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

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

↑ Intro

<- Question 1a | Question 1b | Question 2 ->

Question 1b: Should there be a functional hatnote?

 * See also Demonstration screenshots

(place answers under the subsections below)

Support 1b

 * Fine with this. There are a range of articles on other subjects where this would also be appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good solution. Those offended can avoid the images, those who are not offended aren't unduly inconvenienced. Euchrid (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems the most reasonable and practical thing to do. I see the slippery slope argument on the other side, but, frankly, I'm unmoved by it, because I don't see that it would harm the editorial freedom of Wikipedia to have this on every article. Wareh (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Ironholds (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. It accommodates those who wish to avoid the images without compromising Wikipedia's integrity. What's not to like? We should be sensitive to other cultures whenever it doesn't require us to compromise our values. -- Ja Ga  talk 03:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. A few lines of code can end this whole dispute without imposing any censorship at all.  A functional hatnote would enshrine and protect WP:NOTCENSORED.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems like a very good, non-intrusive idea. --dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 06:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good.-- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 07:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Many articles need such a hatnote. This could act as the first. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 09:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Why not? It's a gesture of respect for the sensibilities of our readers. Let's not be oafs. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Such instructional notes are allowed and this would be a good place to have one. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support; elegant and importantly not a disclaimer. Useful functionality (although I would prefer to see this available on *every* article). --Errant (chat!) 10:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support; Images are not essential for the article. As long as it is not the default option, it's a reasonable concession. Forcing people to view images of Muhammad may keep Muslims away from the article, which is bad both for a neutral POV and for the spread of information. -- Lindert (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. A reasonable compromise to offended readers, and it's not a disclaimer. Ocaasit &#124; c 12:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional support. While I oppose the hatnote proposed above this section, a small unobtrusive link to toggle graphics on/off in all articles on Wikipedia could be added. This is not the place to decide that, however. The place to do it is over at Village pump (technical), and even then, the best solution may be for any user who wants the capability to add a script to the user's skin.js. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Second Choice: R.E.S.P.E.C.T. and principle of least astonishment. --Advocado 15:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support (somewhat weak). Some are concerned with slippery slopes or precedent setting, but I think this situation is unique enough to do things a bit differently. As it is worded above, it's available but not too large or wordy. Alexius  Horatius  16:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. An elegant, unobtrusive solution to the problem. I favor a functional hatnote over an instructional one as it would be far more accessible to average users.  scisdahl  ( t • c ) 16:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * support unfortunately I think those who most strongly object to these images object not only to seeing them, but their very existence. However, this step will at least allow us to deflect some criticism easily. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support — It's reasonable for people to exercise this option, and non-disruptive for us to offer it. The slope should begin and end with traditions that culturally or ethically prohibit visual behavior (viewing images of 'x') since these are a disable-able portion of the encyclopedia that does not compromise its encyclopedic function. I would consider applying the functionality to dead members of Australian aboriginal groups where viewing the dead is a grave taboo, for instance.--Carwil (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support —This does no harm. If there are other pages that warrant it, these could also be provided with something similar. Davidjamesbeck (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Not every one wants to view and this is an essential piece of information which is what hat notes are for. -- lTopGunl (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support:I don't get the "not censored" arguments. We are not censoring the article, but providing choice to readers that want it. Choice is a good thing. I have no time for slippery slope arguments either. It is a logical fallacy, any change is a slippery slope so we might as well not change anything at all. AIR corn (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support — Especially if the only pic on the first screen is a calligraphic symbol. To start of with a symbol and then to display pictures further down could violate the least-astonishment principle. This hatnote could alert alert readers. --Pgallert (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support and I'd make it more prominent. If they want to censor themselves let them. It might open them to reading something else rather than rejecting Wikipedia outright. Dmcq (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support for the reason given for the first suggestion, which seems much less popular. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, provided that hatnotes like this will be considered for other articles when the question arises, and this won't be a one-time thing for a single topic. Wikipedia is not censored, etc. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 08:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As creator, I agree 100% with your provision.  Having "only one such article" would be inappropriate and inconsistent with NPOV.  The viable options are to add it "when requested by sufficient numbers" or to add it "to the toolbox of all articles".  --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support This is not censorship: the images are there. This simply gives those who want to read the article to do so without being offended. Not doing this is a form of censorship because it makes the article unavailable to those who would like to read it but would be offended by an image of the prophet. This sensibility is real and should be respected.TheLongTone (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as alternative to 1a. Either seems like a good idea. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Affirmative wether this or via 1a, it adds an option without removing content. PuppyOnTheRadio   talk
 * DISTANT second choice again to deny a person the freedom to choose to conform to their religious morales because WMF doesn't censor is intollerant. By allowing somebody to make the choice, we show compassion and acceptance.  It isn't WMF/wikipedia that would be censoring the images, it would be the community accepting other people with different views/stances.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 14:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC) NOTE: Moved to distant second choice per comments to B-Critical below.  The only reason why this would be a support, is if option A failed, I'd rather give people an option even if it is inferior than forcing our views on others.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 06:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Very strong support The same should have been done at the Pregnancy article instead of censoring the nude lead image.  This will allow greater freedom in Wikipedia while easily facilitating people's right to filter their own content.  Be— —Critical  20:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually no, but I don't want to rehash that debate... but your brining up the Pregnancy article does raise the issue as to why this option is inferior to option A. In both articles, I would much rather have the ability for somebody to voluntarily opt out of seeing images that they might find objectionable---whether it is nudity, sacraligious symbols, etc than to blanket block all images.  By blanketly blocking ALL images, we are literally throwing out the baby with the bath water.  There are images in both articles which have value that would be blocked because we too concerned with a misapplication of "NOT:CENSOR".--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 06:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This is also seems fine to me. Mathsci (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Seems fine to me too. -- J N  466  13:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, even better than 1a. Volunteer Marek 21:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. this solutions should keep most open-minded readers happy. We should not force images upon those not wishing to see them, or hide them from those with the opposite preference. --Wavehunter (talk) 14:28, 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  ☏  14:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly support This is even better than the instructional hatnote. It is not censorship, and helps to make the article more accessible for some users. Thom2002 (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support. This does not imply there is anything wrong with the article and supplies a tool that some readers may find helpful. I'm not enthusiastic about it, however! Geometry guy 23:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - and other possibly offensive articles. Who wants to pull up offensive images in a place where they might get in trouble for it, or be personally offended by it? Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - it affects a lot of Wikipedians, between 1,2 and 1,5 billion people are muslims (about 22% of earth's population). If the custom forbids an image, we should honor that. On the other hand, every user has the right to see the pictures. I think having a hat note solves that problem satisfactory for both sides. I do not feel censored, if I have to make an additional click to see potentially offensive images. Common sense and courtesy, is that what's missing on wikis the most?? -- Hedwig in Washington (TALK) 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Letting people have an option as to what they do not want to see is not outright censorship. Lucasoutloud (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly support. I think that this is a good idea.  I can see a number of situations where this might be useful.  I, for one, am interested in reading medical articles, but would like to be able to choose not to be confronted with photos of surgical procedures.  Many Indigenous Australians do not look at images of Aboriginal people who have died; many Australian publications state a warning that they include such images, in order to give a choice.  The removal of pics can also make a page faster to load.  There are probably other situations in which this template option could be very useful.  While Wikipedia does not censor, we can offer an option to our users, if they wish to do so.  Why not? Amandajm (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Also effective alternative. Cla68 (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The same as 1a Bulwersator (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I like this one better than the instructional hatnote--no presumption of why the images might be offensive, just a button to click if someone doesn't want to see them for whatever reason. Seriously see no rational reason to oppose this, and I think it could be quite useful on other articles as well (aforementioned gruesome medical pictures, spiders etc.) Florestanová (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - prefer this one to the option above, but either is fine. Again, I see no reason not to do this. We should be making things easier for our readers, and this option does that. Robofish (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Good solution, and it can implemented to other articles where there are similar cases.  Mohamed CJ  (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support There may actually be good potential for this device in general to broaden the content available on wiki. Where there are images, audio, video or other contents that are highly charged or known to be offensive to an identifiable class of people, providing this option seems highly useful to keep the doors of information open without having to make a determination regarding the value respect for religious against the value of the pursuit for open knowledge. AwayEnter (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Albeit, I prefer option 1.a because it is clearer to the reader as to what they can expect to encounter when visiting the page. If the former option is not available, I would accept this one. Veritycheck (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I think option 1a and 1b are about equal in value, but between them I prefer 1b because it offers the user technology that can help them. The arguments citing censorship make no sense to me:  Wikipedia reaches just as many people with the original version as it did before, and now it will reach more people as well.  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.  When the record companies decided to divide compact discs into tracks, was that censorship?  After all, this allows me to skip songs I don't like!  No, that's not censorship, and neither is it censorship to provide someone with a button that allows the to not see the images on a page. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 02:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support with 1a as my second choice. (My arguments in the comments have been in favor of 1a because I see the censorship arguments as being especially invalid when applied to a proposal that deletes / modifies no content) --Guy Macon (talk) 05:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support in preference to 1a. This is simpler for the user, responds to valid concerns, and does not constitute censorship. It could be applied to other articles at editors' discretion. It's a useful tool. — ℜob C. alias &Agrave;LAROB  18:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support in preference to 1a, as it is simpler for the user, with the same goal. FurrySings (talk) 18:48, 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) 14:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Support: Excellent use of technology to solve a longstanding problem (especially if used in conjunction with the calligraphic depiction in the Lead/infobox). This is unobtrusive, un-astonishing, and sidesteps the censorship problem that so many editors seem to see. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: While 1a sets a stickier precedent, this wouldn't do any harm if it appeared on every Wikipedia article. (not, obviously, that it should). Khazar2 (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: This would be my first option with non-functional hatnote being my second. It does not violate WP:NOTCENSORED, since it allows any user who wishes to view the images to view them, and allows any user who wishes not to view the images to not view them.  WP:NOTCENSORED is not the same as "You must view this," and I think many articles with potentially objectionable content could benefit from a hatnote of this type for those who wish not to view potentially objectionable material. It allows for personal choice, not censorship. -Jhortman (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Yes, use technology to solve this problem.   LaTeeDa (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Support. Will the hatnote be added to every single WP article that contains images? Mark Shaw (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent use of technology to solve a longstanding problem (especially if used in conjunction with the calligraphic depiction in the Lead/infobox). There are a range of articles on other subjects where this solution would also be appropriate.Smsagro (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * → Σ  τ  c . 08:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This is a good solution for a unique problem. It's courteous and respectful. Providing a simple way for readers to 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 18:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support. My second choice, but still good. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support for same reasons as 1a. However, I prefer the wording of 1a. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Mild support as we are getting into semantics here - show the concerned reader how to disable the images, or give them a link which disables the images for them. Having said that, I prefer the wording and functionality of 1a. My belief: "If you don't like it, you don't have to look." Censoring, in my mind, simply isn't an option in this case. When it's a major concern like this, I do like the balanced option of allowing the reader to hide the images if they so desire. Amarand (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * STRONG support - Please, add header on the page Muhammad to see the articles w/o Muhammad's pictures. And better delete the image. Mbak Dede (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - non-intrusive, less disclaimer-y than 1a, and a suitable option for those who find the images offensive.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 16:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. It's a friendly gesture towards the murky-minded, and doesn't hurt the scientific spirit. Mallexikon (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose 1b
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as Ridiculous. It matters to nobody on Wikipedia that someone might be offended at seeing pictures of nudity or graphic depictions of sex acts. If anyone objects, they are quickly told that Wikipedia is not censored. If someone objected to depictions of Jesus, there wouldn't be this RFC. Why is a single group getting preferred treatment. If children can come here and look at pictures of erections and cum shots without needing to navigate a hatnote, they shouldn't need one to see artwork depicting Muhammad. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per above. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Turning off images is a standard feature in modern web browsers. Readers who really don't want to see images of Muhammad – and such images have to be expected in an article on Muhammad – don't have to see them.  Good raise  04:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as I don't agree with the idea of a hatnote at all (see above vote for explanation.) — CobraWiki ( jabber 06:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per Niteshift36. —  FoxCE   (talk • contribs) 08:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for the same reasons I oppose an instructional hatnote. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:CENSORED - In an encyclopedia, sensibilities don't count. Denis Barthel (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose He that does not want to see any pictures can switch off loading graphics in his browser.--Aschmidt (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per No disclaimers in articles and my answer to Q1a. If it isn't already it should be linked from the appropriate site-wide disclaimer though. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per No disclaimers in articles. A hatnote is just not necessary. --CapitalR (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose No place for sensibilities on Wikipedia. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly Oppose. It looks harmless enough, but the slippery slope issue is overwhelming.  For example, do we place such a note on the Depictions of Muhammad article even though that's what it's about?  Do we require no images on the first screen or two of that article so that people won't see an image before they see the note?  Then there are all the other types of articles people have mentioned...  Last but not least, does it really matter?  The people in the Arab countries protesting the Jyllands-Posten cartoons were not regular subscribers to the newspaper. Wnt (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my answer to question 1a. There is very little difference between a functional and a non-functional hatnote.  The only way I'd support something like this is if there was some kind of censorship software that Muslims could install on their browser, and we supported that software in our HTML code.  That way, only those who have the software installed would see any options to hide images.  First and foremost, Wikipedia is about documenting human knowledge, as opposed to constantly worrying about who we might offend in the process.  If knowledge offends you, then don't read encyclopedias.  &mdash;SW&mdash; yak 14:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose; same rationale as in 1a.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:28 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Niteshift36. Kelly  hi! 14:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Interesting approach but it doesn't actually get to the heart of the matter; those Muslims who object to depictions generally object to ALL depictions, i.e. for EVERYONE who views them. This has never really been about "give us a way to read en.wiki and not be offended", but rather "the existence of these images is blasphemy, remove them now!" Tarc (talk) 15:06, 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  15:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Slippery slope. The discussion at hand should reinforce WP's principle of neutrality, not a new principle of engaging in future requests for custom articles from special interest groups. --Ds13 (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Most browsers have a built-in feature to disable images. This is redundant. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:CENSORED. I know not to view certain (NSF) articles at work. I can do my own self-censorship thank you very much. Censoring an encyclopedia is anathema. -- Alexf(talk) 16:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: ... followed swiftly by "If you would like a conservative viewpoint on this controversial issue" / "If you would like an article that agrees with your POV" hatnotes. Wikipedia is still not censored" ... and shouldn't be.  Ravenswing''  16:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As with 1a. Wikipedia articles are at times repurposed for print or other media, and so should not contain content that makes no sense in other media, such as instructions to "click here".  Sandstein   16:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's plenty of material I can think of on Wikipedia for which there are more practical reasons to provide an optional censor, yet we don't. There's no reason to cater to this mere "it's very offensive" plea. Equazcion  ( talk ) 20:15, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose with Fire, Storm, and Large Aquatic Mammals. Look at Ravenswing's comments above.  I can't possibly top that. Sleddog116 (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: though Wikipedia tends to respect all of the views, it is still encyclopedia, not a social network. The encyclopedic article is (ideally) a consistent piece of collaborative work, where illustrations are given for the informational purposes. Given that this discussion lasts long and quite a few people participated in it, every image left after this RfC is thought over and considered important for the article. We just shouldn't provide the mechanism for downgrading the quality of our articles. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No technical shenanigans, please. Either some content is enzyclopedically appropriate. In that case, it should be presented as is to everyone. Or it is not. Then ist should not be part of the content in the first place.-----&#60;)kmk(&#62;--- (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, it would be useful to have an account settings option to enable such a toggle, not for specific articles, but for all. That way if I'm on a slow connection I could toggle the images off to speed up the load time of the article, and I could turn it off or on without having to go into my account settings. This feature is completely irrelevant to this RFC, though, and shouldn't even be being discussed here; it's a topic for Village pump (technical). ~Amatulić (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose any such hatnote per Niteshift36's comments above and also ---&#60;)kmk(&#62;---'s statements. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff's comments bear repeating: images included in the article after this RfC will have been vetted and justified as important and encyclopedically valuable and any such hatnote amounts to a "downgrading (of) the quality of our articles".--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 04:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reason as 1A. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as in 1a -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The reasons mentioned by others and myself in 1a are equally valid here. Regards  So Why  13:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Niteshift36, Goodraise, Tarc, and others. cmadler (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Wikipedia is not an islamic encyclopedia, it is a neutral (illustrated) encyclopedia. Anyone can set his internet browser not to display images if necessary. Note: I would have nothing against a global option (part of the wikipedia interface) allowing to turn off images in all articles. mge o  talk 17:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose --Voyager (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Same problem as in 1a.
 * Oppose Same problems as 1a Darkness Shines (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose preferential threatment for one out of many assumed iconoclastic movements would be a disservice to the user base. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose just more pandering to a POV. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose as per all above comments, especially those of Ravenswing and Niteshift, and Tarc as well (who has diagnosed the root of the problem). WP:NOTISLAMOPEDIA, WP:NOTCENSORED. This is the beginning of a true slippery slope (overused argument, yes) to fracturing the community and POV-forks. We don't cater to other religion's sensibilities, racial sensibilities, or sexual sensibilities. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 00:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:CENSORED - In an encyclopedia, sensibilities don't count. --Neozoon 00:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose ~ Feedintm Parley 01:08, 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 be 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) 10:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per WP:NOTCENSORED. --ST ○ 11:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per WP:NOTCENSORED. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per myself in oppose 1a and above. Adopting this proposal would de facto admit that this content is objectionable, agreeing with a specific point of view. Wikipedia as a whole 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. Kimelea (below) notes an important point that the Muslim objection is not that they see the image but that anyone sees the image, which this proposal would not address. OSbornarfcontribs. 21:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support As opposed to to Conservapedia. Wikipedia will still contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive so I can't see how WP:NOTCENSORED applies - other than allowing my comments to remain where I chose to put them. PS "not encyclopedic" is used day in & day out to Censor Wikipedia. Tom Pippens (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:NOTCENSORED should not be compromised in the slightest manner
 * Oppose - This should be handled by client software not by MediaWiki or javascript. – Allen4names 06:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tarc convinced me to change my mind. I would support this proposal if I thought it had any chance of satisfactorily resolving the problem for people who feel unable to read the page, but as I said in discussion, the objection seems to be to the existence and propagation of the images, not to the complainer having seen them. I fear that nothing less than complete censorship of Muhammad images will satisfy the complainers, and that's obviously not an option. If anyone can show me evidence that any of the people who claim blasphemy would be satisfied with having the images hidden on their computer, I may change my position. ~ Kimelea   (talk)  15:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my rationale in 1a. This could be useful as a sidebar widget that could be applied to any article.  But I categorically oppose singling this, or any other, article out individually. Resolute 15:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose per above.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  21:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose see above WSC ® 21:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose As in my prior oppose, one should expect images of Muhammad when reading an article about him. Also, adding this sort of hatnote to the page would ostensibly require its use on every other page as well, which is clearly unnecessary. Silver  seren C 22:47, 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 and common sense.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  14:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unless it added to every article. Ruslik_ Zero 15:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 1a. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose more or less for the same reasons as 1a. --Karl.brown (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose more or less for the same reasons as 1a. But I could live with it ONLY if the feature was put on all pages.Thelmadatter (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose but readers should be given clear advance warning about what the article contains so they can chose whether or not to view it. (I have changed my mind about this after reading what others wrote about disclaimers.) Neotarf (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per 1a. miracleworker5263 (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per 1a - making a special case for this article is a bad idea. --Tango (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Niteshift36 and my response to 1a. Providing the hatnote implicitly acknowledges that some might find images offensive. There is no reasonable expectation to not be offended by the internet. Also, other websites like Google Image search do not provide such a function. If you google "Prophet Muhammad" the third item is a series of images from Google Images. Rkitko (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Will open the door to disclaimers and warnings elsewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The hatnote switch is non-discretionary. While the contention is with depictions of Muhammad, the "button" would remove ALL images, including ones that only enhance the article. Grika Ⓣ 13:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. To view a censored version of this article, please refer to an encyclopedia that is not Wikipedia. There are ways to enforce personal censorship in articles, and that link should be added to the content disclaimer, but that is enough. No special single article "solutions", please. --illythr (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comments on 1a. No reason to change our disclaimer policy. - Running On Brains (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Make it either a global option or implement an "image off" feature as part of the interface so it is accessible in any Wikipedia article. --Dmitry (talk•contibs) 22:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a breach of WP's NPOV ideal. Users can turn off images in their browsers. We should not hold the hands of a select masochistic few who object to certain images but somehow cannot help themselves and insist on visiting the very articles that logic and common sense dictate will have those very images. Rivertorch (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 *  Oppose NPOV violation - David Gerard (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia does not carry disclaimers (real or implied) other than the general disclaimer. What's next? "If you would like to view the article without any science, click here." Hipocrite (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It's disgusting that we're even considering this. Pretty much every article will offend someone. There'd be more hatnotes then articles if we marked them all off. If we were selective though, we wouldn't really be neutral. Abyssal (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Again, as in Ia.  Spencer T♦ C 21:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per arguments against 1a. JHS nl (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: As stated earlier, we don't censor articles on nudity, nor should the images of Muhammad 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. As noted in this New York Times article on the issue, "Islamic teaching has traditionally discouraged representation of humans, particularly Muhammad, but that doesn't mean it's nonexistent.... The idea of imposing a ban on all depictions of people, particularly Muhammad, dates to the 20th century, he said. With the Wikipedia entry, he added, "what you are dealing with is not medieval illustrations, you are dealing with modern media and getting a modern response". So you have a very slippery slope here: accede to 'some' (not all) Islamic groups' 20th century cultural beliefs on images of Muhammad, and then become subject to fundamentalist demands that ALL images of ALL people be censored, deleted or hidden. Neither a sound nor reasonable path to follow. HarryZilber (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * see comment above (1a); this hatline will open Pandora's box for hatlines; enzyclopedias should'nt have disclaiming hatlines. --Rax (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose 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) 05:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:CENSORED - In an encyclopaedia, not sensitivity but verifiability along with the quality of information is what counts. Wikipedia must not capitulate to the unfair demands of some people. Wikipedia must not pander to the ever-increasing, irrational and incessant demands of any religion (regardless of its penchant for gratuitous communal violence). Thank you! :) Brendon is   here  07:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia should not conform with the demands of any religion. Wiki-Taka (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Tarc.-- В и к и  T   15:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Should be unnecessary with hatnote in 1a, which is clearer. Student7 (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * '''Oppose, for the same reason as Wiki-Taka, but extended to "groups in general," not just religions. MSJapan (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, If they don't like offensive images they can go to rational wiki, wikiinfo, conservopedia, etc. Wikipedia is wikipedia because it does not censor and is not POV based.--Benjamin 00:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As I noted in 1a, I don't believe the vast majority of Muslims are concerned about viewing these images, but about us publishing them. What I would support is a uniform link (say in the toolbox) allowing the user to switch easily to a "no images" mode, whether or not they are logged in. Such a uniform mechanism would be useful for technical purposes (reduced bandwidth) as well as social ones. Dcoetzee 03:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For such a superstition: oppose. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose same reason as 1a, Gnangarra 23:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Doesn't make sense to have this exclusively for the Muhammad article; if something like this is to be done it should be part of a global opt-in image filter (which I am open minded about, though this does not yet have consensus). As it is, this cuts too close to violating the spirit of WP:DISC and WP:DISCLAIM. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 23:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as stated above. Weissbier (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, same as 1A. TotientDragooned (talk) 00:48, 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) 07:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose this isn't necessary. Tony May (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless we are going to implement this on every page that could potentially contain offensive images. As far as we know, we aren't.--New questions? 18:46, 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) 20:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose If we open this possibility here, in a short time there shall be as many versions/view of each article as many POVs exist: the end of WP. A ntv (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, same reason as 1a. - Richiez (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no logical reason for this article to get any special treatment -- Pat talk  02:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the same reasons as I opposed the hatnote suggested above, and also because web browsers typically provide a mechanism to avoid fetching images in web pages, which anyone who doesn't want to view images in given web pages ought to use, instead of requiring the maintainers of the pages themselves to waste time duplicating this functionality. zazpot (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for the same reasons I gave above in 1a. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no requirement to abide by Islamic teaching in Wikipedia's voice. If Muslims look up Islamic topics in a secular encyclopedia, they should expect a secular treatment of the topic. This isn't a little piece of 'Islamopedia', it is just one among many articles in Wikipedia. --Nigelj (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It can apply to a lot of other articles and this is not a very good forum to discuss this. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A fun technological exercise, and actually pretty cool, but far too slippery a slope. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 03:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for so many of the reasons above and my reason for opposing 1a. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, on grounds of Wikipedia is not censored, No disclaimer templates ("no", not "a few"), and above all, neutrality. We should not make concessions to any religion's rules on "offensiveness", or else to maintain neutrality, we'd have to abide by all of them. That is not feasible or desirable, so the answer is sorry, but no, the article includes images, and if you go to it, you will see them. There are plenty of clientside solutions the user can implement on his/her own to avoid seeing the images, but for us to facilitate that in certain places and not in others is to implicitly agree that yes, images of Muhammad are offensive. That is a huge breach of NPOV, it is our job to stay neutral and present the information available. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose WP:NDT covers this and completing even this action would violate it. Also it could violate WP:RNPOV by giving special exception on content based on the particular view. This is not a note saying you have been redirected from X or 'did you mean this page?' this proposal is to alter the content to a specific point of view. WP:NOTCENSORED goes with it, but special exemption sets a dangerous precedent. If we value Wikipedia's standards we should not go against our policies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This hatnote doesn't provide any rationale for not viewing the images.  EngineerFromVega ★  08:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As Caricaturist Wilhelm Busch said, when he found out that the editor of his Pious Helene had added the hatnote "With 180 illustrations" to the title page: "It is as if you would advertise in the paper: 'A house key is for sale with a house attached to it' ", --Rosenkohl (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional discussion of 1b
The nudity comparison is a false on. Somebody searching, say, 'blowjob' can be reasonably assumed to not be offended by an image of such, or else why would they be searching for it? Of the people searching for Muhammad, however, a very percentage WOULD be offended by an image. I'm not saying that that means that there should absolutely not be an image, just pointing out that the comparison doens't hold up to scruitiny. Euchrid (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * By extension, does somebody reading a child pornography article expect pictorial examples? People interested in reading articles concerning sexuality do not necessarily desire to see graphic images. I object to the principle of removing offensive material and providing an unrepresentative view on the topic. To me, it is analogous to providing the option to remove the Israeli or the Palestinain point of view from all I-P related topics for reader comfort. Wiki should always seek to provide all relevant info on a subject.
 * I agree with User:AnkhMorpork above. Brendon is   here  14:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a false comparison. Just because you want statistics or factual data on the mechanics of an erection doesn't mean you want to see a series of six pictures depicting the stages of an erection. Educational or some guy who wanted to put pictures of his dick on Wikipedia? You decide, I already have. My cmparison wasn't false but your selective example is false. You talked about "nudity" but then used an example about a sex act. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's necessarily true. Many people might want to find information about what a blowjob is without having to look at one. To what extent we should cater to people who want the info without the images is a question that applies in both cases. FormerIP (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No material is being removed! An optional, purely voluntary button to click at one's own personal discretion is what's being considered here. It's like the foul-language filters that can be turned on or off depending on an individual user's personal preferences that exist on many websites/communities. There is no institutional censorship happening here because the images are not being actually deleted. Florestanová (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the closer comparison is Flag desecration. I know we get frustrated by nudity, but virtually no one is as upset as people accidentally viewing Muhammad.   To my knowledge, Muhammad images are unique in their sheer power to upset unwary readers. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * At the risk of inflaming the situation, would it be appropriate to add a picture of someone burning (or otherwise desecrating) the Quran to the Quran desecration article? By any objective measure, such a picture would be relevant, and no more offensive than the picture in Flag desecration. (I'm not intending to add such a picture; this is a thought exercise - with the risk of WP:BEANS.) Mitch Ames (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hard to imagine a standard that includes Muhammad and Flagburning but excluded Quran burning. I don't feel the article is calling out for such an image, but if such an image achieved local consensus, it'd be hard to justified its deletion on based on offensiveness. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Flag and holy book desecration is certainly an interesting comparison. As someone who is mildly offended by both, I should point out that while I don't like those acts being carried out, depictions of them (including photographs of actual incidents) aren't in of themselves offensive. The issue surrounding depictions of Muhammad is that, to some Muslims, the image itself, not the person/act who the image is of, is what considered to be forbidden.Euchrid (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're quite correct that the Muhammad case is very different. When westerns get angry over a flagburning on TV, we're mad at the burner, not the photographer.
 * Some people really do want censorship. I don't care about them-- we can't give them what they want.  Demands to remove images altogether are antithetical to WP.
 * But, looking past the extremists-- there are a lot of people who just want to read articles in public without getting in trouble with their peers and passerbys.   These people don't want images removed from the article, they want a chance to "preview" the article before deciding to view images, to avoid embarrassing themselves.   They don't want control of other people's screens, they just want control over their own screens.   THESE people we can help. Surprisingly easily, in fact.
 * Most of all though, this is just for us. I'm proud to defend NOTCENSORED, but I'd be more proud if I knew we didn't impose a computer "literacy test" on our readers who want to browse without images.   Non-tech-saavy readers should be able to enjoy the same reading experience that the rest of us enjoy.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"I'd be more proud if I knew we didn't impose a computer "literacy test" on our readers who want to browse without images. Non-tech-saavy readers should be able to enjoy the same reading experience that the rest of us enjoy." - English Wikipedia is not for everybody to read and edit.

Obvious criteria: <ol> <li> Readers must be able to read English. <li> Readers must have access to computer. <li> Readers must have access to the internet. <li> Readers must know and fully understand the policies and traditions of Wikipedia. and so on. </ol> The thing is that you have to give something in order to get something. Anyway, you don't have to be a computer genius for installing a software (these days it's even easier). You don't have to be a computer genius or friend of a computer genius to simply follow quite lucid instructions in native english. So, I guess downright lazy, hyper-sensitive users (same goes for fanatical or doctrinaire bigots) with unfounded, gratuitous demands for special treatment will not enjoy wikipedia like the rest, not because they are "non-tech", but because their mentality is intrinsically opposed to the several important Wikipedia policies, and their appeasement will affect others. Wikipedia Editors should not take the trouble of modifying the interface (even in the least bit) only to appease the sentiments of minority which doesn't comply with Wiki-policies to begin with. Brendon is  here  14:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Solving the generic problem
Question How do we decide where we provide these options and not? Certainly Bahá'ís generally reserve depictions of Bahá'u'lláh for special events, Muslims generally don't depict Muhammad, and some Christians (e.g. RPCNA) avoid depictions of God, but I know that I am personally offended by all manner of images about violence on Wikipedia and those aren't blocked, nor am I given the option to block them. Do my sensibilities not count? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course all sensibilities count. :)
 * If we know factually that our readers would like the option, we should offer it to them. Indeed, if we wanted to, we could add the button right into the user interface for every page.  Imageless pages don't violate our principles-- it's just letting novice users do what experienced users already do-- browse with images off.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If this option is made available on every article (or within the user settings) then I would accept it. I am entirely against offering this option and presenting this hatnote on only the Muhammad article. —  FoxCE   (talk • contribs) 10:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that an option in user settings or under (for example) Toolbox in the sidebar to disable images would be both useful and acceptable. It may be feasible to have a non-persistent "hide images in this article" option in the sidebar, which would be useful for readers not logged in. Such an option must apply to all articles, because we should not make judgements about what people might find offensive; all articles should be treated identically. It might even be technically feasible for an option - for logged in users - to "add this article to my list of articles not to display images for" (similar in principle to "add to watch list"). This means that the reader chooses what is offensive, not the editors. Such an option would need to be unobtrusive, and/or hideable, so as not to clutter up the user interface for the vast majority of users who'll never need it. Adding something to the sidebar toolbox should be fine - it's already full of things I rarely use, and one more wouldn't be a problem. The fundamental principle here is that the reader makes the choice - Wikipedia editors make no judgement about offensiveness of images in Muhammad or any other article. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that, if this function were to be implemented, there are plenty of other articles that it could feasibly be added to. I disagree with the 'slippery slope' argument because, frankly, I don't see what would be so bad about adding this function to other articles. Plenty of candidates have been mentioned in this discussion, and I'd be happy to see this function on all of them. Euchrid (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Allow me to clarify that I would only support this function if it were added to or available on all articles on the English Wikipedia, not only certain articles that are deemed for whatever reasons to be appropriate. Given this, clearly a hatnote would be too cluttering, so perhaps it would be added to the "toolbox" sidebar as I have seen suggested. But that's subject to another discussion, not this one. —  FoxCE   (talk • contribs) 07:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I suggest we start another discussion (somewhere?) on having a general option for logged-in users to disable all images. It would be turned off by default; if you turn it on, then on any article you are reading, there will be a hatnote or a sidebar link that allows you to turn the images back on. If you haven't turned this option on, I don't think there should be a hatnote on every article - the hatnote only shows up if you decided to turn images off to protect your sensitive eyes.--Karl.brown (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just found the following: Help:Options to not see an image, which gives a number of ways for people to avoid seeing images, even on a per-article basis. --Karl.brown (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

To people suggesting that this be done by turning off images in the browser-- we could do that, but it wouldn't allow for 1-click-to-reveal-all-images instantly. To toggle images back on, a user would have to tweak options again and reload. If we use the hatnote, the images are never more than 1-click away. Our hatnote will actively encourage users to turn it off, a browser won't. :)  --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We really shouldn't be encouraging users to turn images off, unless we encourage them to do it for all articles it is a gross violation of NPOV. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the point I was making was the opposite-- our javascript will make it very very easy to "reveal all images" instantly.  Merely turning off image loading in the browser would make it much harder to restore the images-- it won't allow for 1-click-to-reveal.    --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am against any image-toggle in the left hand toolbar. I am in favor of the proposal of individually configuring the browser not to display pictures (prevents any alteration to wikipedia interface or any article).
 * 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 will be seen as an impetus towards self-censorship from Wikipedia itself. That is not helpful.
 * "To people suggesting that this be done by turning off images in the browser-- we could do that, but it wouldn't allow for 1-click-to-reveal-all-images instantly." — So what, Hector? You think some users' immense laziness is worth a modification on Wikipedia? Well, guess what, I don't.
 * "We really shouldn't be encouraging users to turn images off, unless we encourage them to do it for all articles" — If it's about image toggle, then I agree Wikipedia shouldn't encourage its users to hide images that way. But otherwise (if it's against the idea of personally eschewing images by configuring browser), It's an abject fallacy (diminished responsibility of the reader). It's also a misrepresentation of the original suggestion. Nobody has so far suggested that wikipedia should encourage its readers to hide images. All that was said is down below for anyone to read. We also need to take into consideration somethings like "Wikipedia policies" (WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:PROFA, WP:NDA, WP:IRELEV, etc) which are not sitting there for nothing.
 * I acknowledge that "hiding" images is not literally the same as "removing" images, but to me the spirit of the policy is clear: 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 necessary steps to avoid those images is on the individual who is reading Wikipedia. You cannot ask wikipedia to adapt to your sensitivities, it's the other way around. Brendon is   here  09:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that "hiding" images is not literally the same as "removing" images, but to me the spirit of the policy is clear: 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 necessary steps to avoid those images is on the individual who is reading Wikipedia. You cannot ask wikipedia to adapt to your sensitivities, it's the other way around. Brendon is   here  09:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * My thought is that if someone knows that they will be potentially offended by something or an associated image, the internet isn't the best place to search for that. I'm against clutter on Wikipedia, and in addition it seems like adding any kind of protection to articles like this in an effort to be unoffensive doesn't make the most sense given our goals here. Sermadison (talk) 9:08, 20 March 2012


 * It's a slippery slope right down to "This article contains points of view which offend me; of course an 'abortion' article must describe how evil it is and how civilized people think of it as murder, so why is this article filled with this 'choice' crap?"  Ravenswing  16:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Slippery slopes don't exist. They make large assumptions that people supporting one change (in this case a hatnote) are going to support another one (your abortion example). That is patently false. In my opinion, no matter what the debate is, any argument based on slippery slopes deserves zero weight. AIR corn (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't feel like either of the hatnote options really constitute 'censorship' as such. Censorship is blocking people from seeing something, these simply give people the option to avoid it if they want to, and view it if they want to. It would even (as I understand it) default to displaying the images. That's not censorship.Euchrid (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm also surprised by people citing NOTCENSORED over 1b.  Browsing with images off is NOT censorship-- if it's censorship, then "Wikipedia has always been censored", which is absurd.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I see some inconsistency. This is much stronger than 1a, & puts us much more in the position of encouraging people to hide images, which seems to be rejected as being too much like censorship.  DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How so? Censorship is stopping other people seeing (etc) things; choosing not to see them yourself is not censorship. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * putting a facility in a prominent position for this one particular picture is labeling it as possible offensive, and that is very close to censorship. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So put it somewhere less prominent. Toolbox, in the Userinterface above the title, etc. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I can see where the intent of the functional hatnote is to allow users offended by images to not be forced to look at them while reading the article, while allowing other users to see them. But even if we are OK with encouraging the omission of pertinent content, there's another slope we slip down.  Once we put it on this article, there will be thousands of other articles where people say, "Well, why does Muhammad get to turn off images, but this article doesn't?  I want it on this one too!"  Eventually every even remotely controversial topic is going to have either this same hatnote, or a contentious mob of sockpuppets willing to be disruptive until it gets put on.  Let's therefore skip the tedious and unproductive step of having a thousand time-wasting discussions on a thousand contentious pages and just put a general "turn off images" button in the sidebar, as other editors have suggested.  This may even be just a good idea technically - if any user is on a slow connection or has other reasons for wanting to forego loading images, that's a courtesy that en-WP offers to its readers, rather than being an encouragement to skip content and/or cater to (patronize) a minority of people who are saddled with an extremely proposterous fringe. This is the best way out, akin to when the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly declines to take the bait of a broad and divisive constitutional stance (which would constitute making new law), but rather decides a smaller question particular to its case. That's not a punt, it's a practical decision against deriving first principles ass-backwards from particular questions.   ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  18:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * These "slippery slope" arguments are even weaker than usual. Wikipedia has a lot of hat notes on lot of articles, already. Users can ignore them or not, editors can use them or not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The crux of a slippery slope argument is that you are afraid of sliding to a worse place.  Image Toggle on all pages would be a better place for us to be, regardless of how we get there. Whether we slide there incrementally or whether we jump straight there as Zen proposes-- it's a useful feature.    HectorMoffet (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would like to support this proposal, and I find the slippery slope argument a fallacy (the world is not black and white, and compromise is sometimes desirable) but I'm not convinced it would actually help address the problem. As Tarc pointed out, the objection seems to be to the existence and propagation of the images, not to the complainer having seen them. Is there any evidence that any of the people who claim blasphemy would be satisfied with having the images hidden on their computer? ~ Kimelea   (talk)  20:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't look at "Image Toggle" as feature "for" extremists. You & Tarc are right-- there are extremists out there who really do want true censorship, and they will never ever get it from us.  This feature isn't for them, this feature won't make them happy, this feature won't make them go quiet.
 * "Image Toggle" is NOT made for extremists, it's made for Wikipedians. We have NSFW pages and we often browse from work-- everyone could use Image Toggle.  Most of all, it's for those of us who defend NOTCENSORED every day--  we would hold a firm moral highground if it were trivial for all users to browse every page without images, regardless of their native language or computer skill. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair enough to me, but I think enabling self-censorship of any page is a different issue. ~ Kimelea   (talk)  15:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Q: Shouldn't this be implemented via browser settings rather than javascripting?


 * This is the right answer from a IT/CS point of view. But experience has shown readers and browsers aren't up to this job.  Over telephone-- try talking someone over the age of 85 through the process of turning off images in their browser-- it doesn't work.  Now imagine if there were language and literacy barriers too. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * For anyone else who found this here and was confused by it, it was moved by Niteshift36 from its original position in Oppose 1b. ~ Kimelea   (talk)  15:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Why would anyone be confused by it. It is the same editor, talking about why he thinks a hatnote is the way to go. It was placed with his comments about that very thing. My edit summary in moving it here makes the reasoning clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Because where you have put it sets it up as if it replies to my comment about whether enabling self-censorship addresses the blasphemy complaints. The comment you moved is a direct reply to a comment that users are already capable of self-censorship - a completely different point. You have taken it out of its context and therefore removed its meaning. People are not going to go back and read all the edit summaries to find out why the comment was moved (or even that it was moved). ~ Kimelea   (talk)  18:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Check again sport. I made the move BEFORE you replied. It was YOU that inserted your comment in between the ones from Hector. Look at the edit history. Don't try to blame your errors on others. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, I'm doing nothing of the sort. I inserted my reply where it belonged - after Hector's reply to my comment. My reply doesn't change a thing. The fact is that the place you put Hector's second comment makes it look as if it is a second reply to me, which it's not. Perhaps you thought that his second comment worked logically as a continuation of the argument he made in his reply to me? It doesn't - it begins with "This is the right answer from an IT/CS point of view". What is the right answer? Without its context, we don't know what job readers and browsers aren't up to, because it has nothing to do with what I said. It was a direct response to a comment by someone else, a link which is now lost. ~ Kimelea   (talk)  19:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The history shows what I said is correct. Nothing you say will change it. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If I might interrupt this Penis Fencing for a moment, I have a suggestion. If a comment has 0% content discussing Muhammad images and 100% content discussing some other user, perhaps you should post the comment on that user's talk page. That way, those of us who wish to discuss Wikipedia's policies on Muhammad images don't have to wade through a large amount of unrelated material.  I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Then instead of adding to what you consider to be a problem, consider keeping your interest in dicks to yourself.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this conversation is done. Anyone reading this thread will be advised that a comment was moved and I think we can leave it at that. OSbornarfcontribs. 20:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding my voices to the above, I support an image-hiding functionality only if it is in the sidebar/toolbox or user settings, and is universal. It can not be applied to one page alone. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 05:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

With all the fuss over and complexity of the image filter (q.v.), it's amazing that we never got round to something as basic as a button at the top of every article "turn off images on this page". It could be discreet (top right somewhere), the button could be turned off in user preferences, and users could have images off by default if they want (so the button turns images on). Easy-peasy: just more power to users. And for those who for some reason are really bothered by the idea that someone who for some reason, in at least some situations, does not want to see every image available on Wikipedia gets the ability to do so - well let those think about how this ability would benefit users on slower connections trying to read Wikipedia. Probably not an issue for most editors, spoiled by DSL and cable, but for some developing country readers, and/or users on mobile devices, an option to turn off images may be useful. Rd232 talk 23:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Users of WikiReader already see a Wikipedia without images, and some of them report that there are pages that make no sense at all without images. This is something that Wikipedia must, by law, avoid - the Disabilities Act specifically says that blind people should be able to use a page (a good description of the image in the alt text is the usual method). Having a no images button on every page would lead to many of those "requires images" pages being fixed. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As global toolbox element, not article-specific hatnote
So far, I've heard a few arguments against the functional image toggle. Some are easy for me to dismiss. The slippery slope argument fundamentally misunderstand the proposal. A ski slope is intentionally slippery. Would we prefer a non-slippery slope--i.e. where only one article had such a hatnote?

Less easy to dismiss are the NOTCENSORED opposition. I feel like NOTCENSORED is being cited less as a direct policy guidance, but rather as a sort of "fundamental value" of our community that is at play here. So even though disabling images isn't "direct censorship" as I envision it, the people citing NOTCENSORED are still saying something very important and their voices matter.

The strongest objection I see, and the one I feel is most definitive, are concerns about neutrality. There is notable unease about dividing our articles into two categories: "ones people have objected to" and "ones people haven't objected to". Providing readers with this meta-data isn't a per se violation of NPOV, since the meta-data isn't part of the article, but I understand the palpable unease at the thought of there being "two classes" of articles, divided based on readers' purely emotional, irrational responses to them.

Based on all the feedback, it now seems highly preferable to just implement this feature in the sidebar toolbox shown for all articles. --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC) <ol> <LI>We are going way off-topic. I don't think this is the right page to discuss about a Global toolbox element to hide images. A discussion about universal toggle for hiding images is not even related to the article about Muhammad, and is verily out of topic here. Others who are not interested in "Muhammad" but might have taken interest in the new proposal about universal toggle for images, will miss out on an opportunity to comment on this issue. This should be discussed in a separate RfC. This is not the right place.

<LI>Anyway, I disagree. This step would be antithetical to the spirit of Undue weight and WP:NPOV (will implicitly reflect a particular POV). Unjustified, irrational demands predicated on religious precepts, is not worth any modification on Wikipedia which will eventually seem like a reinforcement of self-censorship. That cannot be the goal of Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not encourage censorship in anyway. Moreover, I understand that some Muslims may be offended by these images of Muhammad just as some Jews maybe offended by images of swastika or an article about holocaust denial, Some may find the pertinent images in cunnilingus to be unnecessary. Again, we should also consider those who might find an "image toggle" to be disruptive or unnecessary. The right question is should there be any negotiation about the clearly stated policies of wikipedia? (More on this here) And if somebody is sincerely offended by seeing those images, then I should say there are ways to solve this issue, without this universal "image toggle" or any further (probably disruptive) modifications on wikipedia. <P>The undeniable fact is, the onus of avoiding/hiding (purportedly) offensive content/images based on religious tenets, 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. Thus an "image toggle" is potentially disruptive and also utterly redundant. And this "image toggle" will inevitably draw undue weight to the controversial side of arguments 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 for self-censorship from Wikipedia itself. That will not be helpful. Brendon is  here  13:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC) </ol>
 * I agree. While the Muhammad article is the one that presents the most problems and urgently needs a solution, there are other articles containing images that some may find objectionable. Rather than putting hatnotes on individual articles, I'm coming round to the view that all articles should have a button saying 'click here to view this article without images'. That would be perfectly neutral, and I can't see how anyone could reasonable consider it 'censorship'. Banning the use of certain images would be censorship. Simply allowing readers the option of not seeing them is not. Robofish (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but giving readers the option to not see images should not interrupt (or even be visible to) users who don't want or care about such a feature. The slippery slope argument is primarily what this discussion is about.  If we cave to the demands on one religion, then we'll need to add a hatnote on every article that might have content which is offensive to any other sufficiently large group of people.  See my demonstrative (and somewhat sarcastic) proposal below.  I would support a gadget which could be selectively enabled to hide images, or even hide only images that have been categorized as "potentially offensive", as this is a tool that is invisible to those who are not interested in it (i.e. most readers).  A hatnote is visible to everyone, and only draws unnecessary attention to the "controversy" by catering to the demands of a minority of readers.  I think the NOTCENSORED argument also applies to how easy we make it for users to self-censor and how intrusive the self-censoring interface is for regular readers who don't want to self-censor.  This is one reason why so many editors (including myself) are invoking NOTCENSORED as a relevant policy.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#5a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> yak 22:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Yes, but giving readers the option to not see images should not interrupt (or even be visible to) users who don't want or care about such a feature." - right, I concur. But that option already exists. Click here. Brendon is   here  19:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, and in fact suggested this solution independently above. I think it would work best if it allowed the user to toggle between an "images shown mode" and "no images mode" that would be remembered using cookies whether or not they're logged in. This would be useful for conserving bandwidth as well as dealing with visual sensitivities, and would avert discussions over which articles deserve such a notice. However, I don't think it's particularly pertinent to this discussion since I don't think Muslims are offended by viewing the content but rather by our publication of it. Dcoetzee 03:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. This seems to be an eminently sensible neutral solution and adds additional convenience. It should apply to all articles until further notice (or possibly till the end of the session or cookie expiry for non-logged-in users), Preferably, there would be suppression of future downloads as well as immediate suppression of display, which would save bandwidth and improve response times as well as having the potential to avoid triggering external filtering mechanisms that implement real censorship. It could also serve as a "panic button" for people viewing images that might be inappropriate for passers-by (children, religious fundamentalists, secret police, etc.). Developers should possibly also consider using a tab (like the watch/unwatch tab); it could even be a drop-down "quick preferences" or "temporary preferences" element with show/hide toggles for various features such as images, ToC, categories, links to other languages, etc., but feature creep is a valid concern. --Boson (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Now that I think about it, I actually Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose a global image toggle for images on the toolbox. It places undue weight on the idea that images should be toggled on and off, while not providing a similar toggle for anything else. By providing such a toggle to "hide all images," while at the same time not providing such a toggle to "hide all text," we are implying that there needs to be more to be hidden for images than text. That is a bias against images, violating NPOV.--New questions? 19:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:NPOV applies to features like images, provided the feature applies to all images. We can and must have an opinion on which features we support. Similarly, it would not be an NPOV issue if we were to support suppression of animated images that could cause epileptic fits in some individals. Whether a user's perceived need for a feature results from a religious belief, a brain malfunction, or other disability should probably not concern us if we can implement a feature without unduly affecting other people.--Boson (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

1. WP:CENSORED or WP:NOTCENSORED as the Basis for Argument: The existence of a barrier, no matter how small is in fact censorship, it cannot be argued that the hatnote is not a form of censorship. However, it is equally indisputable that the censorship of the hatnote actually prevents access to the content. In deciding how to present WP content, because WP is accessible worldwide, holding onto rules as being absolute would likely hurt rather than help the cause of WP as risk of being exposed unexpectedly to certain content, here the image of Muhammad, may deter entire cultures and religions from making contributions. It is immaterial if the images qualify as works of art, while that is certainly grounds for inclusion, it bears no relevance to the issue of implementing a hatnote. The issue of the hatnote being a form a censorship stands alone with respect to whether it is too restrictive.
 * General Comment Re: Nudity, Censorship, Slippery Slope, Wiki Policy
 * HOWEVER - The risk of deterring large classes of people from using and contributing to WP when weighed against the minor inconvenience of clicking a mouse, or perhaps a dedicated key, is overwhelming. The hatnote in fact has a powerful potential to REDUCE CENSORSHIP simply by presenting the content in a way that ALL POTENTIAL USERS would feel comfortable accessing and contributing. Indeed, posting an image of Muhammad may make an individual feel he or she is part of a sacrilegious action (for participating in the display of his image) in order to contribute to the page. It logically follows that no one who strictly follows the religion is likely to contribute to the page. If we make the reasonable assumption that religious experts are also often devout followers of the religion, then it should be obvious that by clinging to a superficial definition of censorship regarding the image, we are hypocritically turning a blind eye to the deeper meaning of censorship. The effect of the image on the class of people who bind themselves strictly to their religion is a censorship to their editing participation and access to the written contents, leaving the responsibility of knowledgeable editing in the hands of those who do not hold the same values.

I believe that the hatnote itself serves as important knowledge to readers. Curious researchers would see it and immediately know that the content therein has particular significance, a fact that is often difficult to describe with words alone. In this particular case, it would educate and remind the readers of the seriousness of the content. The knowledge conveyed by the symbolic act of asking the reader to confirm he or she wants to see the content has only recently been made available when research could be done on the computer; it is a new way of communicating knowledge which is encyclopedic appropriate information.
 * As an aside, I would even suggest that this be used for nude images as a mere mouse click or tap of a dedicated key is likely to encourage parents to allow their children to access WP without risk of any accidental exposure to nudity.

A key point that bears repeating throughout the entirety of this proposition is that NO ENCYCLOPEDIC IS BEING BARRED FROM INCLUSION OR ACCESS 2. Slippery Slope and Wiki Policy: This crossed my mind as well, however, I have not read nor have I been able to come up with how this can be escalated to any level of reasonable concern. The furthest point imaginable, when also considering that WP is a world wide effort, would be if WP expanded the policy to include content that is globally recognized as worthy of a confirmation click. I don't believe that this could even go as far as an age verification because those are completely ineffective deterrents and would be a meaningless inconvenience. The hatnote is nothing more than a confirmation that the reader intends to view the content. Objections to this hatnote are (imo) as silly as objections to the question "are you sure?" And finally, there is little to suggest that this offends the policy of WP policy as no additional restrictions are being placed on the content that can be added. The closer monitoring and better defining of what is appropriate to post is most appropriately viewed as ensuring that only genuine facts that are verifiable and important to subject are included. This is in fact the intent for ALL articles, the accepted proposals make no compromises to WP policy, they are governed by the same rules, but explained specifically as it applies to this issue. I am optimistic that this/these article(s) will set an example of an ideal WP entry.
 * TLDR Version

1. Displaying Muhammad's image will prevent devout followers from reading and contributing their knowledge to the article. There is no censorship of content, the hatnote is just a mouse click. The value of having more knowledgeable people contribute + the value of open access to all >>>>>>> clicking a mouse. Also, the actual amount of censorship effectuated when there is no option to view without the image >>>>>>> censorship by a confirmation mouse click. 2. Slippery Slope does not apply because there is no where to go. The adopted proposals are not new, just worded to apply specifically to this issue, WP policy has not changed. AwayEnter (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)