Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 7

message: The second paragraph of Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#"But doesn't this offend Muslims?" appears to be interpreting religious texts.  This does not appear to conform to WikiPedia's Neutral Point of View, which (to my understanding) purposefully avoids such behavior.  Think of this from Islam's perspective; an encyclopedia has no right to judge what is or is not mandated by religion.  Rather, an encyclopedia reports neutral facts from reliable sources.  I would argue that this is "original research," especially given its lack of a citation. Adam KatzΔtalk 19:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, I believe this is actually pretty easily citable from press coverage surrounding this brew-ha-ha.  I can try and dig it up. WilyD 19:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've picked out a less significant portion of my argument.  The point is that WikiPedia cannot construct an argument using an interpretation of a religious law while also stating that the site's policies dictate ignoring that law.  Do not justify it within Islamic parameters; all that does is upset people.  Justify it by referencing the portion(s) of WP:NPOV that prohibit bias towards (or against) religion.  The fact that this interpretation is also controversial only makes things look worse, and the lack of citation is icing on the cake, since the last thing WikiPedia wants it to look like it is telling religious leaders how to interpret their own religion. -- Adam KatzΔtalk 22:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV only applies to article content anyways - not policies, talk pages or the like.  For what it's worth, NPOV is not NPOV - ironic, perhaps, but there it is.  WilyD 12:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiPedia should not interpret Islamic law 

message: please remove the pics of Muhammad as it greatly hearts the feelings of Muslims.
There is a petition signed by thousands of peoples for removal of these pics  
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia
:We've seen it... petitions like that have no bearing around here. Jmlk17 22:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the text of this petition: "In Islam picture of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and other Humans are not allowed. ... I request all brothers and sisters to sign this petitions so we can tell Wikipedia to respect the religion and remove the illustrations." It seems the request is to take all pictures of humans - not just Muhammad - off Wikipedia? - Brian Kendig (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry but is that a threat? Wikipedia is not a Muslim institution. Sharia law has no authority over the type of content Wikipedia should or should not include. Fsjonsey (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Our right to violate the principles of any religion is guaranteed by international law and the law of the State of Florida. -jsnx (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: And this is justifies the removal of the images how?Fsjonsey (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Plenty of people depict Jesus, an important religious figure in Christianity, and no one has a picture of him, or even know if he existed. I don't see any Christians complaining...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.62.117.130 (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Signed it. -jsnx (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: No you hurt yourselves, if you don't like the pictures then don't look. (Hypnosadist) 08:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Give up. It's not going to be changed, that much is obvious. It's not going to be changed because this is (hopefully) a pure source of knowledge, as opposed to something that pander's to everyone's opinion. Do you think we should get rid of the article on Jesus suggesting he was the son of god because you don't agree with it? Or should we remove the article on the Torah because the Bible says 'you shall have no god but me', or even, shall we remove all pictures of women not wearing burkas because they are not meant to be seen? This sort of censorship is bad for people, and it shouldn't be allowed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.247.80 (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be civil and don't tell users to "give it up". Most don't know policy and should have it kindly explained to them. gren グレン 23:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand your concern for civility, but I think it should be obvious that if they are all the way down here in the thread, they really don't want to "have it kindly explained to them." They know what's up. They just want to have it their way. Or else. Vanderleun  —Preceding comment was added at 23:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At the same time, even "all the way down here", each protester has remained polite and respectful.  It is only fair to reply with the same level of respect.  We can inform each user that our policies forbid this with the same level of respect. Resolute 00:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I am not aware of any requirement that you need to view the Muhammad article, however.  The content disclaimer states that objectionable material exists on this project.  Knowing that this article contains content you find objectionable, you also have the options of accepting it and ignoring it, or avoiding this article in favour of less contentious material. Resolute 01:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: ...we can't avoid the page alltogether [sic] You may not wish to avoid wikipedia altogether because of this one article, but you certainly may treat it just as you would a porn site. Or, alternatively, you may wish to simply avoid this article...I suspect you already practice avoidance of certain areas of wikipedia (this is an assumption on my part, but given your stated aversion to porn sites, I doubt that it would take very long to find several articles that contain content offensive to you.) A third option: you may disable display of the images if they are offensive to you, so you need not even avoid this article in particular. In any case, it's clear to me that you value wikipedia, and I would argue that the policies that allow display of these images contribute greatly to the very aspects of the site that you value so much. Severoon (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hurt Feelings

message: Please remove the images. There are so many things censored by wikipedia already for instance, wikipedia agrees to US FED and calls conspiracy "conspiracy" not the "truth". So, why you should create unrest in 1.7 billion population of this world ? Wikipedia please remove it.
:I think the significant thing here is that the images of the prophet Muhammed are described as "depictions" and therefore reflect one person's (or possibly a group's) interpretation of Muhammed's image. While the images may well not be an accurate likeness there's little doubt that the images on Wikipedia are duplicates of real documents - i.e. while the image itself may not be true to life, the image itself definitely does exist - and Wikipedia is simply duplicating the image for historical / research reasons.  On that basis, I'd say that there's little distinction between references to "conspiracy theories" on the one hand and "depictions" of real-life events on the other: conspiracies can be embellished, and so can drawings. As a case in point, the article on the Roswell UFO incident includes a copy of the front cover of The Roswell Daily Record claiming "RAAF captures flying saucer on ranch in Roswell region." The image caption makes no suggestion that the "UFO" capture is a conspiracy theory, or that the report was refuted by officials. However, the image is included on the Wikipedia page none the less. Obviously there's little chance that the Roswell image I mention would cause offense, but your argument for removal of the images of Muhammed doesn't directly address that issue, so neither have I. Dolph (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You insist Wikipedia already censors things -- please point to one. --Mhking (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: What about people like myself who find it insutling that you would try to force your will on us in this manner? I am quite sure there are many who feel insulted by the very existence of the petition, yet we realize we must live with it. You should do the same.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jspugh (talk • contribs) 20:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: You haven't pointed out what part of the Loose Change article is censored.  The article describes the claims of the film and also describes criticisms of the film.  Censorship would be if it intentionally failed to do either. StellyWelly (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Creating Unrest

message: Hello all, quite a heated discussion going on here, so I thought I might also contribute toward this
.
I have scanned through the posts above and I noticed one important thing missing from the discussion. The Muslims, though they stress repeatedly that they are offended by the images, fail to tell us WHY are the images offending. It may initially seem strange that Muslims love and respect their Prophet and yet, they refuse to see a depiction of him. I am here to answer that question, and this is from my personal experience:
While going through my mail, I came across an email with a link to that petition mentioned above. Instead of clicking on that link, I decided to visit wikipedia, and see it for myself. I saw the pictures, and I won't lie here, my love for the Prophet (Peace be upon Him) was rejuvenated. Given the complete ban on pictures of the Holy Prophet through the ages, it is not everyday that you get to see a depiction of him, whom you happen to love and respect so much. I also began to wonder why was it that seeing a depiction of Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) was considered taboo. Shallow, everyday Muslim as I am, I began to look for explanations on websites else where. And I came to this conclusion:
It was with a beating heart and reverence and anticipation that I clicked the link to the pictures, and it is for precisely the same reason that such pictures are taboo. You see, I had directed my reverence toward the picture and became all solemn and prepared before clicking on the first link. Our Prophet (Peace be upon Him) considered (at least by Muslims ;) ) to be a wise man, had foreseen this, when he put a ban on pictures of himself. It is not long before pictures lead to statues, and reverence is directed towards the statue (made of stone that can, by itself, neither harm nor benefit) and I find myself kneeling in front of the Prophet's statue. “Anti”-idol worship is one of Islam's core values. And this thing leads to precisely, idol worship, reverence to a mere depiction of the real thing.
So my Muslim friends, (and ancestors, and the Prophet [Peace be upon Him] himself) afraid of these consequences have to abstain from looking at such depictions. For secular minds, and those who are not Muslims, I find no reason at all why they should not see these pictures.
It is therefore a reasonable demand that a “fork” be created with links to picture-less page and another with pictures. Like someone stated above, this would give “anti-porn” people a reason to censor porn-related material as well. But those who are offended by porn are not likely to visit those pages. On the other hand, Those offended by the pictures on the Muhammad page, ( i.e. Muslims) are the main visitors to that page.
I hope that you see reason and logic. If you do not find the above reasoning to be sound and logical, by all means, you have all right to keep those pages. None of the servers hosting wikipedia are in a Muslim country, and so we have no right to be forcing our decision on you.
Regards,
Hammad Fauz Akhwand
GIKI, Topi, Pakistan.
:That was a very respectful post - to Muslim and non-Muslim communities and to wiki-policy as well. As a Christian, I too am opposed to iconography and the overt display of the Christ in the church because it seems to emphasize a reverence for the depiction rather than the Man. However, my own reverence for Christ Himself is so deep that I am never tempted to replace the image of Him for the essence of Him. How He appeared is simply irrelevant. However, I am in no way opposed to any depictions of Him whatsoever. I believe representations of Him and various events of his life help us to recognize the reality of His existence and the things through which He went. They are also useful tools for eductaing children who cannot yet read the Scripture. So on one hand I understand the opposition to iconography, but on the other hand I do not see how the existence of an image must immediately imply the existence of iconography. As a matter of policy, Wikipedia cannot present its information in a way to prevent offense or show preferential treatment to any people group. Believe me, there are many things that I feel are unnecesary or offensive - but I also recognize that those same things are accurately described when coming from someone who does not share my beliefs. As such, I must accept the presence of things which may misrepresent me or my beliefs, but know that those misrepresentations do not in any way change who I am. In the same way, the existence of things which many in the Muslim community wish did not exist (whether it be history, sects, or depictions - just as there are for nearly every religion), does not negate their existence - nor does it define those individuals. Hopefully, others will be as open-minded, respectful, and thoughtful about their own beliefs and how it relates to others and this wiki as you have been. BobertWABC (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, Wikipedia is freely licensed, and anyone who so wishes can set up any kind of fork they like, per m:Right to Fork.  The software used for Wikipedia, MediaWiki, is also licensed the same way, so one can duplicate the software to set up a collaboratively edited encyclopaedia.  Similarly, Citizendium may be of interest, which censors articles to be "family friendly", and many other such wiki-based encyclopaedia projects exist.  21:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This is the most constructive thing I've seen. A fork would be easy to achieve, and it would take almost no effort to filter out any pictures thought to be offensive. That way everyone can choose whether they see the pictures or not. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons...please read till the end 

message: Muhammed (PBUH) said there should be no depictions of him because he didn't want this to lead to people worshiping false idols.  
So you could do one of two things.  Look at the pictures, appreciate the artwork and interpretation of Muhammed (PBUH) or DON'T look at them, fight the temptation and understand the message behind the rules.
I feel religious people follow the rules too harshly without thinking about WHY they were made.  Can you Muslims not look at a picture of Him without worshipping it?  Muhammed (PBUH) didn't want you worshipping false idols, so don't let these pictures lead you to worshipping them.
You are all clearly offended by them, maybe as a way to protect yourself from worshipping them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasheeke (talk • contribs) 21:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe Allah is just testing you all 

message: We as concerned citizens must support reason and stop Muslim, Christian, Hindu and any other religious extremists from censoring creativity, the documentation of history and the organization of information. Uphold free expression, creativity, pictorial communication and reason and don't kowtow to religious imposition and oppressive agendas or to threats from religious extremists.
If this was a situation regarding a communication, pictorial in this matter, that is ridiculously and unreasonably inaccurate and contrary to the currently available and reasonably collected factual and realistic evidence and therefore is a manipulative lie that is offensive and taunting - such as portraying a person, in this case this rumored Mohammad, in a recreation of mythological/historical events contrary to evidentiary material that has been collected in a reasonable and factual process, then Wikipedia and any other truth seeking organization should remedy the inconsistencies to bring their content into accordance with as much factual and realistic evidence as is currently available and not act in a manner that is distorting and manipulating of information if they wish to be viewed as an organization attempting to build a reliable and reason pursuing resource.
However, if and when a religion is attempting to censor a picture that simply attempts to realistically recreate and display history, in a reasonable, proportionate manner that is consistent with as much reasonably collected factual and realistic evidence and research data as is currently available and is consistent with historical descriptions and like embodied and dressed people of the era, such as the picture in question seems to be, then removing the communication, picture, in question becomes a matter of religious imposition.
JoeyNice (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop religious extremists from censoring creativity, the documentation of history and the organization of information 

message: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/05/technology/wiki.php
From what I can tell, this is an opinion that was started by a few, a minority. If we are to pull these images, then we must pull ALL religious images from Wikipedia. The Catholic Church went on a quest to kill the printing press because they felt that people having a printed copy of their own bible threatened their very existence. Where are we centuries later? The Church still lives on... The Muslim faith will live on and so will it's people.
I think it's ironic that no one is suppose to post pictures of said prophet but on the news, in Muslim countries, there are images or burned bodies, bombings, and war. Israel is called "occupied territory". I think it's obscene how people, especially women, are treated in middle eastern countries, but you don't see me jumping up and down posting petitions and such on Wikipedia do you?
I think it's time to get over it. I think it's time to move on and start addressing real issues, like a president creating false pretexts for wars that are unjust. For millions affected by genocide because we're too busy chasing non-existent weapons in foreign lands in which we own ourselves. I think it's time to accept that we can't control the whole world.
We have a saying here: sweep your doorstep before trying to clean mine!!! Kmac1036 (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Then we must remove them all... 

message: I'm sure some of this has been said before on this page. I haven't read the entire thing and I don't plan to; I don't have that kind of time. However, from what I've seen and read during vandalism patrol the past few days (this page has shown up in my review queue a lot), I think I can offer an opinion.
Let me start with this: Wikipedia is not censored. Images and text that would be offensive to some, or even most, people are all kept because the purpose of the project is to build an encyclopedia. Some areas of the world find nudity offensive, yet Wikipedia has many pictures depicting the subject, posted on articles that could be found and viewed by children. Are those removed? Nope. We have photos of tragic disasters, also not censored. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not meant to be "politically correct" in any way, shape, or form. The very concept of an encyclopedia editable by anyone is not currently "correct" in today's culture, though that seems to be slowly changing.
In light of this uncensored-ness, why should we remove pictures that offend one religious group in the world? Majorities and minorities are by no means meant to be used as a sole argument, but in addition to the fact that we don't censor articles, the 1.5 or 1.9 or whatever billion Muslims in the world are not the majority. I don't mean offense by that in any way; it just doesn't seem right, in the context of an educational work, to let the views of one group detract from the rest of the world's ability to learn about them.
Also, having looked through some of the images included in the article, the ones I saw are artistic in nature, and were likely created for purposes of decoration. If they can be displayed in a mosque or in a home (I'm guessing at the latter), why can't they be displayed here? Why weren't they destroyed before they could be digitized, if they're really so offensive?
Further, the article actually states that visual depictions of Muhammad are prohibited in Islam. While I can respect that taboo, the very next paragraph contains a statement art works were generally restricted to secular contexts, with a reference to a more in-depth article which I have just scanned. Wikipedia, as I've mentioned again and again, is an educational work, not religious, and by the definition of the word secular is exactly that. Wide rejection of the images by Muslims is not, in my mind, enough reason to censor Wikipedia.
So those are my thoughts on the matter. If you post a direct response to them, please let me know on my talk page; thanks! Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 03:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there, you sound like a reasonable and logical person and really interested to know the "reason" behind the request to remove these images. That's good - let's sensibility prevail. You, and others who want to know the "scholalrly" argument for removing the picture, please refer to the posting titled An imaginary image should only be added to an article if the image has wide acceptance as a reasonable representation of the subject on this page. Please have some patience to read the discussion on that posting in full and let me know your opinion. If you can convince me my argument there is wrong and my proposal is unacceptable, I'll agree with you on keeping these images. Arman (Talk) 03:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why should we remove them? 

message: I think we should proceed in the same way as Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy did two years ago, after four straw polls, by moving discussion about the inclusion of images to a subpage, similar to Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments/Image-Display, adding a CSS hide option as described at the top of the page here, and block any editors that remove the images without discussion for disruption, as shown here.  Nakon 23:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I wonder where has this been discussed before... 

message: I am not Muslim, so therefore I can't fully understand the emotions involved in the area of displaying the imagery of Muhammed. However, I am a Christian and christianity, like many other belief systems has seen it's fair share of people who couldn't care less if they offend me or not. But you know what? Those people have EVERY RIGHT to express there opinion EVEN IF that expression offends me. For me to try and dictate to the rest of the world that they MUST respect my beliefs and adhere to my guidelines and restrictions is not only wrong it's EXTREMELY inconsiderate and offensive to those who don't share my views. When christians try to witness there beliefs and practices to the world many times they are met with opposition and told "don't try to push your beliefs down my throught". Are not the Muslims doing that very thing in this situation? If not, why not?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twiztidstr8 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if you try and take Jesus to the unbelievers you will probably get the same reception he did Shniken1 (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not pratice tolerance? 

message: I think it is absolutely absurd that there are Muslims on here who are offended. I have many Muslim friends and they all agree with me that those who are outraged are not real adults and must be under the age of 15. I, as a Christian, have been offended by many photos of Jesus playing basketball and other remarks about him. I understand they are on the internet and I just simply do not view them. So from a real adult to those who claim to be ones, just move on with your life and stay away from this page. Don't you have other things to worry about like taking care of your family and making a living like real adults do? Azwethinkweizm (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, weirdo.. maybe they dont understand history of Muslim. There are illustration of Muhammad since era of Baghdad, Seljuk, even Mughal. Mimihitam (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: "People in the up-to-20 age bracket don't remember, and may be seriously surprised to know that these pictures exist." That why we created this encyclopedia. (Hypnosadist) 14:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "That why we created this encyclopedia" See, I didn't know that. But it should be a useful side effect. No need to convince me that the pics can and should stay... Azate (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you complain, you are not an adult 

message: There are 46 Mohammad pages in other languages that do not have the pictures.  And many of them are just stubs that could use a lot more pictures.  Instead of complaining, you could always go to those pages and add more to their articles: Arabic, Aragonese, Asturian, Bangladeshi, Bashkir, Bosnian, Breton, Catalon, Dhivehi, Estonian, Greek, Gujarati, Korean, Hawai'i, Hindi, Ido, Bahasa Indonesian, Interlingua, Hebrew, Javanese, Georgian, Kazakh, Kurdi, Latvian, Malayam, Malay, Mongolian, Pangasinan, Sanskrit, Scottish, Albanian, Sicilian, Simple English, Slovenian, Serbian, Serbo-Croatian, Sundanese, Tagalog, Telugu, Thai, Turkish, Urdu, Yiddish, Chinese, Zazaki, Chechen.  Most need a lot more work done.  Note that I have not linked each.  My HTML-fu is too weak to link each one.  Plus if you speak the language already you would be able to figure out which link on the left to click on.  Rebelyell2006 (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited by myself: Whoops! I found some spelling errors.  Corrected.  And I will try to add some links later. Rebelyell2006 (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion for those that do not like the page with the pictures: 

message: Islamic law prohibits images of their prophet. But Wikipedia has no images per se, only image files--stacks of data that're useless without a client to interpret and display them. Your computer connects to Wikipedia's server, downloads an image file, and then creates an image on your monitor according to the data in an otherwise inert and meaningless file. The people guilty of creating Muhammad's graven image are the site's own angry visitors, every time they load the page. I think the main problem is this social perception of "cyberspace": the supposition that images and data exist in a way that's spatially independent of your computer. As if somewhere in the world right now, there's a gleaming digital wall named Wikipedia with a picture of Muhammad scribbled on one side.--Jackalmonkey (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning electronic images 

message: Would people find it acceptable to remove the embedded images but put a link to a wider, assorted collection of images right at the top of the article?  This removes the possibility of accidentally running across an image of the Prophet for Muslims and at the same time does not in any way reduce the usefulness of the Wiki tool.  If anything, it expands it.
Admittedly, I anticipate that those who want to demand the political right to troll Muslims freely won't like this, but after reading the NPOV page, it seems to me as if it's clear that this place tries as much as possible to avoid either making a political statement for or against censorship, and that part of being neutral in that regard is not taking a side in that debate insofar as it is possible at all.  So, why not create a prominent link for all the current images (and a few more!) in the Muhammad article and remove them from the Muhammad page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.173.50 (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: or a warning at the top would be sufficient.. such as pictures to follow then a link to a text only page if one desires. -24.60.24.39 (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this doesn't send the signal of reasonable accomodation that outright linking them does.  There's nothing at all lost to Wiki's encyclopedic mission by putting the same images (if not more) on a prominent link on the page; there's no reason why we can't have this cake and eat it too other than the deeply rooted political knee-jerk of the Western ethical tradition that includes freedom of speech but not freedom from offense.  These are value judgments, and they totally unnecessarily introduce more POV considerations than necessary into the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.173.50 (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Why not compromise by not viewing the photos on the page?  Every single one of you can set your browsers to do this, with no need for Wiki to do anything at all.  This is NOT about reasonable accomodation, this is about imposition of wills, namely YOURS.  And WHERE WILL IT END???  First Wikipedia, then CNN.   75.169.140.128 (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: What you are saying would be more reasonably done by forking the page.  This may not be prefered, but you can create an english page for Muslims who are offended, and for the rest of english speakers.  At the top of the page, you could provide a link to the censored page for those Muslims who may be offended so that they can still view the article without the pictures.  I feel that would be an appropriate compromise, but I personally do not wish to see the main page censored. rmosler (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A POV fork would never be supported by the community.  Resolute 22:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A censored folk page such as described by rmosler would last about 4 or 5 minutes before it was Speedy-db'd out of existance - it would be a waste of time (althought I appreciate the spirit behind the idea). --Fredrick day (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: i like the idea of a link to the images on another page. this way people who find the images offensive can read the article in peace, and don't have to follow the said link. But whether the images remain embedded in the article or not, i think that the article should say that some muslims find the pictures offensive. Or does it already? I haven't found. --Jerome Potts (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A compromise? 

message: While trying to avoid rehashing the above, this is Wikipedia. It is not governed under Sharia law, it may offend some people, is isn't censored, and is one of the top 10 sites on the Internet. The vast majority of the pleas here are "remove the images because they are offensive to Islam/me/Allah". It's well-established that that isn't happening. So rather than saying that, please consider finding a reason in Wikipedia's policies why they should be removed, and quote it. Who knows, people might agree? Stifle (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's Wikipedia, not... 

message: Don't like it? Either adblock the images or go start Islampedia. This crap about the images being offensive is a load of garbage, as I can attest to from my time in Egypt. Plenty of public images of the dude there. 
You IPs can post all you like, but the fact of the matter is, Wikipedia isn't censored and it isn't politically correct. 
Furthermore, this website is not under Sharia law, and it's never ever going to be. Jtrainor (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The images should stay regardless of objections 

message: this is hitting the real world threshold --      . We have created :Category:Wikipedia articles for less. Let's have a Depictions of Muhammad on Wikipedia article and move the entire mess there: and hope this will take some heat off this talkpage. dab (𒁳) 15:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this should become an article in and of itself. (Hypnosadist) 17:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: You left out the NYTimes article.  But, it's not there yet.  So far most of the articles have been minor backpage ones in the major press.  It definitely needs more time to ripen... if it does... gren グレン 21:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  to article space 

message: You know, like they do on Forums and such.  "Warning, this page contains artistic representations of the Prophet Muhammed, which certain interpretations of Islamic Law deem offensive.  If you follow such interpretations, it is strongly recommended that you either do NOT continue browsing this page, or that you turn off images in your browser and reload the page before continuing."
That way, all individuals are FREE to follow their own Consciences in this matter, rather than forcing the issue one way or the other!
:Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles.  The community frowns on the use of spoilers, aside from the five general disclaimers, of which the content disclaimer is one, and warns that this site contains content that some may find offensive.  Like anything else on the internet, you use Wikipedia at your own choice and risk. Resolute 22:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a "Spoiler" Warning? 

message: There's some confusion here about why these images are important. Let me try to clarify: this article is not about Islam, though it obviously must touch on that topic. This article is about a historical figure who was easily one of the most influential in the last 2000 years. As such, Wikipedia considers art related to the subject to be pertinent. No one is trying to claim that the art in question is not controversial. No one is trying to claim that this is the sort of depiction that Muslims might prefer. The only claim here is that the elements of this article are relevant to the historical figure that we're covering. That's all.
Now, on to my proposal. I'd like to suggest that the lead image be removed. It doesn't add much. It causes the infobox to be pushed down, it doesn't even depict Muhammad's face. It's not the most common representation seen in the modern world. Rather, I think the later images which have contextual use in illustrating the parts of the article that they go with are of value and should remain. If Muslims are offended by this, then I suggest that they gain access to the appropriate tools and block the images as suggested elsewhere in more detail. -Harmil (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An immodest proposal 

message: THE PICTURE SHOULD BE REMOVED ASAP. THIS IS VERY DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THE MUSLIMS. I WILL MAKE SURE I MAKE A GROUP ON FACEBOOK AND WILL GET ALOT OF PEOPLE TO BOYCOTT WIKIPEDIA IF THE PICTURES ARE NOT REMOVED ASAP.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.77.198 (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's irrelevent if it is endorsed by Muslims, this is a secular site that does not apply islamic thinking to our ways of working - you can check our policies by clicking on the help tab on the left of your screen. --Fredrick day (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Please explain then (not you, Fredrick day, but anyone who protests) why there are no complaints regarding any and all depictions of Jesus or otherwise... -- RaspK FOG (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because even though there's a graven images clause in the Bible, Christians have not made a stink about images. The more down-to-the-point question is... Which set of laws does Wikipedia follow? My understanding is that the rule of law in Wikipedia is derived from Common Law, not any particular religious law set.Filmore (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please remove the picture of Muhammad 

message: Jmlk17 has bolded the note, so it is clear now. I appreciate addition of this note greatly. If someone gets offended by the images can know about this and avoid reading the article. Great! I have personally no more objection to this. Thank you very much. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So do we now put disclaimers on all articles that contain images some might find offensive, e.g. group sex, vulva, penis? Pairadox (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have written about the distinction above (e.g. those who get offended by those are unlikely to visit those articles etc). We will discuss the issue if it comes up. Since it hasn't come up yet, it is unlikely to come up in the future (i.e. a huge number of people who get offended by pornography decide to visit a related article and start complaining)--Be happy!! (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems as if it is the best temporary solution for the time being at least... Jmlk17 02:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If you go to the article on "penis", you expect to see a picture of a penis. However, many Muslims would not expect to see a picture of Muhammad in the article about Muhammad. That's the difference. DS (talk) 02:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They would if they came here because someone told them there were pictures of Muhammad in the article.144.118.202.163 (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: This situation is reasonably unprecedented — realistically, we cannot expect this to abate any time soon, and keeping the article fully protected indefinitely is not a reasonable or appropriate solution.  I suggest the following solution:
* Semiprotect the article indefinitely.
* Waive the three revert rule on this page with respect to restoring the consensus version of this page, with respect to the images.
This may sound controversial, but there is a previous situation in which it was settled upon as appropriate.  (See the "exceptions" provision of WP:3RR with respect to the Gdansk/Danzig vote).  Note that this suggestion does not define what the "consensus" version of this page is, with respect to images — consensus can change, and this suggestion takes that into account.
In any case, before we move forward with this, I'd like to get some input from other posters here.  What do you think?  --Haemo (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Quite frankly, fuck the Danzig vote.  Our current practices work well enough with indef semi-protection (which is necessary for far more than just image issues - take a look at the last time this page was unprotected) and although we're in a bit of a surge now, it'll pass - there's no need for alarmism.  WilyD 22:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * I think that indef semiprotection is inevitable. But I'm not opposed to Haemo's second notion. Comparing to the practice over at Rage Against The Machine (nude image in PMRC protest section), that has been the effective practice. Revert anyone removing the images who has not concretely changed the previous consensus. Doesn't seem that controversial to me, or something that needs cementing in a "guideline" type thing. It's just common sense in the context of our standing policies on content and conflict resolution. VanTucky 00:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Indef semi-protection is already the status quo.  Take a look at the logs. WilyD  —Preceding comment was added at 00:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I know it has been. I'm saying it should continue indefinitely unless events change significantly. VanTucky 02:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Err, it will unless anyone can present a plausible argument why we should change (and really, then it'd have to be indef full protection).  This brew-hah-hah will blow over soon enough. WilyD 14:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't see anything wrong with this proposal; I suggested the same thing on ANI, but some seem to think the current level of disruption is unmanageable. I don't see that at this point, though. -- tariqabjotu 03:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems sensible enough. I can think of a direct parallel: Republic of Macedonia, which I keep a close eye on. It's indefinitely semi-protected to deal with hit-and-run vandalism from anonymous editors (mostly Greeks, unfortunately) and it has to be reverted fairly often to resolve abusive edits from accounts that have been used often enough to get around the new user restrictions. It works fairly well in practice and helps to reduce the problematic editing to manageable levels. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: support. This seems to be a necessary proposal, considering the circumstances. Yahel Guhan 04:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for a solution 

message: Why was this deleted from the Mohammed page. It is 1 of the most important paragraphs, for all Muslims and Mohammed followers. It is also in the Qu'ran I request you to put this paragraph back up as it is important. It is important for people who are strong devotees to Mohammed.
--99.238.7.180 (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The information was decided to be chronologically merged into other sections. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for reference purposes, the anon's comment refers to this edit by Aminz, on 3 February, 2008. I feel the edit summary is an explanation in itself. Green Giant (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important information deleted 

message: Hello Everyone,
The murder of Muhammad by Zainab Bint al-Harith is quite interesting, yet no mention is made of his murder on Wikipedia, only of his death. Also the circumstances around Muhammad's death seem avoided. 
Do you think it would improve the Wikipedia reading on Muhammad to say more about his murder?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdzuber (talk • contribs) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if it was Zainab Bint al-Harith. Please find a reliable source for that. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death (murder) of Muhammad 

message: Why do we need both images in the Seal of the prophets section? It smushes the text awkwardly. I don't know enough to know whether they are both essential. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  an image question unlike all others! 

message: While some followers of Islam may be offended by these historic images of the prophet, members of others religious traditions, no less worthy of dignity and respect have had to contend with artwork, editorials, and dipictions that are often considered offensive by its' followers. Case in point, the frequent depictions of Jesus Christ in art, displayed in public arenas that can be considered offensive. Freedom of expression is part of this nations founding principles. If followers of Islam wish to inculturate, they will need to be more tolerant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.63.16.28 (talk • contribs) 
:The word you are looking for is "aculturate."  Anyway, the point here isn't of the extremely vague notion of "god-given" rights or "American" practice.  I don't know freedom of speech is uniquely American since it is a concept borrowed from Europe.  Regardless, this is about Wiki policy and getting people to understand how Wiki works. --Veritas (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should also be noted that "freedom of expression" is not a god given right on Wikipedia.  As a private enterprise, Wikipedia actually has the right to determine what information it hosts as it sees fit.  For the most part, the determination on this is left to the community, and the community has overwhelmingly decided not to practice censorship in cases such as this. Resolute 20:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedom of expression is a God-given right...and an American practice that is sacred. 

message: I've protected this page again due to edit warring. We now need to come to a conclusion as to how we solve this dispute. It's only fair that both editors and readers are able to be involved in discussion for an amicable compromise. I am considering creating a discussion page, that can be directed to from the main Muhammad page so readers and editors are able to express their views, and we can work through the issues as a collaborative. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that what this page is? Avruchtalk 21:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to suggest more of a community RfC and try and draw in readers. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It's premature to conclude this isn't just a temporary surge associated with the Times article and the petition spam - try giving it a bit of time to wear off. WilyD 21:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that 100,000 potential readers have signed a petition saything they don't want these images here, we should listen to these concerns and attempt to work through the issues with them. We are here to create an encyclopedia for our readers - we should listen to their concerns. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you plan to change the policy on Wikipedia censorship, the views of 100, 100,000 or 100,000,000 would-be censors don't matter in the least. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Also see WP:CONEXCEPT - even if the discussion for this article were somehow to arrive at the consensus that Wikipedia should be censored in this one case, the broader consensus on WP:NOTCENSORED would and should prevail.  --DachannienTalkContrib 22:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Bowing to mob justice is not in the interest of our readers either.  The concerns have been listened to numerous times, and rejected numerous times.  A silly internet petition site isn't really going to change this, I don't think. Resolute 22:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Ditto with the above two. The deletion of the images from the article to appease them is simply not an option. If we were inserting images of Muhammad all over the article just to offend people, that would be questionable, but these images (created by Muslims, no less!) are clearly serving an educational, historical purpose. The people (which, by the way, I don't believe truly amounts to 100,000 in support of deletion) signing this petition that ultimately says their cultural sensibilities ought to trump all others need to get over it -- both here and in the real world. There are a lot of things on Wikipedia that offend people, and we should not be kowtowing to this contingent any more than we submit to others. Those against the images are free to comment here, and those here seem open to the idea of a mini-notice, but the real disruption is coming from people removing the images from the article and failing to express any interest in working this out on the talk page. Raising the single-purpose meatpuppetry and lowering the anti-disruption efforts to "edit warring" is incomprehensible. . Thus, I do not understand, again, why this article keeps getting protected and many of the meatpuppets are left unblocked; we get, by far, less disruption from these editors (which can easily be blocked) than we get on Today's Featured Article (which just about always remains w/o semi-protection) -- tariqabjotu 22:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It could just as easily be 30 computer science students in Tehran. Avruchtalk 22:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would support a discussion.  I also agree that we should listen to concerns that have been expressed by thoughtful people, even if those people are not necessarily "Wikipedians."  Though Wikipedia does run by consensus, sometimes I think we get a bit too focused on making decisions just among the regulars here, without taking into account the opinions of the more occasional users.  Where it's clear that "the outside community" has a strong feeling that is different from our internal discussions, we should do our best to listen, and consider if we can work harder to find a consensus that satisfies all parties. --Elonka 22:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, if we bend to mob rule here - where does it stop? --Fredrick day (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I hope, Elonka, you're not suggesting that "the outside community" has a strong feeling that is different from our internal discussions. Just because there isn't a 100K-signature petition for these images does not mean there aren't 100,000 people for them. In fact, I think we can all agree that there most certainly are 100,000 people (and many, many, many more) that are okay with these images. -- tariqabjotu 23:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected and suggestion 

message: I would like to request a new Wikipedia Policy 
Any article that significantly contributes to tension between the west and Islam should be altered to prevent this tension
we can name the policy WP:COMMONSENSE 
and it would trump all other policies.
:Wikipedia:There is no common sense Nakon 23:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: you will need to persuade the rest of the community that your actions improved the encyclopedia. The current consensus is that Wikipedia is not censored, were it for minors, muslims, or Star Trek fans. -- lucasbfr talk 11:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I doubt that this policy would gain anything near a consensus.  Wikipedia is not "the west".  Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 11:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Wikipedia Policy 

message: It seems a bit strange to me, but who painted the images of Muhammed to begin with? Was it Muslims or Non-Muslims? If it isn't proper to have an image of him then who painted the pictures?--Twiztidstr8 (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, at least one of the images identifies an artist, but it appears to be the case all four images used where produced by Muslims. WilyD 22:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Specifically, the lead image was made by Nakkaş Osman. WilyD 22:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: They were all produced by Muslims.  While they were obviously not created to be insulting they were created in a time without vast amounts of communication so such images weren't globally accepted or known about.  They are minority views. gren グレン 23:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who painted the images of Muhammed to begin with? 

message: In the case of this article, when we have sleeper accounts being used to solely remove images, in the face of a blatant consensus against it, I would like to know what other administrators (and editors, although they can't implement the second template) think of:
*User:Daniel/MHI
*User:Daniel/MHII
I would never normally do this per WP:BITE. However, the following factors make me think that we should:
*These are sleeper accounts (per the semi-protection) with a single purpose
*They are edit warring against a blatantly clear consensus
*They will have been warned about the consensus before being blocked
*The constant reverts against consensus have resulted in protections, which mean that the encyclopedia suffers
I do not propose to use these on users making edits of a dissimilar nature to other articles, but your generic four-day-old two-edits-both-removing-images-from-Muhammad ones. One warning for the first removal, provided it's their first edit, and the second one is a block.
Thoughts? Daniel (talk) 04:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, obviously. However, I might suggest removing from the warning the specific time period that it takes to pass the semi-protection. -- tariqabjotu 04:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BEANS, I guess. Good idea, done - using "allowed to mature". Daniel (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The problem is - we do have new users coming here, given its advertisement on the foxnews main page. I'd like to keep it protected for 24 hours, then make it clear on the main page of the article that changes of the images won't be acceptable. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sure, no need for implementation right now. More thinking for implementation after the full protection. Daniel (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Hmm? I don't follow. This page has been in the New York Times, front-paged on Digg, on Fox News, and on Little Green Footballs... but what's the problem? Users that didn't have accounts before wouldn't be able to edit the article under the semi-protection, and, judging by the level of disruption prior to your protection, we will have a manageable number of sleeper accounts left to block. Daniel's proposal does not say block every user that removes the images, but block those users who have no interest in commenting on the talk page or otherwise contributing to Wikipedia contrustively. I really don't see why these proposals keep coming up and yet people keep protecting the article; it seems like a no-brainer to me to approach the article in the way similar to that noted above. -- tariqabjotu 05:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Keeping the page protected is just going to aggravate things. I've seen at least three people cite the protection as oppression of muslims. Zazaban (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not the reason I think the protection is unwarranted; and, with some it seems a damned if we do, damned if we don't thing. -- tariqabjotu 05:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about this: we fully unblock the article, and let all hell break lose until things simmer down. Then we re-semi it and fix everything. Zazaban (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that is exactly why protection is needed (at least for now). I suspect semi-protection will last a long time. Yahel Guhan 06:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's going to always be protected in some form or another. Jmlk17 06:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now that's a real shame. Couldn't we unblock it entirely for a week until all the opposing groups do their bit, and then pick up the pieces?  Anythings worth a shot right now. Zazaban (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a good idea to remove the semi-protection (especially) at this time. -- tariqabjotu 07:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There's simply too much drama involving this article, especially considering its current media profile. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, if we unprotect the article, we can expect it to be heavily vandalised, and if we do not unprotect it, we can expect to be accused of intolerance.  Keeping it protected is obviously undesirable, but so are the alteratives.  Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 10:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's I'm saying is let the vandalism happen for a while and let it get out of people's systems. Sooner or later, somebody is going to assume they've 'won'. Zazaban (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Many of these accounts are genuine new editors who simply don't know the score.  We need to be gentle but firm.  No biting. WilyD 12:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: has someone googled around where these "new editors" may be coming from? The way these things go, there is probably no dearth of internet fora where users are being called to come over here and complain. dab (��) 15:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, in the last two days, this issue has been mentioned in both the New York Times and on FoxNews (or at least their respective websites).  Additionally, canvassing is known to be going on from various sources ... so yes, some are maybe "meatpuppets" but some are drawn genuinely, and all are new and clueless.  Gentleness is called for. WilyD 15:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals for administrators 

message: (originally titled "There ought be a note at the top of the page saying that there will be depictions of Muhammad in the article.")
Hello I am a Bahai and I think it's only fair that my prophet and Islam's prophet are treated similarly. Right now, the article on Bahaullah, there is a note in italics saying that a copy of the photograph can be found at the end of the article. There should be something similar here.--Goon Noot (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. Hopefully the the note on Bahaullah will be removed, since it seems to be in violation of Wikipedia's policy on disclaimers in articles. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it as it is already covered in the content disclaimer. Nakon 04:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave that article alone. Like this article, the Bahaullah has undergone a great deal of discussion about the image, its placement, and the "disclaimer". If you think it needs to be removed, take it to that talk page. The discussions here have little to do with what is/should be going on there; we're just talking about the Muhammad article. -- tariqabjotu 05:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: A lot of the early discussion about Muhammad paintings discussed that.  The biggest difference is that the Bahaullah image is 100% doubtlessly relevant since it's a photograph whereas the Muhammad images aren't.  But as the days go by I think we are generally being arbitrary on this decision. gren グレン 12:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bahaullah connection 

message: Ok a quick suggestion - it's sucking up a lot of time repeating the same answers over and over again - can we not generate a page of stock replies that we can cut and past to answer the most comment questions? Like the PRATTS that have been used with creationists for many years? --Fredrick day (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No - because nobody reads FAQ - I mean a stock source of replies that we as editors can drawn up upon to cut and paste in response to the same questions and points over and over again - we can then try and ensure a consistent approach to our replies and make sure that replies are a) polite b) informative and c) push those people who want to know more towards the correct policies pages. It's a tool for us not a tool for people coming here --Fredrick day (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: How about User:Frederick day/Muhammad.  Then you can use whatever content you have on that page by doing . Lots of people do that for welcome templates, etc.  gren グレン 11:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  that's not a bad idea. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operational activities 

message: I've reduced the protection down to semi. It's inevitable that we are going to get an influx (as we already have done) of IP's given the recent news stories about this article and leaving it completely unprotected will decrease the decorum. If images are removed, the best thing to do is simply revert for now - consensus at the minute is that the images should be included per WP:CENSOR and I believe we can make an exception to WP:3RR in this particular instance, so don't be worried about getting blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection reduced down to semi 

message: All the references here to the penis article, trying to use that as an example to justify inclusion of potentially "shocking" or objectionable images on Wikipedia for "educational and informative reasons", without regard to what readers might expect, are bogus.  If the penis article had education and information as its top priority, then why are there SIX pictures of HUMAN penises (one pierced!) on that page, and ZERO pictures of penises from any of the millions of other animal species that have penises?  And except for the schematic diagram, all the penis pictures are of WHITE men!
If we use our brains, we can learn something from this example.  Many Wikipedia articles (perhaps even this one on Muhammad) do not reflect objective, informative, or useful reality.  Their appearance results from the whims of the editors, or editors' personal desires to publish whatever they want to without "censorship", instead of asking the real question:  is the article doing the subject justice.  The title of the penis article is not "white human penis".  In my assessment, there is one reason, and one reason alone that those six images of white human penises appear, like it or not: the white human editors know full well that images of flaccid, erect, and pierced human penises shock, titillate, make you go "hmmmm", and help the editors who post them in the first place feel justified about their decisions to include whatever content they want while hiding under the bogus principles of "non-censorship" and "accuracy and informativeness".  If those are genuine principles that should govern Wikipedia, rather than smokescreens that editors use to mask something that more closely resembles a culture-war, then there ought to be images of penises from other organisms on that page.  Not SIX pictures of WHITE human cocks.72.48.250.225 (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's only half of the point.  Get some pictures of insect, fish, lizard, and anteater penises on there, and you might begin to convince me that the article is not merely a venue for human cock-shots.  Then, when you're done with that, come back here and pick-up the discussion of who's censoring whom over here.72.48.250.225 (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So fix it :) (I personally can't take any non-white picture at the moment, but I won't forget to ask) -- lucasbfr talk 17:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care about the penis article one bit.  I'm just questioning everyone's attempt to cite that as an example that justifies what's going on over here with the Muhammed images.72.48.250.225 (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So what do you want, a more varied selection of Muhammad pictures? I don't really see how that is relevant to an argument to remove the images on this page, its a (very valid) criticism of the Penis article which should go on that articles page.--172.142.59.101 (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All I want -- all anyone wants -- is for you to open your mind to this reality:  a lot of the editing that goes on at Wikipedia has nothing to do with information or objectivity, and has everything to do with culturally biased editors doing whatever they feel like doing, regardless of whether it does the article justice. 72.48.250.225 (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  I have asked that some donkey or horse cock pictures are used on the page to counter any perceived bias. Also I'll see if a boyfriend of mine will allow me to take a picture of his cock and I'll upload it later. See, this is how wikipedia works - people ask and we try to help out. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, my point is not what images are or aren't included in that article.  My point is that it often seems that editors don't really care about doing the subject justice, but instead try to wave the flag of "non-censorship" to do whatever the hell they want to do, often within a context of fanning-flames or deliberately angering people.  I feel that this is exactly what's happening over here with the refusal to make intelligent decisions about the use of Muhammed images.72.48.250.225 (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what actionable request are you making here? Resolute 17:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think everyone knows what the request is.  The VASTLY OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of images of Muhammed have the face veiled.  The VASTLY OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the historical tradition of depicting Muhammed has the face veiled.  More than 100,000 human beings have signed a petition asking for those traditions that have been established for centuries, to be continued here.  And yet apparently, none of those facts seem to sway this article's editors' definition of "consensus" or "objectivity".  Instead, those ideas are dismissed as irrelevant -- sometimes rudely dismissed, while referring people to the penis article as "proof" that what's going on over here is justified.  I am challenging the editors of this article on those decisions, and I am asking them for the sake of intellectual integrity to consider whether they may be trying to mask a culture-war as some kind of noble exercise in non-censorship.  It is likely that it is THE EDITORS HERE who are the censors of centuries of facts and tradition.72.48.250.225 (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So does that mean that you want the images removed, the opinions of the editors be damned? Am I understanding you correctly? --Mhking (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be *excruciatingly* reasonable and productive, if, at-long-and-painful-last, we were to place functional links to the images of Muhammed's unveiled face on the article for interested persons, instead of simply posting them in the main article for all to see.  That action would not represent censorship.  It would represent intelligence. 72.48.250.225 (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The petition is irrelevant, so does not factor in this discussion.  Images that depict Muhammad with his face uncovered do exist, so as a matter of historical context should remain.  I am not opposed to adding more images with his face veiled or blurred, provided you can provide them, if that will satisfy your request for balance. Hiding the images is contrary to policy.  The policy is that Wikipedia contains things you may find objectionable.  It does not say that Wikipedia will obscure or hide that which you find objectionable.  Resolute 18:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The petition is NOT irrelevant, and neither is this:  the fact that my post on this page yesterday explaining to readers in the general world that they can contribute to the article if they become active editors – was moved to another page.  That's censorship, and it’s hard to deny that.  Sneakily disguised as content management, but censorship nonetheless.  How is yanking that post and putting it a click away different from requesting that the same be done with the images in question?  Hypocrites.72.48.250.225 (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And quite frankly, I think your suggestion of linking to as opposed to posting the pictures is a load of used food. I don't see the same sort of firestorm on other websites, nor in other secular venues. I think that you and others like you are more concerned with forcing your world view onto everyone else. I keep hearing tell of 1.6 billion Muslims (despite the fact that the numbers who are insistant on removal of the images represent a subset of that larger number) who are upset with this; this ignores the remaining 4.5 billion people on the planet.  But all that is non-germane to the conversation at hand. The bottom line is that any form of capitulation in the form of special treatment (i.e., other than that afforded to other religious articles on Wikipedia) would be, as far as I can see, bowing to the cultural blackmail being pushed forth on Wikipedia. --Mhking (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Me and others like me"?  Are you insinuating that I'm a muslim, and then continuing to insinuate that Muslims are forcing their world view on others? Here's a newsflash:  I'm female, an atheist, white, American-born-and-bred, living in the Deep South U.S.A., and I've got a head on my shoulders.  The issue isn't about cultural blackmail, it's about being a responsible citizen of the world in the 21st century.72.48.250.225 (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[Penis]] example is totally bogus (all incivility removed) 

message: Given it is nearing 200kb, it might be time to archive some of the dead topics.  Question is, should we just do this manually with topics that are resolved, or perhaps get a bot operator to automatically archive sections that haven't been edited after a certain period of time? Resolute 18:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I boldly archived all threads that were not added to on Feb. 6 or 7. Talk page is still >300 KB, but it's something...—Chowbok ☠ 23:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving of this talk page 

message: For those who have not heard, many Muslims are marching in protest of Wikipedia . Again, a quick search didn't reveal any previous discussion of this, so please forgive me if this has been brought up before. --Hojimachongtalk 00:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, that petition was what started this entire incident. We've known about it since the beginning over a month ago. Zazaban (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Marching against an encyclopedia? "The most costly thing we pay for is ignorance". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't see that in the article. Zazaban (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Hojimachong... no one marched as far as I can tell... they signed.  dab, I don't think it's time for that, yet (although the time might be coming).  So far it has been on back pages and small news stories. gren グレン 19:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Marches tend to happen on Fridays after the faithful have been whipped into a frenzy by their Imams. Seeing as we've made it through most of today, things shouldn't really get too much worse until next weekend at least. - MasonicDevice (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Most marches in the Muslim world do happen on Friday for the reason I mentioned above PLUS the fact that it is a day of rest (ie. weekend, no work).  It's the same reason big marches happen here on Saturday, or that the Orange and Green marched on Sunday.  No hate here.  I just watch and shake my head.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MasonicDevice (talk • contribs) 21:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  100,000 Muslims protest Wikipedia 

message: Have some respect for the sentiments of those who are different than you. If you cannot respect them then you should cease from discussing that which they hold dear.
These pictures are a heresy and blasphemous for Muslims. If you cannot respect their beliefs then please refrain from discussing it. It's just as simple as that and puts everyone to ease. It;s just respect, nothing more, nothing less. Less hope you are able to maintain respect about which you claim to possess knowledge.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.92.194 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be a misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy to think that it should be kept merely for aesthetic reasons.  You must understand that Muslim tradition of representing Muhammad is the most important aspect and that representation of his human form is in the minority.  The Western bias for such depictions is at play in this article and it definitely downplays Muslim dominant modes of representation.  That being said being insulted is no reason to remove the images.  I also support having images--just one or two important images and having more calligraphy and poems to/about Muhammad which have been prevalent in Muslim history.  Also, try not to make this into a large political "freedom of speech" issue.  It really isn't one.  It's an issue of Wikipedia policy and how to deal with collaborative issues with an influx of new, single purpose users. gren グレン 19:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody needs to try to make this into a large political "freedom of speech" issue. That's what it is, in fact, but that's the least of what it is. This particular issue with this particular article is the flash point of a tactic (harassment and intimidation) employed worldwide in a strategy to make Islamic law apply to everybody, Moslem and non-Moslem. (Yes, that's another way of referring to the new, single purpose users.) If the tactic works here, it will naturally be employed elsewhere. And, frankly, anybody who is tired of the fight had better get used to the idea that it's only started. Mike Romete (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have been more clear.  Wikipedia is the place to discuss the creation of the encyclopedia article for Muhammad.  Wikipedia is not a place for any discussion of a large political "freedom of speech" issue.  Attempts to make Wikipedia into a forum for debating the role of Muslims in Western society or the like will be removed with prejudice. These pages should only contain conversation about how to improve this encyclopedia article. gren グレン 20:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it could be argued that discussion of the strategy motivating, and thus the tactics employed by, the innocuously named "new, single purpose users" would not be germane. So be it. But I sure wouldn't argue it, though. Mike Romete (لن أستسلم) (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: But that is specifically Moslem theology, if I may put it that way. Christian theology, or at least some strands of it, see human works of painting, statuary, fiction, and poetry, et al., as minor works of creation (wholly derivative of God's creative power,  of course) which human beings engage in because they were created in the image and likeness of God the Creator. Mike Romete (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have some respect. 

message: First of all I'm really sorry for adding a new section inspite of your demand not to. I just really felt that I can give an opinion that might satisfy most people and help solve this debate.
I'm a muslim myself, and I agree that in Islam depictions of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) are not allowed, but as lots of people already said: wikipedia does not have to comply with that, it's a free and open encyclopedia. And it only displays what it displays for the sake of knowledge only, with no intention to offend anyone.
I'm not really sure whether these pictures were actually painted by muslims or not, but in any case, I think it would be only fair to add a Wikipedia:Content disclaimer to the top of the page, warning about the pictures. It's a wikipedian thing already, nothing new.
Also, for the sake of knowledge, a note can be added to the pictures, saying something like "see the section on Depictions of Muhammad", so that people would know that most muslims do not approve of this. It's knowlegde, and people have the right to know.
Again I apologize for starting a new section. If any of the administrators feels that my post is not useful, please go ahead and remove it.
--Mcwikiman (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  and where will it end? it's clear what the Depictions article shows and still people try and delete the images and censor the article - so it's a red herring that shifting the problem there would solve anything - the end game is total removal. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, when the pictures are in a separate article about depictions, which states clearly that Muslims do not approve of this, this would be much less provoking than when they are on the original article about prophet Muhammad, without a notice to even say that Muslims do not approve of this. You see when something's forbidden in your religion, and then you see a supposed picture of someone of your own religion doing it, and in a context that doesn't even say that this actually forbidden, you have to admit it's going to make you angry. --Mcwikiman (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, when the pictures are in a separate article about depictions, which states clearly that Muslims do not approve of this, this would be much less provoking - and that's why people are busy trying to delete the images from that article as well? --Fredrick day (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you read the discussion page there (and I'm sure you did), you'll see that it's nothing like this one.
Look everyone, I'm proposing a solution, if you agree with me, please post to say you agree so that something can be done to end this overgrown debate.--Mcwikiman (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  But it's only "nothing like" that because that page hasn't been directly linked in a petition that has been read by 100,000+ people and circulated in god knows how many emails - once the images are removed from here, how long do you think before the bandwagon moves on to that page? --Fredrick day (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, that's exactly my point: the Muhammad page is accessed by hundreds of people everyday. So it's very easy to spot the pictures there, and circulate it to petitions or whatever. That's besides the context part I mentioned above. The depictions page, however, doesn't have that much traffic, and at least explains the topic from all angles, including that angle that matters to muslims: that this is forbidden in Islam. So even if there's still going to be a debate, it's going to be like tens of people fighting instead of hundreds... Progress!--Mcwikiman (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  And hey, I'm trying to come up with a solution here! What use is it to keep saying: "Nothing will work, this can't be solved!" --Mcwikiman (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia already has a general content disclaimer, so such an addition is not needed. And what exactly are you trying to solve? I don't see any problem. An article has images that illustrate that article. Sure, some silly internet petition has meant the article is going to be vandalised for a while but we already have mechanisms such as protection to deal with that. --81.158.148.64 (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: People are going to remove and re-add these forever.  It does not matter where they are.  We just need to decide in an adult way whether we think they should be there (and removing them is vandalism) or they should not be there (and adding them is vandalism).  There is plenty of disturbing stuff on wiki as I found out on my first day (Pit of despair is not for the faint hearted) so I think they should stay but that does not matter.  The real question is how are we going to decide this?  Vote seems out of the question as 1. we are not a democracy and 2. This is too high profile for it not to be rigged.  Any other suggestions?  Shall I call Jimbo?
CaptinJohn (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with you CaptinJohn, but I am supposing an other and easier solution already: which is to add a content disclaimer and a note or a link below the pictures pointing to the depictions section or article. I think this is an easy to implement solution, not involving vandalism, and preserving respect to Muslim culture. If this solution is found to be unsuccesful, then do whatever you want to do. --Mcwikiman (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The best way to end the debate is to recognize that the pictures will not be removed. --65.40.35.52 (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I never asked for removal. --Mcwikiman (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can appreciate your efforts, however I have to state that given the Danish cartoon controversy, this controversy, and others, I very strongly doubt that many people interested enough to seriously read an encyclopedia entry on Muhammad would not already be aware of how some Muslims oppose the use of such images.  I find such a disclaimer would be redundant, although I note that the final paragraph in the lead section does discuss depictions of Muhammad, and does mention that there are images in the article as part of that paragraph.  Anyone who reads this article should not be surprised then to see such images in this article.  Regards, Resolute 15:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mcwikiman this has to stop here or it will never stop! Once we give in to non-encyclopedic pressure on this issue it will be open season on wikipedia, every religion and special interest group will launch a full out attack on the bits of wikipedia they don't like. I do understand that you are trying to help but the big picture is much more important than these pictures. (Hypnosadist) 15:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: again, what issue? there is nothing to resolve! Your proposal is redundant, as Wikipedia already has a general content disclaimer that automatically applies to all pages. The concerns of all those who "signed" that online petition are irrelevent, because their concerns have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy (infact quite the opposite, see WP:NOTCENSORED). The only possibly issue I can see is the unfortunate fact that the page will most likely have to stay protected from edits by anons and new users for the next few months until all this silly fuss dies down. --81.158.148.64 (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I totaly agree with this request, it makes some sense, and it doesnt harm anyone. very fair request and is suits wikipedia and its policies.
Good idea, Mcwikiman. The important thing is that people who wants to see the pictures can do so.
On a side note, I think this has hype written all over it. We are talking about an online petition, in bad english, created in less than five minuts. 100,000+ web surfers has signed the petition. And all of them has forgotten about it by now. That is what online petitions is about: Showing that you really care about stuff by typing your name into an input field, click ok, and then move on.
I find it a bit silly that our media makes this into a story, just because it got muslims and "censorship" in it.
The original petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia
--Kasper Hviid (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Come on people, isn't all this fight a little too much? 

message: The pictures should be removed because Wikipedia is a non-prophet organisation. :) 216.165.95.5 (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Was that supposed to be funny? --Mhking (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a cookie or two. 216.165.95.5 (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Cute, 216, but same old story. Read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Wolf m corcoran (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Best reason yet for removing these :-) --•CHILLDOUBT• 18:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now this is something I can get behind ;-).  Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 06:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia's Organization Status 

message: I made a few changes to Harmil's version, the result of which can be seen here. I removed the Isra image because we already have the Aqsa one in there and it squashes the text a bit much; reinserted the Nakkas Osman one and placed it into the Muhammad in Mecca sect; moved the 1315 Kaaba image down to the depictions section due to its significance as the earliest recorded one; and finally removed the Maome one because a) I think two images are sufficient, and b) this one lacks sufficient context: the caption isn't verified by the source. So we have one quite close to the top, and another close to the bottom - reflecting both veiled and unveiled traditions. I think that's a fair presentation. Feedback? ITAQALLAH 13:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with this compromise, but what is this going to do to stop the vandalism? (Hypnosadist) 15:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we have two seperate issues here that we are tending to blur - what is our  view on how many and where pictures should be placed? This is an editoral matter and can be discussed and tweaked here. The second is vandalism and that is a process issue. The bottom line is that vandalism will always continue on this page as long as any images are displayed. My own take is that we are just going to have to accept that, deal with it (with the various levels of protection and the eyes of editors) and hope that it eventually dies to a managable level - but our process issues should not influence our editoral decisions and our editoral decisions should not be taken with a view to solve our process issues. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: There has been a little talk of including a western image of Muhammad in the article as well, which might also help balance the images.  Perhaps adding a third image down in the "Western view of Muhammad" section? Resolute 15:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth considering. It might be useful to have a picture from the North Wall Frieze (which shows the major lawgivers of history) in the 'Modern times' sub-section. The one currently uploaded on Wikipedia shows Muhammad only, whereas it might be nicer to have a bit more context by widening the image and showing him alongside some of the other figures. I still prefer sticking to two images, but if this helps us achieve a compromise then that's fine too (A version with this implemented can be seen here). ITAQALLAH 15:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be an excellent image to use, and I agree, if we could get one that includes the other lawgivers around Muhammad, it would be highly useful and contextual.  Especially given that image acknowledges Muhammad's role in the history of law, as even recognized by the western world. Resolute 17:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  I don't really see what a Western image would add. Muhammad isn't a Western figure, and his image is rarely included in Western art. To single out such a rare case would obscure its rarity and even imply the opposite. Images that help to illustrate fact make sense. Images that help to obscure or alter fact are not helpful. -Harmil (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Muhammad is an enormously important figure in the development of the West, and "depictions of Muhammad" has about as many "western" depictions as Islamic depictions.  I'm personally rather partial to the depiction of Muhammad on the American Supreme Court building, but our freely licensed version is of mediocre quality.  WilyD 19:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: He did have an impact on the west, however, and there is a sizable section of this article discussing that that.  An appropriate image, such as the sculptures on the SCOTUS would be appropriate in that section, imo. Resolute 19:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have inserted an image of the sculpture here which has been widened a bit. Not sure about how to get any better quality than that, though... ITAQALLAH 21:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: There will always be those who will remove any depictions no matter what.  We can't help that, other than to revert as needed. Resolute 20:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still dont see the value of adding a wester image, even if such image existed that doesnt mean it is relevant. this article is about Muhammad, and his life, not on how he was seen in different cultures. So, the west has no part of his life. Maybe the west was influenced by Muhammad peace upon him, but he wasnt influnced by the west. so adding that image, wont add anything to this article, it will only help confuse the reader even more. Any reader will think that this article talks about Muhammad, so adding an image from the west will force the reader to believe that the west had influenced his life, which is not true. I like the article that is edited by ITAQALLAH, it is fair and very well balanced. --Prince charming456 (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The West had a very profound influence on Muhammad. He took almost all of his religious ideas from the West - specifically, from the Judeo-Christian tradition. TharkunColl (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  How exactly did he do that ? i dont remember that he had any direct contact with the west, and whatever contact took place that happened after "his ideas" were already out. And on a more concrete bases, his ideas weren't his own but they were all a Revelation from God. The similarities between other religions comes from that these religions were once also a Revelation from God.--86.60.44.214 (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  I see the changes made here after i click on the link provided, but when i search the word "Muhammad" i go to the same old page. When are these pages going to be effective?.--Prince charming456 (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: TharkunColl, Judaism and Christianity are both from the Middle East, not the "West." Protestantism didn't even exist during Muhammad's lifetime. The only Christians that Muhammad ever met were practicing Eastern Christianity and the only Jews that he met probably spoke either Syriac, Dzhidi or Arabic, but never Yiddish. Regardless, it is besides the point, and it seems like a sly, unprovoked attack on your part (particularly when one considers your block history here). Please do not try to obstruct consensus just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That policy works both ways. -Rosywounds (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tweaks

message: I noticed that many articles have a "gallery". That is to say, they have a collection of images in a section at the end of its own. Perhaps we could have images of Muhammad in such a section, that is originally set to "hide". User, who wish to see the image, can click "show" to display the image(s). I'm not sure, but this may already have been suggested before.
Would this be a compromise?Bless sins (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Already been suggested... Generally speaking removing them would be vandalism since they've been added after thorough discussions. That's the general problem; that there isn't any. The problem I could see would be this: Where would it end? First the Muslims, then the Catholics, then the Scientologists... It'll go on like this if you give into religious dogma. In my opinion this issue is pathetic; it's been discussed already. The only thing that has changed is that the fanatics have organized and tried to impose their dogmatic norms on a website it seems less than half of them really know anything about. My solution is just to wait it out, they'll run out of steam.83.92.244.246 (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bless sins is a long time user trying to give a proposal--not a new "fanatic" brought in by the petition.  In any case, treat other users of this encyclopedia with respect. gren グレン 05:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, I don't think anyone would accept that to replace the images in text.  I think it's generally a bad idea, especially when a commons link is just as affective. gren グレン 05:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I would be opposed to any solution that requires a user to opt-in to view content.  And that is exactly what a gallery set to auto-hide would be.  That would be a complete violation of WP:CENSOR and the content disclaimer. Resolute 16:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, galleries often are minimized.  It's a perfectly acceptable practice.  But, the issue of a gallery couldn't be related to removal or keeping of images in text. gren グレン 19:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I, too, would vigorously oppose a gallery set to auto-hide. It would be no different than replacing the images with text (i.e., "click here to see"), and would definitely be a violation of WP:CENSOR. --Mhking (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery? 

message: *please remove all so called pictures of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), wikipedia is a place from which millions of people get information.... we all respect it and tried to spread its boundaries... now this is being used to hurt more then 1,519,747,019 Muslims of the world... it is really very hurtful to see this kind of contend on this reputed portal. In Islam there is strictly prohibited to sketch any of the living thing and to sketch Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is really tragic. no one have right to hurt someone's emotions specially religious emotions of so number of people..i will only spared hatred. i request you all the person who has the authority to remove the pictures.. on the behaf of All the Muslims of the nation.... We ll be very thankful....May Allah bless you..--Adilch (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about your feelings. And quite frankly, 1.5B Muslims is immaterial in the scheme of things. There are nearly 6 billion people on this planet -- and the 1.5 billion does not get carte blanche to dictate to the remainder what should and should not be seen by them. If you don't like it; if you don't like the compromise being brokered here, then quite frankly, find somewhere else to go. --Mhking (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, i dont care a bit about your feelings!! One of my most beloved things in this world is Wikipedia... It's a NEUTRAL encyclopedia... make a Muslim one for yourselves and dont add pics on it!! IMAGES MUST BE KEPT!! OR ELSE THE WHOLE WIKIPEDIA CONCEPT SHOULD BE FLUSHED DOWN THE TOILET!!!!! Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Civility, please. Personal attacks against other editors are not tolerated on Wikipedia. As you say, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia; neutrality means fairness and balanced towards everyone, including Muslims. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 16:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  I totally agree Pyrospirit. Neutrality means fairness to everyone. otherwise it will be sided to one side more than the other side. Please write civilized and educated replies. Insulting other editors are not tolerated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince charming456 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  I support Adilch, and I am quite disappointed with the replies from those who replied here. I read it once and twice and i still cant believe that this kind of replies are taking place on such a reputable and an EDUCATIONAL website. I hope kids dont learn this way of replying and insulting others. Please remember that this is an educational website that is visited by people of different ages and different educational backgrounds.--Prince charming456 (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry you are disappointed--and the images are not meant to be hurtful.  Consensus has deemed that these images represent an important enough part of Muslim history to be included in the article.  These images are not created to be hurtful and we are using them to show them as a part of history not in a normative way to convince others to use these images.  Please understand that since they have been deemed historically significant it would be neglecting our purpose not to use them.  We understand that some feel insulted by this but be assured that it is not the reason we are being kept.  Also, some users comments have been insulting.  We have been removing some of the worst but please don't see this as a reflection of the purpose of Wikipedia.  Anyone is allowed to edit or comment and we are wary to remove too much.  Thanks for your polite comment and I hope we can generally encourage all comments to be more polite in the future. gren グレン 20:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  Thank you for your reply Grenavitar, i apprecaite the time you took to write it and clarify the sitaution. I have understood what you said, and I have checked the discussion in the Tweak section and i thing the changes made by ITAQALLAH are very convenient. Thank you again. --Prince charming456 (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that civility should prevail. Wikipedia isn't a place to post juvenile comments, no matter what side you take. That said, it should be pointed out that not all Muslims view the depiction of Mohammed as heresy, so the claims that all Muslims are offended is simply untrue. Even if they were, none of them would be in a position to dictate to others what is heretical and what is not. It would be like me asking everyone else to follow the tenets of a particular Christian denomination. Furthermore, the depictions here are respectful, historical images not intended to offend anyone. regards, Twalls (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something else 

message: My proposal: let's put a warning, on top of the page, in which it is written that Muslim believers are warned that un-veiled pictures of Muhammad are present in the page, then as for all biographies, let's put an un-veiled picture first, before the calligraphy.
The reasons of my proposal:
# this is an a-confessional article about a person and a religious figure, religiously-correctness does not concern the article, as long as other Wikipedia pillars are respected, and presentation of correct and large information is our first concern;
# people who believe that they should not see un-veiled pictures of Muhammad will know in advance that this particular page is "tainted" for them by a sort of "plot ahead warning".
Would this be better, or there are things I am not taking into account? --Sjappé (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I am new and I do not know all the policies (could you please link the policy you are talking about?). If this policy does not allow the disclaimer, then let's just go for the un-veiled image first; is there a reason it is not yet there? --Sjappé (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NDA would be the relevant guideline. Resolute 00:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Warning + full images 

message: As i read in the talk page.... "This page is solely for constructive discussion of how best to integrate images in the Muhammad page", unlike others i would not ask you to delete those images, though they go against the ethics of islam, but would just like to give you a suggestion that to stop the dispute over the topic you may just edit the photographs. as instead of showing the picture/face of the holy prophet you may just show a light. i think that would help in a way as you may not have any violations against the article regarding the photographs & also you will be able to display the type of knowledge that you want to provide to the public through your site.
Naush 05 (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is censoring, and the very root of the issue at hand.  Nope. Jmlk17 09:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to reinforce - under no circumstances are we going to be censoring historical images. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion 

message: See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Depictions_of_Muhammad. SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which means what? --Mhking (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, not really. :) Jmlk17 23:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  You are all been used as a tool 

message: In this picture(link given under):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg
At the time of restoration of the Holy Kaaba, the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) was only a young boy, so how can he had a grown-up beard. Therefore this picture in itself has an error.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jf17 2000 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it's not a "logical error", it's an instance of historical (late medieval) artwork. The ideal of "historical authenticity" had not yet been developed at the time. dab (𒁳) 14:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A logical error 

message: I'm confused. Muslims accuse Christians of treating Jesus as a deity, yet Christians don't care if Jesus is depicted in cartoons or even made fun of. By insisting that everyone in the world revere Muhammad as a sacred and holy figure who cannot even be depicted, aren't you elevating Muhammad to the status of a deity even more than Christians do Jesus? And isn't the whole point of the prohibition against depicting Muhammad to make sure that no one idolizes Muhammad? If Muslims are so concerned about not idolizing Muhammad, I wouldn't expect them to insist so strongly that he be treated differently than every other religious figure on Wikipedia. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you're Muslim and believe Muhammad is the *only* diety, then I imagine it makes sense, just as Christians don't worship Muhammad because he isn't Jesus/God. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 18:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may be confusing Muhammad with Allah. Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Muslims do not believe Muhammad is a deity, let alone the only deity. Muslims believe he is a prophet, and they don't think he's the only prophet either. -- tariqabjotu 05:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So to Christians, who would be a prophet? Jesus? Paul? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 07:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Prophet#Christianity -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It's just a doctrinal difference.  On the one hand you've got "no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet," while on the other you've got the Nicean Creed (though there are some Christian sects that reject Trinitarianism).  For Muslims, the focus is entirely on God, and any depictions of Muhammad would distract from this focus.  Muhammad was a channel though which God spoke and entirely human.  Early christians took the other tack by attributing divine charachteristics to a man, incorporating him into God, and attributing his message to God. -MasonicDevice (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censoring wikipedia = idolizing Muhammad ? 

message: I would like to know how the imaginative pictures of Muhammad contribute to your understanding of Prophet Muhammad? Are you more likely to convert to Islam because of these pictures? Are you more likely to view Islam and Prophet Muhammad more favourably because of this pictures? Or what?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.245.250 (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What does viewing Islam or Mohammad more favourably have to do with anything?  Are you under the erroneous impression that this is the purpose of Wikipedia?  Just asking... --207.47.146.50 (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The pictures inform us of various traditions that have grown up surrounding Muhammad and therefore make him an important figure.  They should represent to some extent works that have informed the perceptions of the world about Muhammad like the images of Jesus do. gren グレン 03:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence the old saying "A picture is worth a thousand words". Jmlk17 04:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike Jesus, the perception of Muhammad of the world has remained least influenced by images and statues, rather they have evolved through discussion and commentry. The role of physical depiction of Muhammad in shaping people's perception about him is rather trivial (or almost non existant) as compared to Jesus or Budhdha. If you find yourself in a position to deny it, you are distorting the truth. (period) Arman (Talk) 05:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  And the article should reflect that.  One useful task would be finding exceptional non-figurative works. gren グレン 07:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  Funny part is: Jesus and Muhammmad probably looked alot alike and nothing like any modern potrayal of either. That still doesn't reduce the historical importance of know depictions of them. -MasonicDevice (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about the pictures? 

message: I'm confused. Muslims accuse Christians of treating Jesus as a deity, yet Christians don't care if Jesus is depicted in cartoons or even made fun of. By insisting that everyone in the world revere Muhammad as a sacred and holy figure who cannot even be depicted, aren't you elevating Muhammad to the status of a deity even more than Christians do Jesus? And isn't the whole point of the prohibition against depicting Muhammad to make sure that no one idolizes Muhammad? If Muslims are so concerned about not idolizing Muhammad, I wouldn't expect them to insist so strongly that he be treated differently than every other religious figure on Wikipedia. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you're Muslim and believe Muhammad is the *only* diety, then I imagine it makes sense, just as Christians don't worship Muhammad because he isn't Jesus/God. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 18:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may be confusing Muhammad with Allah. Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Muslims do not believe Muhammad is a deity, let alone the only deity. Muslims believe he is a prophet, and they don't think he's the only prophet either. -- tariqabjotu 05:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So to Christians, who would be a prophet? Jesus? Paul? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 07:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Prophet#Christianity -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It's just a doctrinal difference.  On the one hand you've got "no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet," while on the other you've got the Nicean Creed (though there are some Christian sects that reject Trinitarianism).  For Muslims, the focus is entirely on God, and any depictions of Muhammad would distract from this focus.  Muhammad was a channel though which God spoke and entirely human.  Early christians took the other tack by attributing divine charachteristics to a man, incorporating him into God, and attributing his message to God. -MasonicDevice (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censoring wikipedia = idolizing Muhammad ? 

message: I would like to know how the imaginative pictures of Muhammad contribute to your understanding of Prophet Muhammad? Are you more likely to convert to Islam because of these pictures? Are you more likely to view Islam and Prophet Muhammad more favourably because of this pictures? Or what?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.245.250 (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What does viewing Islam or Mohammad more favourably have to do with anything?  Are you under the erroneous impression that this is the purpose of Wikipedia?  Just asking... --207.47.146.50 (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The pictures inform us of various traditions that have grown up surrounding Muhammad and therefore make him an important figure.  They should represent to some extent works that have informed the perceptions of the world about Muhammad like the images of Jesus do. gren グレン 03:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence the old saying "A picture is worth a thousand words". Jmlk17 04:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike Jesus, the perception of Muhammad of the world has remained least influenced by images and statues, rather they have evolved through discussion and commentry. The role of physical depiction of Muhammad in shaping people's perception about him is rather trivial (or almost non existant) as compared to Jesus or Budhdha. If you find yourself in a position to deny it, you are distorting the truth. (period) Arman (Talk) 05:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  And the article should reflect that.  One useful task would be finding exceptional non-figurative works. gren グレン 07:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  Funny part is: Jesus and Muhammmad probably looked alot alike and nothing like any modern potrayal of either. That still doesn't reduce the historical importance of know depictions of them. -MasonicDevice (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about the pictures? 

message: How will the muslims know, which pictures to ban and destroy, after they destroy/delete all the 
"sinful" pictures? Like, if wikipedia was the last place on earth and the pictures here would get deleted, then how would the muslims know that a particular newly created or ancient (but found somewhere e.g. t-shirt) picture is not a picture of muhammad - that should be destroyed ASAP?
I think some muslims actually ban all the pictures, but how can they use the internet then? I mean, as far as I know nearly everything on the screen of a computer is basically a drawing.
The LCD is made of small dots in 3 colours and the frames of the operating system are drawings too, made by programmers and graphic artists. The icons are drawings too.
Or do the muslims have some people that can actually keep a copy of the "sinful" drawings in order to know what to destroy?
Agameofchess (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if we destroy all the pictures of muhammad? 

message: I have heard from telveision sources that there has been recent controversy over this article. Just out of cursiosity: what exactly is the contoversy over? 72.161.6.148 (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: see the artcles by clicking on the "show" button where it says "additional information." The controversy is over the existance of images of Muhammad (with his face uncovered) in this article. Yahel Guhan 03:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The reason for requesting removal of these pictures is that Islam does not allow making, showing, or depicting any images of any kind of any prophets regardless of whether or not it is Mohammad. There were no images of him created during his lifetime, and so this image is not a primary source, or even a real image, to begin with. This is highly offensive to the entire Muslim Community, not just to one or two specific individuals. Kindly remove the images of the Prophet Mohammad (SAW). I understand that Wikipedia tries to put as accurate information as they can possibly get, but if you are supposed to put accurate information then why do you put images up that are not accurate, not to mention, not allowed? If you are speaking about a religion that does not support images and such, then why do you put them up in an article about that religion? They are not made by any Islamic source since it is forbidden to have any images, so therefore it can not be accurate. All I, as well as the Muslim community, am asking is for Wikipedia to take down the inappropriate pictures, this article is fine without them. Since your goal is to "provide full and accurate information" then I suggest the images be removed so your goal can be attained. Thank you again. --Youknowme786 (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: this has been discussed repeatedly, however: the images are allowed.  Wikipedia does not follow Islamic rules, and has no obligation to remove historical images from any article.  Also, the images are accurate.  They were created as depictions of Muhammad, and Wikipedia merely repeats what reliable, third party sources say about them.  Your complaint about whether they actually resemble Muhammad is with the creators of the images, not with Wikipedia.  Also, given that creating depictions of Muhammad obviously was not always such a strict taboo (as the existence of these images, created by Muslim artists attests), then to comply with your request would actually serve to deny full and accurate information.  Ergo, we simply cannot support your request.  Regards, Resolute 05:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see where it says that these images were created by Muslim artists, as it says the author is "Unknown" in the image description. Moreover, the picture is inaccurate because in numerous authentic citations of Mohammad, it states that he never elevated himself above others and that if a stranger were to walk into one of their discussions, they would not be able to identify which member of the group is Mohammad. Ok, it's getting late, so I will go to sleep, but I will check up again tomorrow. --Youknowme786 (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The caption text for each image states who created the images.  Three are identified as being of  Persian origin, and the fourth Ottoman.  As I said, the inaccuracies you claim lie with the creator of the images themselves.  Wikipedia's concern is verifiability.  We can, and have, verified that the claims made on Wikipedia regarding the images matches what secondary sources claim about the images.  That is Wikipedia's policy, and it is being met.  It is actually immaterial that the images themselves may or may not accurately reflect Muhammad's physical looks. All that we are concerned with is that we claim the same as the sources we have.  All four images are claimed to be depictions of Muhammad doing something, and that is all we state.  The decision on whether to accept that such images (and this is true for virtually every image from midieval times) is a perfect reflection of the subject lies with the reader.  And frankly, I doubt very many people would be naive enough to believe that such depictions are perfectly accurate. Resolute 06:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have a question 

message: I don't see what value these images of Muhammed (saaw) has for this article? They serve noe factual value. They only entice and insult people all over the world. I vote for a removal of these. And if they are so important, can't they just be linked to or something? Preferebly keep the article factual and no links to any pages what so ever that might be interprented as insulting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.243.152.55 (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. dab (𒁳) 20:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: See also WP:Content disclaimer. Resolute 20:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: See also WP:VOTE. (1 == 2)Until 15:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images of Muhammed (saaw)