it remains unsolved.


 * We are smart people. We can solve this problem.    NODISCLAIMERS alone is not adequate justification for inflicting emotional harm on a scale of billions of people.   It's bad strategy for Wikipedia, it's bad strategy for world peace, it's bad strategy for education. It's focusing on half-accepted dogma rather than what really matters.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hector, I'm not saying there is no issue here, but I think "inflicting emotional harm on a scale of billions of people" lacks any sense of proportion. FormerIP (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehe-- well, I'm decidedly taking the "long view" here. Once the planet was once defined by the World Wars or the Cold War.  Much of the actual violence during this period is an extended conflict between "Western/Global/Capitalist World" and the "Muslim World".
 * I doubt very seriously that a billion people will visit this page and experience direct upsetness.  But Wikipedia is a unique place where the citizens of both worlds can interact directly, without governmental interference.  How the two populations interact will affect the future of geopolitics in very real ways. Silly as it seems, readers in the Muslim world really will look to this page in forming an opinion about how the rest of the world treats them.
 * Hyperbole has it's place, but you're not wrong to point it out. :)
 * Essentially, I'm trying to knock people out of a conventional mindset of "business as usual" and remind them that this issue is one people are dying over.  We can't abandon our core values, but we need to look very very hard for solutions that are consistent with our core values.   Just citing a guideline about business as usual-- that's not giving the issue the weight it deserves.   This isn't a case to ignore our values (NOTCENSORED, NPOV), but it is very very clearly a case to Ignore All Rules.   --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm one of those who cited WP:NOTCENSORED. In response to Guy Macon's quite reasonable question "Which part of WP:CENSORED applies?" - the part that I consider applies is


 * 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. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We still may contain upsetting images with a hatnote, we still cannot guarantee our articles will be acceptable to all readers.  And no one is saying that we are 'bound' by religious law.
 * Notcensored (as a policy) applies to articles, not Wikipedia's paratext. We don't have a pornographic logo, don't have an offensive user interface.  A hatnote is part of an educational user interface-- notcensored is not in play in terms of policy.   (But with a nod to NOTCENSORED as a value).   --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: "by providing a hatnote telling people how to hide the images we are in effect trying to guarantee that the article will be acceptable", we also provide a link to the main page. Clicking on that link will take someone who is offended away from the objectionable images. Is that also trying to guarantee that the article will be acceptable? Perhaps we should disable the back button on their browser. Better yet, we should tape their eyes open, put their head in a clamp, and force them to view the images. Of course I am being silly, but there is an important point here: providing an link to instructions so that someone can freely choose not to view images is really no different from all the other ways we provide to not view content that you don't like.--Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem with the hatnote is that its existence makes a value judgement, ie that some images on this page are offensive - and I do not believe we should be making such value judgements. The Main Page link, back button etc apply equally to all articles; they do not act only on some pages that someone has decided may be offensive. An item on the Toolbox that hid images would be OK (in my opinion) if and only if it applied equally to all articles. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In a belated response to the question posed to me above regarding how a hatnote censors, I will answer that by drawing an analogy to John Ashcroft and Lady Liberty. I'm sure most here would agree that Ashcroft censored the statue by covering her nakedness with drapes, yes?  But by your argument line here regarding hatonoes, it would not be censorship since people were free to walk up and look behind the drapes at any time. Tarc (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The better analogy is if Ashcroft had left the statue intact but put signs alerting visitors that there was a "Topless Statue ahead". --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's really not a relevant distinction. The point is, you want to put something in place that says "this may is objectionable" on an article where a visitor will damn well know there may be something objectionable.  It is THEIR responsibility to avoid the objection here, not OURS.  I am opposed to the very concept of warning users that something ahead may be objectionable to their religious beliefs.  I'm actually more amenable to the notion of hatnotes on nudity where none may truly be unexpected, e.g. pregnancy.  Religion?  Never. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a completely relevant distinction. It is the distinction between warning and censorship. I see that you added an argument that warnings are bad, but that is getting away from answering the question you set out to answer, which is why you think something that removes no content is censorship. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * But let's think about this.  We know, for a fact, as an objective fact, as a notable fact, that this page contains images objectionable to a notable faction of the planet.   This isn't a subjective call-- there have been whole news stories just about this Wikipedia article and our policy on it.  We all agree, by consensus and by evidence, that page contains controversial images.  The statement "Wikipedia's article on Muhammad contains images of Muhammad that upset some readers" is verifiable.  It's not hearsay, it's not speculation, it's a fact.
 * Since when is providing readers with verifiable facts a problem?  No one disputes that this page contains images that many people find upsetting. It is a fact.   Stating this fact may raise new problems of neutrality,  but I really am having a hard time understanding how a disclaimer would be a violation of the notcensored policy.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hector, regarding hyperbole, I don't think it does have a legitimate place in the discussion. I think some editors have a gravely distorted take on what the actual issues are, and it doesn't help. A certain proportion of Muslims, whose number we can only guess at, probably 'will not like us having images of M in the article. But the number who will need counselling as a result is likely so small that we can ignore it. FormerIP (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree the number of readers who would truly be helped by a disclaimer is a relatively small fraction of our readership. But when you're dealing with such a large population, it's hard to ignore even a small fraction-- a small fraction of a billion is more people than I'll ever meet in my entire lifetime.
 * You can almost view this more as a "Wikipedia Public Relations" issue.  An overwhelming number of people asked about this article.   "Giving in" is off the table, but can't we at least "reply" to all these readers with explanatory link?
 * I know it's a complex question, full of slippery slopes and interlocking political interests.  But people ARE being unnecessarily upset, and I'm frustrated by dogmatic argument that this doesn't merit special consideration to try to find a way to minimize negative effects. --HectorMoffet (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm actually in favour of a hatnote, so that's not really my point. I'm purely talking about ensuring that we maintain a realistic attitude if we feel it is appropriate to imagine how Muslims will feel about the images (it's been an ongoing feature of the debate that Muslim wikipedians have generally steered well clear of it). I don't think images are going to induce trauma or even anything you could properly call upset. They are merely something that some people don't like. We have a no censorship attitude when it comes to children. I'm concerned that, while they are undoubtedly well-meaning, some editors appear to consider Muslims to be less capable of coping with the Internet than children. FormerIP (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This dialog has been really enlightening for me, FormerIP.  It's interesting that you say "Some editors consider [some] Muslims to be less capable of coping with the internet than children."  This is actually something I firmly believe.   The technology is old enough now that we can see children are often the most sophisticated users on the entire internet.  Adults just can't compete with kids for adaptability.   I never worry about kids just reading online, I don't even worry about kids in Muslim nations reading online-- the kids will adapt without missing a beat.  The people I do worry about some of the older adults who are reading a NOTCENSORED publication for the very first time after an entire lifetime of exposure to only their local cultural norms.
 * To go full geek, [scene from the matrix]: "We never free a mind once it's reached a certain age. It's dangerous, the mind has trouble letting go. I've seen it before and I'm sorry."
 * I was here when conservative Americans first got online, and though we forget it now, even conservatives Americans often had complex reactions to the radical increase in information freedom. As the unwired world comes online, their adult populations should undergo a 'culture shock' akin to the one experienced in the US in the 1990s, only worse.   By and large, we can't stop that 'culture shock'-- but it's important to keep an eye out for little things we could potentially to to minimize it.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is though that we're already really past the point that you wish to discuss. This is Request for Comment for the entire Wikipedia community to weigh in on, and though we have a lot of questions and sub-sections, much of it really boils down to one thing; consideration of religious offense vs. the openness of the information in the project.  You may disagree, but it seems that many here do not believe that the Muslim point of view regarding Muhammad is critical enough to temper that openness. Tarc (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I must respectfully disagree with the underlying assumption. Nobody has given me a shred of evidence establishing that 1a (hatnote) in any way compromises the the openness of the information in the project. Nothing gets removed, not one letter, much less an image. Nobody is hindered in any way from seeing exactly what they see now - in fact that is the default if they do nothing. Some of the other sections do boil down to considering religious offense vs. the openness of the information in the project, but not 1a. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. There is nothing relating to censorship about the note.  People are told what the article contains (true fact, which is the spreading of information - the very opposite of censorship), and then they can do what they want with that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, disagreement is fine, but if the premise of "hatnote equates to censorship" is what an overwhelming number of Wikipedians believe, then at the end of the day that will be the finding of RfC 1a. Tarc (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * But my arguments are so darn persuasive (plus, of course, my overwhelming charisma) that I am sure that we will be seeing a mass swing in the voting Real Soon Now... (sound of crickets) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed a mention of spiders above, and it illustrates my view (see my !vote). Disclaimers should not be needed, because Wikipedia content should be encyclopedic: image use should be as unsurprising as spoilers in a plot summary. Purely alarming image use is not encyclopedic. We do not have images of real spiders at Arachnaphobia, nor do we have images of clowns at Coulrophobia and these are issues which have been extensively discussed: an image of spider or clown would not be expected by someone reading either article to learn more about the condition; it would add no value to the article, and would disturb readers with either condition. Notice, however, that Arachnaphobia does have a cartoon illustrating the prevalence of the fear of spiders as represented in popular culture.

Writing encyclopedic content is not easy, and Wikipedia is a work in progress, but "look away now, dear reader" is not the solution. Geometry guy 23:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

News sites often warn readers when graphic content that might be disturbing is about to be shown. Likewise, adult websites and blogs include similar messages to their readers before displaying contentious content. This practice seems to be respectful with no negative side effects apparent. Informing a Wikipedia reader that content, which may be alarming or objectionable to literally millions of people including themselves, is included in an article seems entirely appropriate. Those wishing to see the material may do so. Offering a mechanism, such as a hatnote, provides a simple solution and is absolutely no way akin to censorship. The material is still available to everyone; it is merely a courtesy to give a person a choice before proceeding.

Editors who are fervently against this option might want to ask themselves what their deeper motives are in denying this important choice to others. IMHO it seems petty and insensitive to do so with not one redeeming motive. When it comes to tolerance, magnanimity rather than meanness is key. Veritycheck (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Do not try to find deeper motives when there is none. Assume good faith, and if the arguments someone gives are too spares to make sense of, ask the commenter to explain in more details what his arguments are. Questions at users talk pages is a better method to reach an consensus than generic dismissal of peoples arguments. Belorn (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, concerning controversial topics like this one, I don’t assume good faith. My experience on editing such articles has shown that, more often than not, personal agendas take precedence over fact and common sense. It is precisely the reason why I have commented on this.  Furthermore, at this time you don't even have a User Talk Page where editors can message you; how peculiar that you recommend this method yourself. Veritycheck (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle. Without it discussions like the one here is utterly pointless. If cynicism takes a hold and prevent you from doing it, then its prime time for WP:DOGGY :). As for user talk page, every user (and IP users) has one. Mine is User_talk:Belorn. The red link in my signature is for my user page. User pages are presentation pages (mostly), and is not the place people should message me. My talk page is the place where people can message me, which is linked next to the red text and in parentheses. Here it is again just in case the talk link is too small! Belorn (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If we are considering per-article hatnotes on those articles that might offend people, what criteria do we use to make the decision? Should we include such a hatnote on Dinosaur, Birthday, Halloween, Dancing, Wealth, Poverty, Divorce, Disease? The New York City Department of Education considers that all of these topics "could evoke unpleasant emotions" and has banned them from their tests, so perhaps we should warn our readers, just in case some of them are NY students. Seriously though, how would we decide which topics might offend enough people to put a hatnote on them? I still assert that the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:DISC requires that we not make any such decision, which means we place a hatnote on no articles, or add a toolbox item that applies equally to all articles. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have read WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:DISC several times slowly and carefully, looking for anything in either that even hints at the "spirit of" that you apparently perceive. There is absolutely nothing in the spirit or the letter of either that supports such a conclusion. I think you are reading your own POV into both documents. These sort of "the spirit of X requires" arguments are not falsifiable.
 * As for your slippery slope argument, it kind of implies that we as a community cannot be trusted to arrive at a wise decision through consensus concerning those other articles. I reject that. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Guy that the slippery slope argumetn is invalid here. Also I cannot comprehend how either 1a or 1b could be censorship.  I used to listen to music on LPs.  When compact discs were introduced, I could skip the tracks I didn't like by pressing a single button.  Does that mean that the record companies were engaged in censorship when they invented the tracking system on CDs?  After all, the tracking system is nothing other than a button that allows me to skip tracks I don't like. How does that differ from the 1b proposal? &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 02:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Guy Macon, I acknowledge but disagree with your opinion that there is no hint of the spirit to which I refer; we may simply have to agree to differ on that matter. As you rightly point out, the spirit of the law is difficult to objectify. (I'm not sure that "Falsifiability" is a meaningful term in this context; the term is only relevant to physical laws or scientific theories of fact, rather than imperative laws.) However I notice that while WP:CENSORED doesn't prevent us from adding hatnotes to specific articles, it does not say that we sometimes do, nor does it make any other mention of editorial judgement about the offensiveness of specific articles, although I concede that WP:DISC does. WP:CENSORED's lack of mention of editorial judgement, together with the parts that I quoted (14:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)), strongly implies to me that the intent is that such editorial judgement (and thus hatnotes) is undesirable and not the intent of the policy. If we do intend to put hatnote warnings on some "offensive" articles, perhaps we should say so explicitly in CENSORED, as we do in DISC. (I disagree with both the hatnotes and the addition to CENSORED, but if we have the former, we should consider the latter.)


 * Lawrence King, skipping tracks on a CD is not a good analogy - the issue is not about whether you can "skip" an article, the issue is about whether Wikipedians decide about the offensiveness of specific articles. A better might be: your CD player doesn't warn you that specific tracks might be offensive and tell you how to skip them. At most, there is a warning sticker that the CD may contain offensive material. The "skip track" button works applies equally to all tracks on all CDs. Mitch Ames (talk)


 * Mitch, while I disagree with you on the substantial question, I completely agree with you that once this issue is resolved, the WP:CENSORED policy should be updated to clearly specify what the policy is with regard to hat notes and the other things we are discussing here! &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 23:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * One reason, I cannot agree that anti-censorship rules apply (to these hatnotes) is that the hatnotes proposed are functionally similar to hatnotes Wikipedia has everywhere: 'This article is about ______, if you want _____, click here.' They make no judgment on why the reader wants to 'click here.' Neither do the proposals. And readers ignore or use those all the time. Now, if a different proposed hatnote actually said to the reader, 'we know you don't want to read or see this,' that would, perhaps, be a different argument. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is a valid comparision. Those hatnotes ("this article is about... click here for ....") serve a different purpose; they are navigational aids, not content warnings. In particular, they don't conflict with (the spirit, as I perceive it, of) any policy, whereas hatnotes that say "this article might offend you" do. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The proposals before the body don't say that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Your pedantry precision is acknowledged, but are we putting the hatnotes (as worded in the proposals) there for some other reason than "the article might offend"? If we are going to have the hatnotes, perhaps we should state explicitly why they are there, lest some ignorant reader wonder why some articles have picture toggles and others don't. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTCENSORED is a very weak argument for the inclusion of offensive material. It's a great argument against the removal of such material, but to include offensive material you need a better reason than NOTCENSORED, especially if there are less-offensive alternatives that work just as well. (See WP:GRATUITOUS) ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCENSORED: Wikipedia does not recognize censorship in any articles. I think better DELETE the images. Mbak Dede (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's Wikipedia is not censored, indeed, which does apply here (putting a curtain over something, even if people are free to peek behind the curtain, is censorship), but the more relevant one is no disclaimer templates and, paramount above all, neutrality. If we did this in this article, then to maintain neutrality, we'd have to do this in every article where someone could be offended by its content. That would quickly reach ridiculous extremes. So the only choice here is to refrain from doing it anywhere at all. We do not hide or censor content relevant to an article because someone may take offense to it, and we never should. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * While the argument may seem to be generic with WP:NOTCENSORED as the question specifically relates to the hat note and not the images themselves, it should be apparent that we not specifically adopt self-censorship which comes with even optional toggling of the pictures. Some articles contain nudity and those articles are not self-censored, and some of them could be quite offensive to various cultures as well. Religion may be a hot-button topic, but it should not be given exemptions from policy because it could be offensive. No curtains, no special exceptions for offensive material. A great number of historically significant pictures have offended people with gore, sexuality, violence, or abuse. It would set a terrible precedent. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)