Talk:Muhammad/Depictions

message: With regard to whether or not the Maomé image might be considered offensive (to a large number of) other Wikipedia readers, it has been argued that some standard of objective and subjective offensiveness needs to be used.  What that standard might be has not been clarified, or that is the opinion of some editors.
:How about what might be considered offensive in a free Western country? Like the one where Wikipedia was made?
:Offensive can include lots of other things. If image of woman without veil in article where doesnt extra super NEED to be there you can say censor on VERY SAME reason: some readers say offensive. Muslim also find Jesus pic offensive right? Same thing dont REALLY know what he look like so take it out. What about other religion and what THEY find offensive? Why are they quiet BECAUSE have RESPECT for people who dont agree.
:Not-Muslims find pic removing offensive AND it doesnt make article more informing, SO you have NO right to say your concern about offending. You dont care what they think at all!Opiner 04:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unresolved issues with regard to whether the Maomé image might be considered offensive to Wikipedia readers

message: # Wikipedia is not censored
# The Maomé image is notable it is appropriate to Wikipedia's mission to include that image on Wikipedia
# Images of Muhammad are not in general proscribed on the Muhammad page by WP:Profanity, but would only be proscribed if at least one of two conditions were met, 1) they are not informative in the context of that article, or 2) equally suitable alternatives are available.  Agreement on this point does not imply agreement that one of these two conditions is sufficient to make an WP:Profanity applicable, but that at least one of these conditions is necessary for WP:Profanity to be applicable.
# Wikipedia guidelines and policies do not require that images in general need to be informative to be appropriate for Wikipedia articles. 
# Wikipedia guidelines and policies do not require that images in general need to reference a particular known event to be appropriate in Wikipedia biographical articles
# Images in general do not need to reference a particular known event to be informative within a given context.
# Images in general do not need to be accurate likenesses of the persons they may represent to be appropriate for Wikipedia.
# Images in general do not need to be accurate likenesses of the persons they may represent to be informative.
Unhelpful comment removed. HighInBC 19:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is agreed 

message: I have asked these questions before, and have been attacked as disengenuous for asking them, but they are honest questions and I want them answered. 
# What is the image showing?
# what is the image of?
# When was this set? Is this Muhammad in Makkah, or Madinah, or back in Makkah? 
# Who are those in the Image, they are obviously significant, they have Halos.
# Why are they gathered round?
# Why are some wearing persian-like Shia caps?
# Who is the woman? Is that Hafsa, Fatima or Khadija towards the top - Its important to know, it gives us a period in time.
# Is there a copy of the image in context, that is atop of the text that accompanies it, as that would explain what we are seeing. 
We know so very little about this image, it does seem important, but its done on a large minbar, which would appear to make it late-ish, but that would rule out Abu Talib from being present, but maybe that was artistic license.
When I asked these honest questions previous Briangotts replied "That's ludicrous. Your standards would eliminate virtually every image on Wikipedia. You are clearly searching for excuses to remove an image you find personally offensive." - Which firstly proves he Knows that people find the image offensive, secondly that he does not know much about the image (And thus, as an illistrative guide fails to portray its context), he wants to see people offended, which is not the way Wikipedia should work. There is another image of Muhammad in the article, and I know exactly what is happening there.  It is Muhammad replacing the black stone into the Kabaa, I know roughly when this happened because of the text in the article, and I know the general story because of this.  I know nothing at all about this image. Can anyone answer these questions? --Irishpunktom\talk 09:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Questions 

message: At least one editor has argued that the use of the Maome image should be guided by WP:Not#Wikipedia is not censored rather than WP:Profanity.  This raises the question of whether the Profanity guideline conflicts with the NOT policy.
WP:Not#Wikipedia is not censored states:
:"Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider bjectionable or offensive...Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements...some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content" (emphasis added)
WP:Profanity on the other hand states:
:"Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."
While the wording of these two rules is different, I believe that their intent is actuall the same, i.e.
* Wikipedia must include material that is offensive to some, and
* Wikipedia should not gratuitously include offensive material, but should include it only where appropriate.  The NOT rule says that appropriate use requires the material to be relevant to the content of an article.  The Profanity rule says the content should be informative.
I personally, believe that the standard of being informative with respect to a given article, provides an exceedingly low barrier to the inclusion of images in Wikipedia articles, easily satisfied in almost all cases.  So although the language in the Profanity guideline is very slightly more restrictive, I cannot see the differences between the rules as being so great as to justify non-application of the WP:Profanity guideline on the grounds that it conflicts with the  NOT rule.  --BostonMA talk 17:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does [[WP:Profanity]] conflict with [[WP:Not#Wikipedia is not censored]]? 

message: It has been argued that WP:Profanity should not be accepted at its face value meaning.  An editor has described this as a "strict constructionist" to which has been opposed a "loose constructionist" view.  It is argued that the intent of the Profanity guideline does not correspond to the plain meaning.  It is argued that the guideline should not apply to offensiveness of all kinds, but only to "verbal profanity or images of blood, gore, nudity, and bodily functions." 
Wiktionary defines Profanity as
# the quality of being profane
# obscene, lewd or abusive language
Wiktionary further defines Wiktionary:Profane as
# Not sacred or holy; not possessing peculiar sanctity; unconsecrated; hence, relating to matters other than sacred; secular; -- opposed to sacred, religious, or inspired; as, a profane place.
# Unclean; impure; polluted; unholy.
# Treating sacred things with contempt, disrespect, irreverence, or undue familiarity; irreverent; impious.  Hence, specifically; Irreverent in language; taking the name of God in vain; given to swearing; blasphemous; as, a profane person, word, oath, or tongue.
I would thus argue that if we look past the plain language of the guideline itself to the name of the guideline, the name clearly suggests that the guideline applies to a broader range of  offensive things than just "verbal profanity or images of blood, gore, nudity, and bodily functions."
--BostonMA talk 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should [[WP:Profanity]] be accepted according to its face value meaning? 

message: has graciously agreed to take our case.  There are a number of editors who have expressed concerns regarding mediation, and I strongly recommend that you discuss your concerns with .  It is my hope that all parties who have been either adding or deleting the Maome image will accept  as a mediator.  Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 21:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediator