Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images/Question 3

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

↑ Intro

<- Question 2 | Question 3 | Question 4 ->

Question 3: Where should the first figurative-art depiction of Muhammad occur?
(place answers under your chosen lettered subsection below)

a) Within the lead

 * Strong Support It is a matter of organisation of content. Joanakestlar
 * Support, as this is the de facto standard for biographies in WP. Maintaining consistency makes our works a better, more reliable product. HarryZilber (talk)
 * support its the standard --Rax (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no requirement to follow a de facto standard. a bit lower is less offensive, especially if 1a or 1b passes. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. Wikipedia is not censored. Besides, Inclusion of depictions of Muhammad is not considered to be a vulgar or obscene or an uncivil act by wikipedia standards. Wikipedia serves a broader range of audience than just Muslims and many of whom don't consider depictions of Muhammad to be a vulgarity. Hence, in this case, the offence is indeed in the eye of the beholder. Wikipedia editors do not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. From time to time, editors insert additional disclaimers into an article either as text or as a template – for instance, "This article contains profanity" or "This article is not suitable for children" or "Spoiler ahead". While ideas like this have been continually proposed, the consensus is that they should not be used. In fact, all articles already have a disclaimer, linked at the bottom of the page and every other page on Wikipedia. Additional disclaimers in encyclopedia articles should generally be removed, and disclaimer templates should be removed and deleted. :) Brendon is   here  08:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as standard. Student7 (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support like Rax an the others. Weissbier (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose except for the calligraphy in the infobox. Unlike images that are real depictions of a person none of those we have has any real value to give the reader a realistic first glimpse impression of what he may have looked like, they do not even depict the spirit of the time in which he lived or anything else realistically. Pictures used in this article should have some relevance to the section where they are placed and not be used just for the reasons" we have nothing better" or "wikipedia is not censored". Richiez (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Support as this is the standard for the Wikipedia product. As a reader, when I search for a notable individual, I expect their image to be near the top. As only figurative representations are available of this individual, I believe the highest quality, most accurate, representation should be made available at the top of the article. Amarand (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support if it is not in the infobox: if the infobox contains Arabic, the lead should contain a figurative picture, and if the infobox contains a picture, the lead should contain Arabic. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 13:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it is equally WP:UNDUE to have a figurative representation of Muhammad in the lead as it is in the infobox. There are no "standards" that trump the contextual significance of something like this to the actual subject at hand. The fact that very few figurative depictions of Muhammad exist is meaningful which means that not seeing a figurative image in the lead is actually more informative.Griswaldo (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Richiez. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, this is an article about a person, and its highest image should be an illustration of a person. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support or Neutral Mbak Dede (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Apart from the infobox, where in the article itself do you think the first use of a figurative ... place answers under your chosen lettered subsection below, ... a), b) ,... o) ...". Wait, is this a trick question? I think the second use of a figurative depiction of Muhammad should occur in the lead if the first occurs in the infobox, and the first should occur in the lead if the second or none occurs in the infobox, for further information please contact my lawyer, --Rosenkohl (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

b) Within the first section of the body, "Names and appellations in the Quran"

 * Oppose An image of the Quran belongs here. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral - the above reasoning is extremely flawed, and tantamount to putting a picture of the Kaba in the infobox, or a picture of the New Testament or an Ikon of St John the Theologian for "Logos in Christianity". A picture of the Koran belongs in "Muhammad's claimed revelation" section, or whatever the equivalent is. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 13:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

c) Within the second section of the body, "Sources for Muhammad's life"

 * Support assuming this is below the fold, as are the nude images in the pregnancy article. The images add interest but must be clearly marked before scrolling down, so that those who do not wish to view them, or are in a place where it is dangerous to view them publicly, can have a choice to leave the page. (Have changed my mind on disclaimers after reading what others said, but still support keeping images below the fold, as in the pregnancy article. Neotarf (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: 'clearly marked' (forewarning of images) would be another, unacceptable form of tophatting, discussed in earlier sections above. A technical issue with this suggestion is that there is no practical location to insert such warnings 'before the fold', since different computer monitor sizes, widths, windows, etc... and different screen resolutions result in different amounts of displayed text 'before the fold'. And, no, we definitely don't want floating text box warnings, since again this is another unacceptable form of tophatting. HarryZilber (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose No known images are from Mohammad's life, thus are not sources, thus should not be in a "sources" section. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Guy Macon.Griswaldo (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

d) Within the third section of the body: "Pre-Islamic Arabia"

 * Oppose. Arabia is a country. Muhammad was a person. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 *  Oppose. Per Guy Macon.Griswaldo (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

e) Within the fourth section of the body: "Life" - as currently

 * This is best; illustrating a biographical account of the life is exactly what these images were created to do, and they work well. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * as above - well put. Edmund Patrick – confer 07:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support acceptable, incurs no problem.-- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 07:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Johnbod. The idea that anyone could call ancient illustrations of ancient history books of the subject's life, cartoonstrips (as below), is not a well considered or sourced judgment; Wikipedia also does not discriminate based on the "culture" of the artist -- this leaves bare the censorship promotion that they are too religiously "offensive." Such opposing objections are not supported by policy, either with respect to image relevance or not censored. (Further thoughts here ) Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support; seems to me this is the first logical place for such an image in the article's body.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:34 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support This makes sense only, if there is an instructional hatnote. --Advocado 15:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support this as well as 'depictions' section. One would expect illustrations here. No need to go overboard and stuff as many as we can in, though. Alexius  Horatius  16:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support—Seems the most relevant section for a biography to begin introducing images of the subject, previous sections are mostly context and preamble. GRAPPLE   X  16:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. It is reasonable to expect to see such depictions at this point in the article.  scisdahl  ( t • c ) 16:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Since depictions of life exist in Islamic art-- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional support: only if not in Depictions... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support If the image depicts part of his life, it's only logical to have it in a section concerning his life. That's how we do it with every other subject and there is no policy-based reason to do it differently here. Regards  So Why  13:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The image, unless of his corpse, most definitely depicts a part of his life. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 00:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is an encyclopedia not a cartoon strip. An "illustrative" picture (the imaginings of a painter from another culture, a thousand miles and half a millennium distant from the events described) add nothing to the readers' understanding of the events. Nothing. In fact, the example in the section under discussion gets Muhammad's hair length wrong. "Illustrative" images add nothing but offensiveness to the article. Gratuitous offensiveness. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This is about the person as a man. Dmcq (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as equivalent to "anywhere but the top".  The current article reflects a good balance. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Support This is the section in which the figurative depictions have most relevance. Mathsci (talk) 08:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Makes the most sense to begin here.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  14:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Helps illustrate the story with beautiful art. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems an appropriate place, and far enough down the page that those not wishing to see a picture can navigate to the alternative bio. --Wavehunter (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional support, which means yes.   Because no portrait exists, a picture of the subject's face is not obligatory to the article. Every picture that exists is an imaginative portrayal, not a portrait.  I don't think such a picture ought to be forced into the article.  However, because a great deal of fine illustratory material exists, I support its use, in this section, if well selected, and provided it isn't obstructed by some horrible box (which issue is not relevant to this discussion). Amandajm (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Johnbod and Dmcq. The most logical place. Rivertorch (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Seems the most logical place, all things considered. Anaxial (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support There are images available which illustrate a part of his life. Illustrations increase the readability and enjoyability of this encyclopedia, they will here too. Is inherent support for option (g). JHS nl (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - if no hatnote or other image-removing option is used, I think this is a poor approach to take. I'd rather confine such images to the 'Depictions' section as a compromise solution. Robofish (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a logical place for them, where they are explained in text.  Mohamed CJ  (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. Depictions section is better, but this is acceptable. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - These depictions are only artists ideas. The current placement and captions show the reader where the ideas came from and when.  Apuldram (talk)
 * Support as the second choice after g) below. Ruslik_ Zero 17:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. If the work was designed to illustrate an event in the life of Mohammed, this is the best place for it. If it's just a picture of Mohammed, "Depictions" would be the place. Dcoetzee 03:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - A logical place to start such depictions. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 00:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Simply because the lede isn't the place for images, and putting pictures of Muhammad into sections where historical background is given of the time before his birth is non-topical at best, and pointless provocation at worst. -- DevSolar (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - most logical place to post the first such depiction. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Anthonyhcole.Griswaldo (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Anthonyhcole. -- J N  466  01:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - This is the first section where it makes sense, to me, though I wouldn't be opposed to it being in a later section.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 16:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this is an article about a person, so illustrations of a person should come before any other. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Johnbod. - Ankimai (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

f) In the "Depictions of Muhammad" section

 * First choice, as this would be an appropriate location, and with the Depictions of Muhammad link, it can direct readers to a more elaborate article about the topic, if they are so interested. My recommendation for an image here would be this one: File:Miraj_by_Sultan_Muhammad.jpg. --Elonka 00:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Very appropriate. The offense caused to many of our readers by figurative depiction/s of Muhammad in this section is regrettable but they serve an educational purpose, and should stay, per WP:NOTCENSORED. Such images in the earlier sections add nothing to the readers' understanding and, per WP:GRATUITOUS, should go. Figurative depictions under later sections covering Western reception are appropriate, as they exemplify aspects of Muhammad's reception. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support acceptable, incurs no problem.-- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 07:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Best choice. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 08:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support most appropriate, considering varied user interests. Shariq r82 (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - makes sense.... Soosim (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This would be a logical place. We should not be worrying about who will be offended when we are trying to figure out the best place to locate images in the article.  The images should simply be located in the place which makes the most sense for the article.  &mdash;SW&mdash; prattle 15:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I misunderstood this originally, and didn't realize that this was asking about the first place the image appears. The first place the image appears should be wherever it best supports the article text.  There should be no restriction on where such an image can be located.  &mdash;SW&mdash; gab 04:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support for this section; seems obvious. If we're talking about first place it appears, would prefer life section. Alexius  Horatius  16:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This is the natural place for images to first appear, and it strikes the perfect NPOV balance between illustrating this article like the one on Jesus on the one hand, which would fatally misrepresent the centre of gravity of Islamic art, and not showing any figurative images at all, which would be censorship of Shia and Western viewpoints. -- J N  466  19:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems like the most logical option here.  Agree with 466 above. Very sound reasoning, good sir. Sleddog116 (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC) (Changing support to below. Sleddog116 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC))
 * Support. Placing this type of image higher provides no additional educational or comprehension value, and fails to abide by the principle of least astonishment adopted by Wikimedia. Readers can reasonably expect to find images of Muhammad in this section that they may not reasonably expect elsewhere. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  01:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: the best solution: both relevant and appropriate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Since no available image of M. will be an actual image of him, this is the most appropriate place. Earlier sections can use locations, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose this as first use (note: it appears that some of the editors above may not fully grasp the question?): At any rate, this is an article on man's life; to limit images of that life to a tangential topic of "depictions" at the bottom of the article is censorship and bad educationally. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's not possible to square this option with NOTCENSORED. FormerIP (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as location of first image. On my wide screen this short section comes 17 screens from the top of the article, and is almost wholly filled by the single image it currently contains. I don't think everyone is understanding the question here: it's where should the first image go, not which sections should have images. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, only for images produced outside Islam Yeah. Dahn (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Most strongly oppose. This is PLAIN CENSORSHIP while trying to avoid the name, to segregate all images in to one section at the bottom of the article. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 00:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose this question on principle. If there's going to be an anthropomorphic depiction, as all relevant policy says there should be, then it's not up to a plebiscite to determine where that picture is going to go. Let editors familiar with the article and its associated topics work that out, but this article is not going to be micromanaged by the community at large. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's appropriate to exclude figurative art from the lede because Muhammad was Aniconistic, and the most educational image we can present is calligraphy.  But NPOV/NOTCENSORED still applies-- we can't confine images to the depictions section. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there is the traditional story about how Muhammad personally saved the icons of Jesus and Mary from the smashing of the idols at the Kaaba but I think I get you general point. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I doubt this section should have any images at all. Ruslik_ Zero 15:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support unlimited number of thumbnails at the end. Neotarf (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support This option correctly identifies the iconography of Muhammad as notable in itself but also of no direct historical value for the man, the subject of this article. This opinion has nothing to do with censorship; other articles with pseudo-representations might well benefit from a similar approach. Civis Romanus (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Cla68 (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Tepid support as distant second choice. I share the concerns of various editors (e.g., Alanscottwalker) who oppose this option, but I don't see it as a deal-breaker if the ultimate goal is a comprehensive, stable article. Rivertorch (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I think this would be the most reasonable place to include such images, although I don't strongly object to the other options. Robofish (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I oppose any restriction on displaying Muhammad's images. WP:NOSEE and WP:NOTCENSORED — This trivial issue is not worth a discussion. Muhammad's pictures should be used wherever it fits with the context. In an encyclopaedia, not sensitivity but verifiability along with the quality of information is what matters. :) Brendon is   here  07:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support simply because these images do not have any direct historical value, nor are they common depictions. Other articles that only have images from many years after the subject died should do the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems like the most fitting placement. Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. As per Civis Romanus' comment above.   LaTeeDa (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as second choice to e. In "life" section is the most logical, but if not there it should be in depictions (i.e. not higher than life). --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - per Jayen466 and others. The fact is that depicting Muhammed figuratively has a very special significance to this topic. Figurative depictions have a very different significance than they do to any other "ancient figure" or "religious figure" topic. The best way for us to convey this to our readers is to put the figurative depictions in this section and to discuss them accurately. And Johnbod, that means of course that the first image will obviously be here, as follows from the support votes of others also.Griswaldo (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this is an image about a person, and so a portrait of a person should be the first image. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of f)
I ask that the purpose of section f) be elucidated and made clear to all readers what they are voting on, which it currently is not, as evidenced by the current votes, and a clarification be sent to those users who have voted. Is it about segregating all images of Muhammad in to a section of their own? Or, what is it about? St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 02:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd be nervous about changing wording during the course of an RfC, but maybe "(i.e. segregating the images)" could be added. FormerIP (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Although any interested user could probably start a new option re segregation (choice f)(2)). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

g) Where an appropriate depiction illustrates an event in the text

 * Where an appropriate depiction of an event in Muhammad's life is available, it should be placed in the appropriate section that mentions that event. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Same as e), yes. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Like any other article. --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * as above Edmund Patrick – confer 07:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support acceptable, incurs no problem.-- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 07:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Same as e) yes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as being in line with all other articles and applicable no matter what future changes may occur in the article. —  FoxCE   (talk • contribs) 10:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to be the most sensible solution.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as the only option (apart from "no such image") that isn't simply arbitrary, and because it represents the way that image placement is normally done. FormerIP (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This would be a logical place. We should not be worrying about who will be offended when we are trying to figure out the best place to locate images in the article.  The images should simply be located in the place which makes the most sense for the article.  &mdash;SW&mdash; soliloquize 15:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This is how other images are treated on WP, so this page shouldn't be different. Personally, I think the above option is probably what actually fits this description (which is why I had originally supported it), but it shouldn't be an arbitrary decision. Sleddog116 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support: though it is also viable approach, the main value of these illustration is not the depiction of events, but rather the depiction of Muhammad. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Per e). Images should be placed where they are appropriate - like in any article. Regards  So Why  13:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support; per SoWhy this may give the same outcome as E, but if the article sections are re-ordered, the first appearance should be wherever we have a suitable image. cmadler (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support for images produced in the Islamic world I see no reason fro excepting this natural occurrence in the article to suit modern Wahhabi precepts. If Muslim illustrators thought it relevant enough for their version of orthodoxy, and did not burst up in flames as a result, they are historically relevant and contextually relevant. Dahn (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The same as we do with any other article, right? Well, just look at Fellatio - we don't need that many images of men being fellated. Apply images as one would apply images anywhere else on Wikipedia. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 00:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. These images are a fringe tradition from today's majority Sunni perspective, and using an image for every life event that was ever illustrated would give the book miniature painting tradition an undue weight which it does not have in reliable sources. (That's an aspect of NPOV, which arbcom specifically stated should apply here.) It would make our article conspicuously different from the mainstream literature on Muhammad, where figurative images are not used in this way. Where books on Muhammad reproduce figurative images, they do so precisely in the context of presenting them as a curiosity, or as a controversial art tradition; in other words, they are presented as part of a discussion of Islam's attitude towards figurative art. This is consistent with our presenting examples in the Depictions section, but not using them as illustrations in the Life section. Editors should not let themselves be misled by the superficial similarity between some of the images in question here, and similar images of the life story of Jesus. In the latter case, such images have been public sacred art and have fuelled the public imagination for centuries; they are archetypical. In Muhammad's case, they were restricted to the private and elite medium of book manuscripts commissioned by a ruling elite and never penetrated the public consciousness, at least not in Sunni Islam. (The one exception here may be mi'raj images in Shia Islam.)  J N  466  08:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Because, used in this way, an image adds nothing to the readers' understanding of the text being illustrated. I.e., it does no good, and repels and disaffects even moderate Muslims. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course... it goes where it compliments the text. Mohamed is said to have done X, then an associated image of the event.  Makes sense ot me.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 15:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Again this seems like a sensible way of proceeding, just like (e). Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as the most consistent with the existing Wikipedia policies. However, it should not mean that every event should have an image, because int this case the article may become overloaded with images. Ruslik_ Zero 15:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. No portrait of Muhammad exists, so the insertion of a pictorial image of him ought not be seen as an essential to the article.  As an art historian, I have a very strong objection to "non-portraits" being indiscriminately used by Wikipedians to portray historical figures as if they were portraits.  The sort of images that are abused in this way are often 19th century encyclopedic engravings, which are put into the text as "portrayals, sometimes alongs bonafide portraits from which the very same engraving has been taken.   I don't want to see a pictorial image of Muhammad shoved into the article, just for the sake of having a "portrait", because none are, in fact, portraits; they are "portrayals".  However, there are a great number of beautiful images that are illustratory and could be used within the text, if and where they truly add to the quality of the article.   In the light of this, there ought to be at least one portrayal of Muhammad within the section specifically about his portrayal, because it is right on topic.  Since the Persians have a strong and ancient tradition of portraying Muhammad, then one of these Persian portrayals ought to be included. Amandajm (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - as I said in (e) above, if a hatnote warning is not used, I'd prefer to confine such images to the Depictions section. Robofish (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Amandajm (two comments up) hit the nail on the head. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Also per Amandahm. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose in general. Just because images exist doesn't necessarily mean that they are appropriate to use. Sometimes using an image gives undue weight, and may mislead readers into thinking that the image is a standard or iconic representation, when it is not. --Elonka 21:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support same as any other article.New questions? 01:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support same as any other article on a medieval figure - if we can find images produced that illustrate events in the subjects life, it's best to use them to help reader's understanding. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Jayen466, Anthonyhcole and per my answers elsewhere (e.g. see f above). Segregating the figurative depictions to the one section on images actually conveys the topic better than not doing so. Muhammad is rarely depicted. That's a fact of history.Griswaldo (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Images should accompany appropriate text, as in any other article. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 04:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. User:Amandajm a few comments above voices my own opinion perfectly. Many historical drawings are not pinpoint accurate and should not be presented as such, but they reflect the perception of a topic in another timezone. In other words, if an image is relevant and has added value, it should be included. If an image is not directly relevant or has little added value it should not be included. I believe this stance to be valid for all article's, as i do not believe in segregating article's into different categories based on "Offensiveness", as this is at its core, just an opinion. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

h) Within the first screen (for typical displays)

 * This makes sense especially if a calligraphy is used in the infobox. Ideally, the image chosen (and possibly cropped) would then feature his unveiled face prominently.  Good raise  04:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, particularly if calligraphy is used in the infobox. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, for calligraphy only  DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support unveiled in first screen only if calligraphy or some other catering-to-superstition is used in infobox, etc. Essentially, I support exactly as Goodraise proposed it. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 00:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, for calligraphy only -- J N  466  08:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Just calligraphy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Just calligraphy. Veritycheck (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * strong oppose the only reason to have an image explicitly intended to go above the cut, isn't because it is needed, but rather to prove that "we aren't censored." The citeria should not be to prove we aren't censored, but rather what makes sense for the article.  If an image makes sense somewhere, then that is where it goes.  If it is simply above the cut to take a stand, then that is not the appropriate rationale.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 15:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC) NOTE: several of the above comments, which read "Support, just calligraphy" seem to be saying something different from how I interpret this poposition.  I read this proposition as saying, "we need to put an image of Mohamed above the Cut."  The Support Just Calligraphy comments seem to say something different.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 17:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - gratuitously offensive and unnecessary. If unveiled images of Muhammad are used, they should definitely not appear in the first screen of the article; that's a direct insult to our readers. We should keep them further down the article, preferably with a warning, thus giving the reader the choice whether or not to view them. Robofish (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Image of Muhammad should not be treated any differently from other images. Wikipedia is not an Islamic proselytising website. It is an encyclopaedia whose job is to transmit information with as much impartiality and intactness as possible sans prejudicial censorship or distortion. :) Brendon is   here  12:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral. The most important thing is that the image be relevant to the text it accompanies, not that it appear on the first screen. Dcoetzee 03:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Put calligraphy in the infobox, then a figurative image down in the "Depictions" section, and link from there to Depictions of Muhammad where the topic can be covered in more detail. --Elonka 21:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, this is an article about a person, and so the first image should be of a person. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

i) Within the second screen

 * It's appropriate to avoid depictions of Muhammad in the first screen so as to demonstrate how lovely we are towards users who might not wish to view them. But it is not appropriate to go any further in censoring the article. FormerIP (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds about right to me. Wareh (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with FormerIP. Inter  change  able  18:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: this would make if spoilers (1a, 1b) are place, but the spoilers don't make sense themselves. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is no such thing as a "screen" in HTML. We are not using dumb terminals. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

j) Within the third screen

 * Oppose. There is no such thing as a "screen" in HTML. We are not using dumb terminals. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

k) Within the fourth screen

 * Oppose. There is no such thing as a "screen" in HTML. We are not using dumb terminals. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

l) Lower down than the options given

 * Oppose. Too vague. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

m) Anywhere but the top

 * Give people a chance to avoid the images with the hatnote, and then all censorship is off. I say no restrictions as long as it's below the fold. -- Ja Ga  talk 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The RFC shouldn't micro-manage the article on a section-by-section basis. Obviously most images will be appropriate in only a few sections, but the people writing the article haven't done that bad a job in the past; they'll figure it out. Wnt (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Jaga and Wnt. Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED, and calligraphy is the best image for top. Note: This answer is contingent upon implementing at least one of the hatnotes, so unwary readers can avoid images.  If we actually force every non-tech-saavy reader to view all images, I'm less certain we'd have the moral highground. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Preferred as I believe calligraphy best fits the infobox. Placing the image so close to it would, in my opinion, nullify that choice. — CobraWiki ( jabber 07:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support acceptable, incurs no problem.-- Ankit Maity Talk <sub style="color:green;">Contribs 07:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support; but with the strong caveat that it doesn't give carte-blanche to slap images all over the place ;) There should be no restrictions on placing the images but a) editors should be cautious about using depictions (for all the reasons elucidated) and b) the images should have a clear purpose for being where they are. --Errant (chat!) 10:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I support this in principle, but as an option here it doesn't really resolve very much. "Anywhere but the top" could mean just below the top, or it could mean right at the bottom. FormerIP (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support—I agree with all the points raised here, and am happy to leave resolution of FormerIP's point to the article editors.Davidjamesbeck (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, then appropriately chosen images can be used as suitable, just like in other articles.
 * Oppose the principle Where images go they go based upon editorial content decisions, not based upon some arbitrary rules. I can understand taking consideration of peoples morales and views into consideration about the lead and first screen... but once past that point, Nah.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 15:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. We're not to micromanage editorial decisions here. Also, if calligraphy is used (which is the name of the article in a different script), top should be allowed. I also strongly oppose the hatnote, unless it's on every single article without exception. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 05:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't object to images of Muhammad (I assume we're talking about the potentially objectionable ones here, not the calligraphy) being in the article, but they shouldn't appear in the first screen. Include a hatnote or disclaimer at the top of the article and then the reader has the choice whether to view them. Robofish (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wikipedia needs to decide this, not punt it back to be argued about with a vague "decision". --Guy Macon (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Double standard for Islam articles. This would require Wikipedia to reevaluate NOTCENSORED and how we apply it. OSbornarfcontribs. 22:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose principle. It can go somewhere that is "anywhere but top," but it should be due to content reasons, and not due to wanting to offend any particular group.--New questions? 19:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - "Where an appropriate depiction illustrates an item in the text" - it doesn't have to be an event. That is the whole point of an illustration - to illustrate what is in the text. Why should this be any different? This is not an article where Islamic rules or norms apply, it is an article about an Islamic topic in a neutral and secular encyclopedia. Neutral and secular encyclopedia rules and norms apply. --Nigelj (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

n) The article should contain no such image

 * Oppose per all of this and to preserve my right to support/oppose whatever. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose cmadler (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Most vehemently opposed as per all of my above comments and endorsements. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 00:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support per my rationale to support calligraphy. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 00:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support I've stated the reasons above in both the Instructional Hatnote & Calligraphy sections. Veritycheck (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose while I can accept an argument about the lead and ability to block the images from the article, the fact that we have images from a historical perspective is enough to merit their inclusion. The issue is to find that proper balance between the need for images to convey information and respect for another community.  If we can make rationale reasoned arguments for an editorial decision that respects others while maintaining our standards, we should do so (thus my endorsement of the calligraphy) but we cannot let that override our other responsibilities to communities with different views.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 15:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not fair to the reader, history, and the literature of the subject. We owe it to the reader to show worthy art reflecting the subject. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose principle. A principle that this article should contain no such image amounts to censorship. Instead the merits or otherwise of including such images in various sections should be discussed. If the article ends up without any such image, it is matter of balance, style and editorial judgement, not principle. Geometry guy 23:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose principle. Illustratory material should be used in this uncensored encyclopedia wherever appropriate.   Since a section of the article is about the depiction of Muhammad, and because the Persians have a strong and ancient tradition of portraying Muhammad, then one of these Persian portrayals ought to be included within that section, regardless of whether there are portrayals deemed suitable to be included in other sections. Amandajm (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This would amount to censorship, given that such depictions do exist, and are relevant to the article. I support the use of calligraphy in the infobox, but for that to be the only image would not, to my mind, be appropriate to the aims and goals of wikipedia. Anaxial (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't care if not having an image on this article goes against a wikipedia policy, ultimately an image isn't going to add enormously to this article, all it's going to do is offend a fifth of the worlds population. I don't think this is unnecessary pandering to islamic sensibilities and I don't think it is hypocritical to include images on other potentially offensive articles (eg sexual articles) - I just think that being respectful is the right thing to do. Coolug (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - I'd prefer that we consider restricting such images to the 'Depictions' section. But given the controversy they cause, I wouldn't be opposed to removing them from the article altogether, if a hatnote/image blocking solution cannot be found. Robofish (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Most intensely oppose - Images may actually add enormously to the article. Besides, it's not about the enormity of the contribution of certain images, it's about the principle. It's Wikipedia's policy not to censor any type of information based on some people's preferences and prejudice. Period! Even the proposal seems absolutely appalling. Wikipedia is not here to 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  07:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose The article quality is enhanced with images and improves understanding of the subject. Belorn (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NOTCENSORED. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose WP:NOTCENSORED. OSbornarfcontribs. 22:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as images should be used to illustrate the subject of the article. // Liftarn (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose pictures are a keystone to a good article. Weissbier (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Although many of us may consider Blasphemy to be rather medieval, it must be an important consideration when being inclusive. (And inclusivity is important to Wikipedia). Institutional blasphemy (which in many ways is what this RfC is concerned with) is tantamount to systemic hate speech. I am vigorously against censorship. Wikipedia is likewise opposed to censorship. However, the determined absence of representative images of Muhammad on the article page is not censorship, as much as it is an awareness of the views and beliefs of others, for whom it is blasphemy. I may not share the views of those who belong to the Abrahamic religions, but that doesn't mean I buy into any sense of responsibility for persuading them that their views are erroneous, damaging or wrong. I believe that Wikipedia IS very much involved in advocacy (eg a demonstration and promotion of the ability of the community to provide the best, most comprehensive encyclopedia of all time using a non-commercial model), but I do not believe that Wikipedia is involved in any advocacy that promotes one set of beliefs or views or convictions over any other. There similar issues that are less well-known than the depiction of Muhammad; for instance Strafgesetzbuch_§_86a and cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verwenden_von_Kennzeichen_verfassungswidriger_Organisationen, but I don't see anyone covering german wikipedia in swastikas, or even attempting to.  The muslim community is vast and it's views should be considered seriously. I would prefer to have muslims edit and contribute happily to wikipedia than have them feel snubbed, excluded, and not listened to. Although General Comment 34, para 48 (UN Human Rights Committee) states "Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant." This is concerned with prohibition, which is something that I totally oppose. I think it's totally fine to have articles on wikipedia that do depict Muhammad, just the main article in question - and solely out of respect towards those who consider him to be the final prophet. Article 20, paragraph 2 of the convenent reads "Any advocacy [...] that constitutes incitement to discrimination [...]" and I believe that this is may be salient here. (20040302 (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC))
 * Support Every supposed image of Muhammad is entirely fanciful; we have no remotely factual depiction available. An encyclopedia does not require purely fanciful imagery; for example, the Yeti article is undiminished by failing to include some "artist's impression of what a Yeti may look like".  There is not even a historically-inaccurate-but-conventional iconography by famous artists, like the handsome bearded European Jesus of medieval painting.  So no informational content whatsoever is compromised by omitting images, because they provide none.  We can therefore accommodate the strongly-held wishes of a significant portion of the global community without compromising Wikipedia's educational mission at all. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose respect (certain) Muslim's religious objections through the hat note, not with image removal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. per not censored. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  17:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose no reason to treat this article any differently than we treat any other medieval figure. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose An article about magic is not an article in which the laws of physics no longer apply; an article about the Pope doesn't have to abide by his infallibility; this article is not subject to Islamic laws or teachings. People with strong beliefs are going to have to expect to meet people who don't hold the same beliefs, especially in a general-readership encyclopedia. --Nigelj (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. There is no good rationale for including a picture of Mohammad. It does not explain anything; there are no photographs or portraits made in his lifetime that would illustrate what he looked like. No-one knows what he looked like. And it is not useful for making the article attractive. Calligraphy is much more appropriate, because it represents the predominant way of representing Mohammad in Islamic culture. It is up to the people who want to include images to give a rationale for their inclusion, and I haven't seen that here at all. "No censorship" is not a rationale for inclusion. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - these images don't add anything to the article. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

o) This RFC should not be used to decide this matter
Alternate wording upon request: to clarify the above, we do not believe that all figurative depictions of Muhammad should be sequestered in to a specific section of the article. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 01:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I support my nomination. Such micro-management of editorial decisions is surely censorship, even more than a Muhammad-exclusive POV-fork hat-note. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 01:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I strongly concur with User:JohnChrysostom. Any limitation on the use of images of Muhammad is plain censorship. WP:NOTCENSORED :) Brendon is   here  07:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It is important to recognise that the articles in which one or more depictions of Muhammad may make sense as illustrations will be re-organised over time. As such, it makes no sense to me to try to form consensus among editors upon which sections of these articles such illustrations should first appear in. zazpot (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional discussion of question 3

 * If calligraphy is used in the infobox, it is important that the first image is not also calligraphy (regardless of where it appears). I oppose options I L and N, but the others are acceptable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with the point about calligraphy, but did you mean to type "L and N"? FormerIP (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I did. Comment now amended. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? Why does the second image have to be any specific thing?  Again, this proposal is in the vein of "we have to prove wikipedia is not censored" and that is not a valid rationale.  If it makes sense to have the second image calligraphy, then by all means use it.  Don't base our rationale for using/not using an image on the premise that we have to prove to everybody that we won't be silenced by Muslims.  That is a poor, intollerant rationale.  Use what makes sense.  Calligraphy in the lead makes sense both from an editorial/respect position... the second image is what the second image is... without dictates.  To dictate that it HAS to be a specific type of image is guess what---censorship!--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 15:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Each image has to be a specific thing. Trust me, I've tried layout options using images of no specific thing and I just can't get it to work. I also tried seeing what an image would do if I just sat back and didn't dictate to it, but that was no use either. It turns out that any given image really does have to be of something and there does have to be some form of decision as to what that is going to be. FormerIP (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you have an editorial reasoning... to which I'm open to. If there is an editorial rational reason, I'm more than willing to support... and based on what you said, I think you might have one.  I just don't want the reasoning to be to oppose censorship or something along those lines.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 17:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My point really is that it is impossible to get talk page consensus about these questions, which is the point of the RfC. If RfC participants just keep saying "do whatever is best", that's not really very helpful - it's basically just pushing editors back into the ring for another bout. It's supposed to be a binding RfC so, while there's some sense to "do whatever is best", it's not really a very practical stance to take.
 * If you want a rationale, I 'd say that actually it is about showing that we are not censored. We do this not by any special anti-censorship gesture, but just by not being censored. In any other bio article, we have a picture of the subject (if one is available) right at the top. If we are not going to do that here (I'm not saying we should, and I haven't voted for that), then the question becomes by how much do we compromise? My answer would be: by as much as is necessary to achieve an objective and no more. It isn't necessary to do any more than keep the image out of the first screen. FormerIP (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "showing that we are not censored" IMO is about the worst argument one can make. Wikipedia IS censored---BLP, N, RS, UNDUE, etc are all forms of censorship.  You can't add every rumor to ever public figure that comes along because we have editorial standards.  THAT is what should be guiding this discussion. When we say we arent censored, that is in reference to the US Government/WMF/or some outside entity.  We have plenty of rules that limit what we can/cannot say in articles and on talk pages. Editorially what is the best option/decision?  If there is a legitimate reason to editorially dictate a certain image, I'm all ears.  But to make a POINT or prove something?  No, that is the same thing as censorship---when we HAVE to do something else the otherside wins or thinks something, then that is censorship.  It's in a different direction, but it boils down to the same thing.  I suspect that an editorial argument could be made here; but to prove that we are not censored is not a compelling reason to cement this stance in stone.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 18:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "If you want a rationale, I'd say that actually it is about showing that we are not censored." — I couldn't agree more. And Biography of Living people, Notability, Reliable Source, UNDUE WEIGHT, etc are not forms of censorship [censorship as in bowdlerizing an article by expurgating relevant information even though it is supported by reliable source(s)]. They are there for other reasons like enhancing the reliability and quality of information provided, but not "censorship" based on people's sensitivities. Many detest seeing the picture of XYZ, now go hide it. If we open this pandora's box, then no pictorial information will ever be secure. And any preferential treatment to Muhammad's image or any other Image of religious significance, will intrinsically reek of downright inequality. Besides, Wikipedia is not an Islamic proselytising website. It is an encyclopaedia whose job is to relay/transmit information with as much impartiality and intactness as possible (if needed, with vivid and descriptive images) sans prejudicial censorship or distortion.<P>In an encyclopaedia sensitivity of the reader doesn't matter. What matters is verifiability. Wikipedia is not censored. :) Brendon is   here  07:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: "If we open this pandora's box, then no pictorial information will ever be secure"; this is an example of the slippery slope fallacy. Either you trust that the editors of Wikipedia will, through consensus, make wise decisions or you don't. If you do, then the pictorial information in other articles will be secure no matter what we decide here. If you don't, then you logically should also not trust them to follow any decision we make here. Either way, logic dictates that we make the decision based upon what is best for the Mohammed page, not on assumed stupidity by future editors editing other articles.


 * Re: Telling the editors of the Mohammed page to "do whatever you think is is best", there is no agreed upon "best." Multiple people who are smart, editing in good faith, and who want what is best for Wikipedia have failed to come to an agreement, which is why we are having a binding RfC. Somebody is going to have to accept that the RfC went against them and stop pushing for what they still believe is the right content. Somebody else is going to have to be gracious in victory and not gloat. And a bunch of somebodies are going to have to accept that the RfC gave them part of what they wanted but not all. These decisions need to be made here and now, so we can settle this content dispute and move on. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

@ Macon. "If you do, then the pictorial information in other articles will be secure no matter what we decide here." Macon, you're likely not considering the probable ripples of the ultimate decision on this topic. The decision on this issue will may be cited in other discussions of similar kind. Please don't mistake my enthusiasm or ardency for hate-ridden aggression. (I don't hate Muslims or anything. But at the same time I'm fed up with the demands for special treatments and concession)

"Re: "If we open this pandora's box, then no pictorial information will ever be secure"; this is an example of the slippery slope fallacy." I humbly differ with Guy macon. I was apprehensive that somebody will figure out a way to take issue with some minutiae of the phraseology I used. (Pardon my assertiveness above! It was meant to catch attention.) Please forgive me for not clarifying. I was being rhetorical. What I meant was pretty simple. if we treat Muhammad's pictures any differently from others, then there will not be any concrete rationale for displaying any other picture which some may object to. Except for the reason that Islam deserves a special treatment. I am not the only one to think in those lines (Note:I'm not trying to commit argumentum ad numerum. I'm simply implying that my thinking is not so unique as it seems. I merely summed up what others have said in different places.). Along with numerous others who've cited WP:NOTCENSORED and/or wrote something like "illogical/unnecessary exception", User:JohnChrysostom wrote - "None of our other articles are WP:CENSORED: the most notable and recognizable depictions go first. We don't censor Swastika, Holocaust (or Holocaust denial), Cunnilingus, Fisting, or Fellatio. Wikipedia caters to no other point of view, religious or not. It is not Wikipedia's job to censor images (as per the WP:DISCLAIMER) or anything else, to reinforce any form of bias or superstition. What's next, remove pictures of the cross because Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons object, remove descriptions of sex acts as immoral?", someone else above wrote, "''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?" and another editor wrote, "I propose that we remove all photographic images from Wikipedia, because Native Americans and Australian aboriginals believe that photographs steal your soul and disrespect the spiritual world." [albeit, people who I've quoted, may not share my exact opinion] Also, There are people who don't like seeing pictures of naked men and women and consider them obscene. Should we go and hide them too? There are many who hate seeing pics of XYZ, Jesus, Rama or Disputed International Borders. Should we request removal of those pics too? We should not'', because they are also part of the articles and transmit at least some kind of Information.

"Either you trust that the editors of Wikipedia will, through consensus, make wise decisions or you don't." - I have not seen the future, so I don't trust anything right now (I'm a sceptic by nature or you may indeed call me a pessimist). I can only hope that the final decision will be just. :) Brendon is   here  18:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)