Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

use of "to conquer"

Don't do this please. You r not alloed to Draw Picture of Muhammad (PBUH) Please Rempve them Adnan (ISB) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.177.146 (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 212.116.219.107 (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Irfan

You are not "alloed" to tell us what is allowed and what isn't allowed. Most of the world isn't Muslim, doesn't want to be Muslim, and would fight if Muslims tried to impose it on them. Get over it.Scott Adler (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure we are, wikipedia is not an islamic encyclopedia. We don't follow islamic law. Zazaban (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You dont have to follow islamic Laws to give respect to others' feelings. and to what laws do u really follow ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Censorship is different than respecting others feelings. Should we delete the article on Masturbation or anal sex because the subject matter is often considered offensive? No. And about the laws; I am an anarchist, so I don't suppose I do follow a set of laws. I don't find them to be useful or justified. Neither is censorship. Zazaban (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think, you are missing the point Zazaban. I suggest you get yourself more educated on the prophet Muhammad, before posting comments.

^^^ This is hilarious. I actually almost because a muslim once, and joined an islamic forum. Not to mention the huge interest I have in religion. I've read the entire history of Muhmmad's life several times for god's sake! I suggest you get yourself more educated on Zazaban, before posting comments. Also, how on earth am I missing the point? Could you be willing to explain that one? Zazaban (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think, you are missing the point Random Anonymous Person, I suggest you get yourself more educated on the website Wikipedia, before posting comments. JuJube (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that.--C.Logan (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If one looks into the English translations of the Sirat, the works 'fight', 'battle', 'raid' and 'attack' are used more or less interchangeably, and it is described in detail how the Muslims conquer settlements and share the booty (as per Sura 8). 'Conquest' is an appropriate term to use, and is surely less aggressive than the terms 'raid' or 'attack' used in the scripture. Avoiding 'conquest' would constitute undue whitewashing. References: Ibn Ishaq & Al-Tabari, tables of content. Henrik R Clausen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.57.133.219 (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times Coverage of Image Controversy

As an FYI and heads up, an article in today's edition of The New York Times (Wikipedia Islam Entry Is Criticized), talks about this ongoing controversy. I'm sure there are lots more folks who will come take a look at this article now. --Mhking (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, we really don't need more publicity. Zazaban (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a dreadful feeling that this will increase the instances of both the "remove the image" complaints and the (until recently uncommon) comments which intend to insult or criticize Muslims. I'm seeing many comments being turned into political discussions, and I think we need to keep in mind that this page still pertains to article improvement first and foremost. The NYT coverage is somewhat flattering, but it may cause us much more trouble in the long run.--C.Logan (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The NYT article just made the digg front page...Bassg☢☢nist T C 16:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Elwood64151 (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A very succinct way of putting the controversy. Thanks, Elwood! --Mhking (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Mhking on this nonsense.Alex1996Ne (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

why cant i edit this page ?

last time i heard every one was allowed to edit wikipedia, what happened to that ? this is sad. please explain the reasoning behing this.

--digitalSurgeon (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Roughly speaking, persistant vandalism of the page has forced us to disabling editing for anonymous editors and new accounts. Accounts older than four days can still edit normally. Although sad, it's truly necessary, feel free to peruse the history to see what's happened when protection has been lifted. WilyD 17:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The page is fully protected now (i.e., not even fully registered ordinary editors can edit), presumably because of a petition currently circulating against Wikipedia protesting the inclusion of images. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The page was fully protected due to the edit warring over the images. Nakon 21:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fully protected because editors keep coming in and removing the images, changing them, or just in general creating a ruckus. Jmlk17 21:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So it was, I'll change the template. WilyD 21:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So the page is only editable by those in favour of upsetting Muslims..? If its been protected why hasnt a version that does not depict his picture be protected?

Because we're not censored, and no page exists that is censored. Jmlk17 01:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Because we only have one version of an article and the consensus of the editors here is that the pictures should remain in the article. --Fredrick day (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Because we're not censored" - But are happy knowing that Muslims are deeply upset by it, and have also removed their privilages of removing the image. To be fair its a page about Muhammad; the picture's do not educate the visitors about him in the slightest bit. Not what I thought wikipedia was about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.106.104 (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Until recently, neither I nor any other non-administrator could edit the article either. Additionally, I find the images to be very relevant and useful.--C.Logan (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of sites our there that will willingly censor and cave into demands for it. But Wikipedia is a site that does not do that... no one is forcing you to view the pictures, and as we are not censored (again), we do not have to cave into demands and outrages. It's what makes us special. Jmlk17 01:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not about caving into demands. There's no need to be defensive about all this. Just need to be a little sensible. The bottom line is, that the pictures "do not add any value" to the article. Rather it has already upset over 80,000 muslims who have petitioned against it. Further to this you have removed their privilages of removing material that is irrelevant to who Muhammad was.

(od) Actually, I find the images highly relevant, and informative. Historical depictions of Muhammad are notable, and belong in an article discussing him. Resolute 02:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In what sensible way are they relevent? They obviously do not look like him. He (Muhammad) obviously did not want depictions of him. There is NO relevance and NO extra knowledge on him is gained. "belong in an article discussing him" - with the protection of the article in favour of those who are happy with upsetting the Muslims, I fail to see the discussion as you have described. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.106.104 (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

They are relevant in that they depict how Muslims viewed Muhammad. Your modern desires to have the images removed do not trump the historical value of them. As far as protecting the article in favour of those that are "happy with upsetting Muslims", it is your decision to view the article, any offence is yours alone. Of course, while you may choose to convince yourself that this is some kind of anti-Muslim stance, I note in the edit history that vandals have attacked this article numerous times when it was not protected. The protection works both ways, and has helped prevent petty vandalism aimed specifically at upsetting Muslims. Resolute 15:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In the way that no one knows what Muhammad would have though, and that they are in for educational purposes. End of story. Jmlk17 08:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"In the way that no one knows what Muhammad would have though," - theres something quite not right about the grammar there. "and that they are in for educational purposes" - like I said, in what sensible way do they educate the reader about who Muhammad was?. "End of story." - Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.106.104 (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason why the picture shouldn't be included given that historical pictures of Jesus are included.TCPWIKI (talk)

historical pictures of [[Jesus]] are included? Is this relevant in this case. Did anyone ask for the removal of pictures of Jesus(PBUH).

No, but that's part of the point. Jmlk17 06:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

But if the was a large number of people who we're upset by it, they would and should be allowed to remove it. I believe called democracy, not freedom to insult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.106.104 (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is, first and foremost, not a democracy- of course, what you seem to be claiming doesn't appear to have direct relevance to the concept in any case. Wikipedia has rules, and operates by general consensus. One of our foundational rules is that we do not censor images or text though it may offend some individuals or groups of people. Ever. Consensus has determined that these pictures are of value to the subject, and have great historical relevance as well.

This is a secular encyclopedia, and therefore religious considerations do not play a factor in presentation. These are images created by Muslims with the intent of depicting Muhammad. They are what they are, so I fail to see the bitterness over a non-Muslim encyclopedia displaying images pertaining to the subject.--C.Logan (talk) 10:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy and neither is the United States. Learn some history! The United States is a democratic republic and is not a nation governed by mob rule, it is a nation governed by the rule of law, one of which states that we have freedom of speech. The image has a right to be posted and you have a right to complain and Wikipedia has the right to deny. Lunchboxem (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)lunchboxem

• snip*Consensus has determined that these pictures are of value to the subject, and have great historical relevance as well.*endsnip* - Consensus of a few who are happy to insult Muslims verses the conses of the hundreds of thousands who have already expressed their disapproval. *snip*and have great historical relevance as well.*endsnip* - Maybe the history of paintings, but it has little relevance to the topic of Muhammad which the article is about. Bearing in mind that Muhammad did not approve of any artform depicting him. It is understood by Wikipedia that this upsets Muslims very much. Responding with those who do not wish to see should not come here is weak. It does not take a genius to work out that a large proportion of visitors to this page are Muslim, it is a large proportion that Wikipedia are willing to upset, knowing that its against what Muhammad and Islam teaches, with material that has no relevance to the article. Wiki has protected this article in the name of protecting against vandalism. However, it appears that that the piece that is being protected has been vandalised in the greatest way. *snip*so I fail to see the bitterness over a non-Muslim encyclopedia displaying images pertaining to the subject.*endsnip* - you just have to look atthe number of people who are upset by it to understand. you just have to look into what Muhammad said about depictions about him to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.114.50.132 (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, sorry you're upset, but honestly, these relevant and artful images are here to stay, and in a non-censored website, they have no right to be removed. Jmlk17 18:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a solution. Could the pictures be on a different page (linked). Something like Muhammad(Pictures) - This article could discuss beliefs about images of Muhammad as well as the pictures. It might be less offensive and (I feel) reduce the dispute about this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.162.102 (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A separate article discussing the controversies that showing images of Muhammad would certainly be notable, but to remove them from this article to that end would still be censoring this article. I don't see the need for Wikipedia to alter its policies to placate this group. Resolute 18:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

See Depictions of Muhammad. -- tariqabjotu 18:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I love wikipedia. WHy? Cause its the best UNCENSORED encyclopedia in the world. NOT BECAUSE IT IS A MUSLIM ENCYCLOPEDIA. We dont want you censorship here, next are you going to tell us to take down pictures of our women because it offends you? Or take down pictures of all our women who arent completely covered like lepoards? We dont live under your RULE, this is a free encyclopedia, deal with it or leave.Mike240se (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Any argument regarding the intentional offense a specific group is irrelevant as long as the information is factual or the represented content actually exists. It is a source of information that strives to be unbiased and thorough. Removal of content based on a particular group's wishes constitutes bias. Removal of factual content from a relevant topic would cause this source of information to become incomplete, again, affecting the accuracy of the article. Intentionally causing an article to become incomplete would set a dangerous precedent. Such action could call into question the accuracy of all articles within. While the intentions of those attempting to remove content may be honorable, to do so would erode the foundation of this great and noble project and tarnish it's reputation as a free and open source of unbiased and uncensored information. Hardley C. Cure 63.82.71.140 (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Is full protection necessary?

Is it necessary? Most of editwars seems to come from new accounts or IPs. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

A number are coming from sleeper accounts as well though, hence the full. :) Jmlk17 23:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, blocking such persistent accounts seems to a better choice because after expiration of this protection, the edit war may resume again. Those accounts have to learn that like it or not, they are a pushing a minority view. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll reduce the protection to semi for a while and see what happens. If the edit warring over the images resumes, I'll reprotect. Nakon 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it as well. Let's hope it works! Jmlk17 00:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand, since many editors are editting the images, then obviously there is a quite enough number of writers who want these images out... isnt this the purpose of wikipedia. Or those images are so important to stay that you even violate the whole reason wikiperdia was established on.

Anyone is free to edit Wikipedia... constructively. This whole removing the established, purposeful, and relevant image thing isn't constructive. Jmlk17 04:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> Since people refuse to talk on this talk page, and continue to remove and revert the images out of the article, it has to be fully protected again. Jmlk17 07:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

By your logic, since there's quite a number of editors who seem to think the Earth article should be replaced by "Mostly harmless", we should go ahead and let them. JuJube (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, remember that wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy, but a ... fact-ocracy. NPOVarchy. Whatever. Those are the principles on which WP was founded on - principles trump concensus.--Wikinterpreter (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see any "factual" resemblance of the images to Muhammad. Not that he allowed anyone to make drawings of him. In fact the images on this article have no purpose other than upsetting the Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.106.104 (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you are upset. But that alone is no reason to remove the images. Jmlk17 08:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well if you've read any of the above, it is not that alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.106.104 (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The images aren't here to upset Muslims. They are here because of their historical relevance and the related educational value and relevance to the subject which they possess.--C.Logan (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Appearance of Muhammad

Any idea how one can incorporate this kind of information to the article [1]? in a table with the subtitle "Appearance and Manner"? --Be happy!! (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My question would be - is it necessary to include such a level of detail in physical description in this article? It is fairly long as it is. ^Avruchtalk 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the appearance information seem to be interesting especially when we have reliable sources talking about it. Some readers might be interested to see how Muhammad looked like. That would in part address some of the objection made above regarding the informativeness of the drawings.--Be happy!! (talk)

I'm not sure how - I would much rather see a visual depiction of his appearance than try to imagine it based on written descriptions. Not the most neutral of descriptions in this case, either. ^Avruchtalk 00:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is important to have these descriptions, because these descriptions are more valid and correct, since it came from people who actually saw the prophet. While the depiction, no one can be sure of its truthfullness since, non were drawn while he was alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince charming456 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And we know that how? JuJube (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

you will find that documented in all the Islamic books talking about the prophet peace upon him. the same description is everywhere. no one has changed or added to it a single world. that is verified scientifically. You may refer to any book talking about the descritpions of the prophet, and make sure yourself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 (talk • contribs) 18:39, February 3, 2008

It may be "documented in all the Islamic books..." and so on (and I would be interested in seeing how you scientifically document that not one jot nor tittle has been altered), but what remains is that images of Mohammed were made, both historically and in contemorary times. I understand that displaying these images may be offensive to some Muslims, but you are in a free forum here. If you do not wish to be offended, then do not come. As long as the facts are correct, then they may be displayed. The depictions exist, ergo they may be displayed. There are MANY depictions of Christianity (and Christ) I find offensive, but in a society with freedom of speech and freedom of expression these depictions cannot be censored (nor would I want them to be. God is bigger than that). Indeed the highest command of Christianity is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I do not wish MY speech to be censored or restrained, and hence I must respect others right to say what they will (with obvious exceptions, "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre). MY faith is not damaged by what OTHERS say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.198.192 (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

FAQ improvement possibility.

Even though it seems that nobody even bothers to read the FAQ, it could certainly be a bit more solid and developed. We've gotten a few arguments which, while still utterly flawed, are semi-common and deserve a clear response (lest others follow in these same footsteps).

There are, I think, some fundamental misunderstandings between the resident editors and these concerned visitors. Notice, for example, the difficulty found in grasping simple concepts such as "illustrative depiction". Notice one of the poorest and yet most prevalent argument: that the images are "incorrect".

The FAQ touches on these arguments, but it could certainly do much more. Let's not let this plague of topics and repetitive posting go to waste- incorporate some of the discussion into the FAQ. Perhaps it would be best to start with an introduction which explains- generally- the concepts of "depiction", "neutrality", "censorship". After this introduction, a presentation of the common arguments/questions would be appropriate. I hope somebody agrees on this; the FAQ is a nice tool that we can turn to, but it's only moderately effective at this point. Improving it will save everyone quite a bit of time in the future, as all major arguments will already have a clear response.--C.Logan (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Want me to give it a try? Maybe I should try it anyway... Be bold and all. What do you think? -- RaspK FOG (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by all means.--C.Logan (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

pictures, wikipedia servers

Since Wikipedia servers are located in Florida, does that mean if someone proposes an initiative in Florida to ban pictures of muhammed from being shown and it passes then Wikipedia would have to remove thier pictures no matter what the consensus is?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.251.11 (talk • contribs) 04:33, February 3, 2008 (UTC-6)

no, the proposition would have to be passed into law, and that would never happen. Zazaban (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not at all how it works. That would be complete and utter censorship, as well as a free speech issue. Jmlk17 10:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The servers aren't all based in Florida, and the company is now incorporated in California. Still, if California tried to pass such a law it would get knocked down pretty quick in federal court. Good thought though. ^Avruchtalk 14:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

First amendment, anonymous genius. JuJube (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, JuJube. I was going to say that... haha. нмŵוτнτ 16:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to play the Devil's Advocate here, but say it was actually passed into law. Then what? --64.173.240.130 (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It would mean we're now living in a police state, and wikipedia would probably already be gone. 132.170.160.115 (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends on whether the foundation is willing to spend money on a court case they could win with ease - they might, they might not. We'd have to see. WilyD 16:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the foundation would even have to do anything. Civil Rights groups would do the work for it. Courts would immediately squash the law as unconstitutional, both as a violation of the right to free speech, and on the separation of church and state. There isn't a politician in the US who would want his name associated with a bill that would be unconstitutional. Resolute 16:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice to all those who wish Wikipedia to remove pictures of Muhammad

Please place your requests for Wikipedia to remove pictures of Muhammad in this dedicated page or they may be removed. TharkunColl TharkunColl (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: if this is the page now in use for these particular topics, we may want to change the banner near the top which explains that no changes will be made without discussion on this page.--C.Logan (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

most people are never going to read it - it would actually make more sense for the rest of us to leave this page to the "please remove" crowd and do all of the real work on a sub-page. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, this may be the case if the reaction to the FAQ is any indication.--C.Logan (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this notice to the bottom where I suggest it remains, so that everyone sees it. TharkunColl (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to TharkunColl: I'd reverted your removal of the "a new suggestion" topic, because I feel that this is a topic which is mostly productive and should not be included along with the rest of the "request" posts, which are typically by anonymous or new users with little or no knowledge of Wikipedia policy. As far as I can see, this is not a "request" which would justifiably need to be moved to the new page for such posts- doing so would "drown out" the points raised by Aminz, because I can't help but feel that this new page will be one that is afforded little real attention or concern (though one can't be blamed for this attitude considering the route the discussion has taken).--C.Logan (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

though the images are not yet removed, but i have to thank everyone who took the time to participate in this discussion. Those who are in favor of the removal or not, I thank everyone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 (talk • contribs) 06:48, February 4, 2008 (UTC-5)

There is no "yet" my friend. Jmlk17 11:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have moved your page to Talk:Muhammad/images whic is the original title under which we did image discussions. I'm sure you realize what you were doing when you called it "censorship requests" but our goal is to make this a manageable issue that does not clog the talk page, not belittle the people making these requests. gren グレン 17:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A reminder

This talk page is apparently linked in many places on the Internet, due to discussion in many Islamic forums. As a result, there are many people here of sincere faith but who are not Wikipedians and do not understand our policies and the reasons for them. Please be nice to these people. And if you are a person of faith here to argue your case, please do us the courtesy of listening to the reasons for the content policies which are in place. If everybody treats everybody else with respect, even while disagreeing, we may be able to persuade some of our new friends to stay and help counter systemic bias. And if not, at least we will avert another PR disaster. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 23:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User:DragonflySixtyseven

How come you were able to edit the page and add your comment, when the rest of us can't? TharkunColl (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Because I'm an administrator. DS (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • More to the point, we do have a similar disclaimer in our article on the Ba'hai prophet Baha'ullah. Let's be fair. Let's reach a compromise. We're all mature people, yes? DS (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

But if a page is protected, by editing it you are surely breaking the rules? TharkunColl (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, Administrators may edit fully protected pages. Such edits are typically done in an attempt at defusing a situation, which this one was, or in accordance to consensus reached via discussion on talk pages. And before you ask, consensus currently is that the images stay. Resolute 01:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The addition is certainly good. Maybe we should wikify the uncovered face part so that it becomes blue and becomes more noticeable. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. To what would you suggest it be linked? DS (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. What about this: Just a suggestion.

There are two artworks by Muslim artists which portray the face of Muhammad uncovered further down in this article.

Regards, --Be happy!! (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think the disclaimer is a bit wordy. I would suggest "This article contains images of artwork portraying the face of Muhammad. These images are used for historical context." I think saying "respectfully" sounds a bit like pandering, but that's just an opinion.Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe I suggested this idea before and someone told me disclaimers are not allowed on Wikipedia and should be removed if they are noticed. Perhaps they were misleading me, but that was the response I received. -Rosywounds (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a disclaimer. Is it? It seems to be a simple note.--Be happy!! (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly knowledgeable in rules over this, but here is the thread on it. This was the response I received:

...I do not know whether or not it is a violation of censorship policy, but perhaps we could include a warning of these images at the top of the page on Muhammad? -Rosywounds // We can't include a disclaimer at the top of the article - Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. The article is already covered by Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, which says Some articles may contain names, images, artworks or descriptions of events that some cultures restrict access to and Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. --Hut 8.5

Perhaps the responder was mistaken, also. I don't know. -Rosywounds (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I am unhappy with how much of this current brouhaha has been handled, so I've made an informal complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Heavy-handed admin behavior at Muhammad, if anyone's interested.—Chowbok ☠ 02:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, Talk:Muhammad/FAQ has been deleted. I have recreated it, but I suspect that it will be deleted again quite swiftly. Zazaban (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fellow admins:

• Please: Do not edit this page while protected
• Please: Follow process when deleting pages from talk namespace

Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

As I've recommended in the Talk: Muhammad/images, take the images dispute to Wikipedia: Arbitration and get a ruling. I'm neither for 'or' against the images being kept. I'm more concerned about this article becoming a 'Holy War' site. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The Committee wouldn't accept a content dispute that has no conduct elements for them to decide. They don't make content decisions or set policy, so they couldn't really help here at the moment. ^Avruchtalk 02:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the consensus on this article concerning the images? Keep or Delete? GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's keep. It's always been keep, but a large number of people who have never used wikipedia before have swarmed this page because of [www.thepetitionsite.com this] Zazaban (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The best course of action here may be to start an RFC somewhere on the images. Arbitration would be premature before other methods of content dispute resolution are attempted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that will help. Most of these people have never used wikipedia before and will not know about that. Zazaban (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I still recommend trying ArbCom. If they reject the case, then start blocking editors who go against the consensus (if 3 blocks fail to get the message across? a lifetime ban for the editor should be invoked). GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and there is no policy reason to block an editor for arguing for or against these images in a talk page, especially when everyone has remained civil. The article is fully protected, and likely will be indefinitely, so there is no edit war to stop either. Resolute 02:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant the reverters, not the arguers. Those who keep their disputes to the discussion pages are acceptable. It's those who revert against the consensus, who need reigning in. GoodDay (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's frustrating for innocent editors out there, who have to content with a 'locked' article. GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a real shame too, I can see this being fully protected for more than a month, even a year. Zazaban (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

But there are really no reverters. For most of the time the petition site has been an issue the page has been protected. I think we could use to unprotect it and see what happens for a while. Reverting removal of images every once and a while is not that big of a deal. Although, it was protected for some other reason if I'm not mistaken. gren グレン 03:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

An admin tried dropping the protection down to semi yesterday, and that lasted about six hours before it had to be fully protected again due to edit warring over the images. All in all, this article has been protected in some form for two years now. The longest it had gone without any kind of protection was about a month in 2006. Given the current popularity of Wikipedia, I would bet the six hours it lasted yesterday is the high mark... and that was with editing by anons and new users still disabled. Resolute 03:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed. It only looked like three vandals in more than that many hours. That's not bad at all... at least, I don't think it's a high enough rate to justify protecting the page. I didn't see any edit warring. It's all vandalism since these are new users violating a general consensus--at least, the consensus not to just arbitrarily remove the images. I am not fully sure why it is protected... gren グレン 04:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Anytime the page is unprotected, randoms and sleeper accounts come in and continuously remove the images. Jmlk17 04:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

But the sleeper accounts are finite and can be easily blocked. How many of them do you think exists? --Be happy!! (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to drop it down to a semi-protection. One can expect some initial "bounce" of vandalism but I'm just going to block people who start edit warring to remove the pictures without getting consensus. Filing an ArbCom case is useless, as is an RFC; the only thing I think that will work here is the good 'ole cluestick. --Haemo (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's worth a shot I guess... Jmlk17 04:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll be watching as well. At least we have plenty of eyes on it. Resolute 05:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, get ready for the tempest. Zazaban (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is always going to need a level of protection - that's just facing reality - most of the people removing the images are hit and run who don't hang around long enough for policy to be explained to them. The other pragamatic reality is that however much we want to cite policy for keeping those images, this is now as much about Weltanschauung as it is the rules of this place. I don't think the images can be removed without causing a massive schism in the community. sorry that's not very helpful or positive sounding. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but honestly, the images will never be removed. All we can do is keep with the policy of allowing whomever to edit (semi-protect the article), and keep vigilant. There are numerous editors who keep an eye on the article, so any vandalism or removal or the images is quickly fixed. Jmlk17 10:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, semi-protection is the best way to go (and full protection when needed). Going the ArbCom route is alot of fuss & probably a waste of time. In agreement, semi-protection/protection is best. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Media Coverage

Wow, this image controversy has just gotten substantial media coverage here: New York Times - Wikipedia Islam Entry Criticized. --Hdt83 ^Chat 08:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow indeed. I'm surprised that a note was made specifically on Aminz's proposal. I also enjoy this touch, though I am uncertain of the factuality of it (although it does come from a professor of Islamic history): "The idea of imposing a ban on all depictions of people, particularly Muhammad, dates to the 20th century." This appears to contrast with what many of the anonymous users come here to claim regarding the treatment of such images throughout history.--C.Logan (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but that will probably get written off as "slander" eh? :) Jmlk17 10:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, yeah, they mentioned my proposal "The site considered but rejected a compromise that would allow visitors to choose whether to view the page with images".

It feels kind of good :-) --Be happy!! (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To C.Logan; The ban dates to the 20th century due to te huge development in the media, not for any other reason, before the 20th century those pictures were something marginal and its exposure to the muslims we so limited to a few people. However we must say again that Muhammad (PBUH) himself refused to have such pictures or statues for himself, so the taboo roots back to the 6th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazem adel (talk • contribs) 11:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

well, quote their expert then: Paul M. Cobb, who teaches Islamic history at Notre Dame, said, “Islamic teaching has traditionally discouraged representation of humans, particularly Muhammad, but that doesn’t mean it’s nonexistent.” He added, “Some of the most beautiful images in Islamic art are manuscript images of Muhammad.” The idea of imposing a ban on all depictions of people, particularly Muhammad, dates to the 20th century, he said. this is pathetic. Islam has been going for 1400 years. They've had their jerks, and they've had their wise men like everyone else. This "depictions protests" nonsense is 20th century Islamism, period. All these zealots are achieving is reducing their rich heritage to an annoying or mildly amusing travesty. dab (��) 19:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I attribute most of this to globalization though. It is not impossible to create a philosophical argument against the pictures within a population that finds those images objectionable using say Joel Feinberg's "principle of offense". The same argument would not apply in other communities though. The root of the problem is in globalization as well as the fact that the English language has become the scientific language for all nations. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice of proposal on Jimbo's talk page

{{How to set your browser to not see images}}Imagine a wikipedia space page with instructions on "How to set your browser to not see images". Imagine a link to it in the toolbox on the left side of each page. Image a more noticeable template that links to it, available for pages which are routinely problematic due to images that are shocking to a minority of wikipedia editors, rather than shocking/offensive to enough to have the image only linked to. Imagine a Wikimania conference in Egypt this summer. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

this has been proposed and rejected repeatedly. It is not for us to instruct people how to configure their browser. Nobody will stop you from compiling a Help: page giving instructions on how to block certain images at browser level. Interest groups could then trade lists of images on WP they do not wish to see. But the point is that we, as WP, cannot single out some images as "problematic": we either show them because they are relevant, or we don't show them. If we started accepting responsibility of maintaining blacklists "unsuitable for $INTEREST_GROUP" we'd never hear the end of it. If this situation prompts some users to set their browser to "block all images from wikimedia.org" -- so be it, let them configure their browsers already and stop pestering Wikipedia about it. If they are too pious to view "infidel" websites, what are they doing here in the first place? That's like a puritan visiting a porn site and then placing complaints could he get special settings blocking all the indecency please. dab (��) 19:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, at least half of this proposal is already accepted - showing people how to disable image display is a reasonable solution. WilyD 20:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

But nobody reads those things - we know this, we know this not just from experience here but every bit of HCI research done since the 1970s! It will make not one iota of difference for the calls for removal that appear on this page. If someone wants to generate such a page, that's is entirely upto them but let's not kid ourselves that it will make any difference to the 1000s of one-timer posters/viewers of such pages. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would personally be satisfied with that solution (and I think it is necessary). If someone argues further than I want the pages to be removed, he can be responded that he can find worst images on the internet and that we are clearly informing him about how to avoid this before seeing the picture(of course it shouldn't be a difficult thing to do for newcomers). It may take sometime for some to learn about this but those who insist further afterwards are not logical. And if your question is that are there illogical people around? I would say "yes". How should we deal with them? Just as we do with other illogical people in other articles. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Any proposal that makes sure that there are no non-consenting readers who might involuntarily or unwittingly be exposed to the images works for one side of the dispute because it places the responsibility of seeing images on themselves. On the other hand, those who argue against it say that this will become a precedent and people will request say pornography or violent pictures to be removed. A response to that was that a Muslims is more likely to visit Muhammad article than someone who gets offended by porn visiting related articles. Because the person who visits such article is already aware of the possibility of exposure to those kind of images and hence will not see something very unexpected. This line of argument has not been convincing it appears. Just trying to summarize everything from my perspective. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, measures where you can "opt-in" to seeing images are generally undesirable (and will inevitably present pratical problems). Measures where you can "opt-out" of seeing images are pretty reasonable, if anyone knows how to implement one. WilyD 20:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wily, I did not personally oppose the proposal (I myself belong to the side that asked for some kind of notice be added- Fredrick day below is among those coming from the other side). I just added the summary of past; why am I in error? --Be happy!! (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no chance - leaving aside the work it would require, editors are here to improve the encyclopedia not spend their time trying to deal with every single group on the internet who want special privileges - it would be seen as the thin edge of the wedge and I'd be at the front of an campaign to stop this attack on the secular nature of wikipediia. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

look, nobody whatsoever objects to the development of a "halal Wikipedia" plugin that Islamic readers can install if they so choose. Instead of debating this here, people could just go and do it. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy at all, people are free to fiddle with their incoming internet traffic any way they like. You can develop a script that replaces "Muhammad" with "Muhammad (pbuh)", or "Jimbo" with "boobies" for that matter, in five minutes and just install it tacitly on your end. But no, this isn't about not seeing images, it is about making political noise. Still, if there was such a plugin, at least we could simply point further complaining users to it in a giant sign at the top of this page and move on. What is not acceptable is being pressured into adapting the standard toolbox / article space so that everybody is presented with a STOP sign and a message like "STOP! IF YOU ARE MUSLIM, DON'T LOOK!!! CLICK HERE FIRST!" as Fredrick points out, every interest group on Wikipedia would give no peace until they'll have similar templates touting their own sensitivities to the world at large in place. dab (��) 20:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And another thing - why have we ran straight for "daddy" Jimbo? what's the point of having a community if people are going to run straight to him? Was this proposal put on the relevent boards first? --Fredrick day (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Dab, I don't care if some people look at this politically. If you can give the readers a chance to choose to see the images or not before exposing to them in whatever possible way, that would work, even through the Islamic plugin you mentioned. It doesn't matter how.

re "every interest group on Wikipedia would give no peace until they'll have similar templates touting their own sensitivities to the world at large in place.": NO. Since it is unlikely that such a thing happens because if it wanted to happen, it should have happened by now. Let's talk about the realities.--Be happy!! (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Bowing to religious pressure will cause a schism in the project that's a massive practical and organisational reason why your proposal cannot pass. If it does pass, the WP:POINT nominations will start from all corners (I can think of 15 with little effort) and will be impossible to deny because precedent will be sent. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing how creative some people will get in order to inject censorship into the project. Wikipedia already comes with a Wikipedia:Content disclaimer - that's all that's needed. --Veritas (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think this is setting a precedent. Most articles on movies/books provide a header for "plot"; they don't simply jump into spoilers without warning, nor do they place these spoilers in the lead, for example. True, they don't provide overt disclaimers, but they at least allow readers to know "what's coming." Most Muslims that view this article probably wouldn't immediately assume unveiled imagery is furnished here, considering how rare it is to begin with. -Rosywounds (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

yes, {{spoiler}} is was sort of a prededent (I'm surprised this doesn't come up more often). As it is, I would rather get rid of {{spoiler}} (per "WP is not censored") than allow it to set such a precedent. (hey, I note we already have -- thank you Wikipedia!) seriously, Aminz, you should look into developing a "halal Wikipedia" plugin along the lines I mentioned: this isn't meant as a joke, this could be a respectable project, and would even be guaranteed to make the news. dab (��) 21:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in turning this into a larger-than-Wikipedia thing nor do I care about making any news. Please assume good faith. You disagree with the proposal. That's fine. It should be also fine if someone agrees with it. Please do not try to single me out and put me in a negative light. We can agree to disagree. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The spoiler suggestion has actually been brought up before and rejected. --Veritas (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about a built-in template for spoilers; I was referring to the fact that all Wiki articles on movies, for example, isolate the plot summary into one section under one heading. They do not provide spoilers in the lead, for example. This makes it very easy for someone to navigate on such a page while still avoiding spoilers. An article such as that is not censored, even though it provides accommodations (built in to its structure) that allow one to navigate the page easily without worry of accidentally stumbling into something that one could potentially find unhelpful/objectionable. "I would rather get rid of {{spoiler}} (per "WP is not censored") than allow it to set such a precedent." So you would have found it tolerable, so long as it doesn't impact a page on Muhammad? That sounds like bad-faith editing, particularly since you barely even edit Islam-related articles in the first place. Halal Wikipedia? That seemed pretty irrelevant (and uncivil). -Rosywounds (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think moving the pictures would help in this matter (if I understand you correctly)? Oh and the "barely ever edit islam-related" argument is a red herring, I NEVER edit them and it's irrelevent, any editor can act to protect the content of articles and can join in on ANY talkpage about matters relating to both individual pages and wider policy issues (and this certainly ties into any number of wider policy issues). --Fredrick day (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that there is a section in this article that is named "depictions of Muhammad." I think any person, Muslim or otherwise, would be able to reasonably infer what is (or ought to be) located in that section from the title. Besides that, my comment wasn't directed at you, Fredrick day; it was directed at Dbachmann who implied that he wouldn't necessarily oppose a policy on spoiler templates so long as its application does not extend to a page on Muhammad, which sounds pretty hypocritical in my book. Certainly anyone can post, but individuals that come to this talk page to rant and cry (I am talking about Dbachmann, again) probably aren't doing much to contribute to this Islam-related article anyway; Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, and we don't need people that are wholly unconcerned with improving the article to come here to politicize the issue. -Rosywounds (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

has a single person come here and asked us to move the pictures to a seperate section? because I've only being patrolling this page for a couple of days and the requests all seem to be "remove" - I don't understand how this is a solution to anything? Having said that, I have no objection to trying it if other editors feel it is a worthwhile experiment. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The complete removal has been eliminated as a solution, but different methods ought to be taken if we don't want anonymous users to appear here everyday clogging the talk page. I think anything is worth a shot. -Rosywounds (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

you are twisting my statement. I am glad the spoiler template is gone. It was in place when I joined WP in 2004, and while I never liked it, I never campaigned against it. An "objectionable image warning" mechanism would be much, much worse than the spoiler template, and I will certainly object to its introduction, regardless of whether it is going to be used on Islam related articles or any other articles. dab (��) 12:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad himself didn't approve of painting living objects

When we upload the picture of a living person we worry about copyright, we worry about that person's permission to upload the image (if not taken at a public meeting). We don't publish people's image taken by hidden camera in the washroom on Wikipedia. Almost everyday we have cartoons and caricatures US President George Bush published in various newspapers / magazines across the world. Should we publish those images on Wikipedia (if found under a free license)? Right now, there is a big upset in Hong Kong, because some nude images of a few celebrities have leaked on internet without their permission. Should Wikipedia use those images as soon as their copyright expires? Not sure what the exact policy on Wikipedia is, but I believe very logically, we shouldn't; especially if the subject of the article would not want to be identified by any of those images. When naming people on Wikipedia we always use the name the subject person wants to be called by. If there is a derogatory nickname of a person that the person doesn't approve, should we use that name in Wikipedia to identify him or her? Certainly not.

What has all this to do with Muhammad's (Sm.) images? There is no Images of Muhammad drawn during his lifetime - because Muhammad (Sm.) did not approve of painting his image. It is a historical fact Muhammad (Sm.) did not approve drawing images of living things. All his life he fought against creation of idols and images of people, especially those of famous people, heroes, and historical figures - because such practices eventually lead the image to become more important than the teaching (arguably what has happened to the Crush symbol).

Granted, however the concern for hidden cameras is different from that of copyright, is different from what I (a non-muslam) hear Muhammad wanted. Muhammad wanted no pictures of himself... presumably this implies both exact duplications (cameras, etc) and artist' renditions. However the reason people (anyone) can make fun of Bush or Paris Hilton via images is because they are public figures which have separate laws regarding exposure. Lastly, regarding copyright... it is the ARTISTS' choice whether or not to make the COPYRIGHTABLE material available or not (usage licensing)... it is the ARTISTS' work of making a canvas and paint into a portrait... I would be more curious what would've happened if Muhammad had discovered someone secretly painting a picture of himself. (I ask because I assume any public attempt would be either discouraged by constant movement of the subject to prevent a "source" to work from, or the public outrage at the time). -Scott

Now, given some people (though Muslims) have drawn images of the Prophet (perhaps unknowingly) with little respect to Prophet's prejudice against such painting, should Wikipedia repeat (or escalate) the mistake by posting the images? When there is clearly no way to get to a compromise between showing and not showing the image, whose preference should Wikipedia respect, the preference of the person about whom the article is, or the preference / interest of the people who may be curious to know how the Prophet was "drawn" in isolated cases by people unaware / not respectful about Prophet's prejudice against painting? I strongly feel, Wikipedia should follow the preference of the subject of the article (The Prophet in this case), at least in the article about him.

This is not Censorship - this is respecting a very important person's own preference about how he wanted to be depicted. If the images are retained in the separate article on "Depiction of Islamic Prophet Muhammad" for historical interest, that's understandable.

If wikipedia admins still decide against removing the picture, please on the FAQ page under Q.1, In addition to It offends Muslims and The images are false add a third section heading "Muhammad himself didn't approve of painting living objects" and clarify that Wikipedia policy is to totally disregard people's personal view in deciding how they should or should not be portrayed. Arman ^(Talk) 05:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Your assumptions are incorrect, therefore your conclusions are flawed. Absolutely we would publish a derogatory cartoon of George Bush, assuming it was relevant and not under copyright. The opinion of the subject of the cartoon is irrelevant. Same with the derogatory nickname hypothetical; the only considerations when deciding whether to include it are its relevance and its importance. The "approval" of the subject is not a consideration.—Chowbok ☠ 06:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Arman, the request, as placed in the form of the heavy-handed begging that Islam-adherants have come her with, is not only censorship, it is blackmail. Wikipedia is not governed by Islamic doctrinal guidelines; it is secular, and stands above and beyond the governing of any one party or parties. If you don't want to read the article, don't read the article. Don't look at the images. But you don't have the right to prohibit me or anyone else from doing so. And the constant begging that this has turned into is bordering almost childish blackmail. --Mhking (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Chowbok's reasoning seems reasonable. Only what I didn't understand, how some poorly drawn "cartoon" type images after hundreds of years of a person's death become so important that they have to be on the artcile. The only historical importance of these images that I can see is the one artifically created by a handful of Wikipedia admins by forcing these images in the article on Prophet Muhammad (Sm.). Anyway, let's clarify this line of argument on the FAQ page, shall we?

For Mhking, I am not begging you or anyone to do anything, so please stop directing me what I read on wikipedia and what I don't. I was just pointing out that, I believe everyone reserves the right to decide how he/she should be figuratively depicted. If there is a criticism of a person on factual basis, that can and should be included irrespective of person's opinion. If we are talking about a photograph or a painting done to show a person's actual resemblance, that can be considered factual with respect to that person. But cartoons, drawings (based on imagination), nicknames - are not facts, they are pure and simple "POV" about a person in a figurative form, and the inclusion of such material on a person's biography should consider that person's acceptance / rejection of such materials. If Wikipedia's policy does not cover it yet, then the policy is deficient and needs to be changed, and I am hoping the clear inclusion of this stance on the FAQ page will open the door to the discussion which will lead to that change in policy. Arman ^(Talk) 07:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm simply amazed that some fantics want the pictures sencored! Why should non-religous people follow religous laws? Are these muslims trying to pick a fight? I say, mind you own business, if it hurts your feelings, then look the other way - don't try to opose your believes onto us! Besides islamic law also prohibits the depiction of other islamic prophets like Jesus, Moses and Abraham; howcome this isn't an issue, when there are pictures of them? It just show, that this demand of removing the Mohammad picture is grounded in hypocrisy - and a way to try to force us to follow their laws. It's wrong! 11:51 CET, 5. February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.245.80 (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Arman, are you honestly contesting the use of the image based on it's quality? Because it's a 'cartoon', as you put it? One must make allowances for 17th century art, having not been as evolved as contemporary art, but 'cartoon' or not, the depiction is cited as being the earliest surviving representation of Muhammad, and that is something you'll have to take up with the editors of Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Turkish Art, not Wikipedia. Because of these fellows we have a cited source as to why this is believed to be the earliest depiction. -99.241.142.163 (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Use AdBlock Firefox plugin

(This section has been imported from this edit) gren グレン 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Any Muslims offended by the images should use Firefox with the Adblock add-on. Then they can block the images that offend them from appearing on their computers. Everyone's happy. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it. The point of the controversy is to harrass and threaten and force non-Muslims to obey Muslim rules out of fear of giving offense (and the chance of receiving a violent response). They don't want ANYONE to see these pictures. Frankly, I don't like disresectful pictures of Norman Numchuks, but I will defend to the death the right of anyone to print them.Scott Adler (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is so sadly true. Do a Google search on words like Wikipedia, Muhammad, and pictures, etc, and it turns out that there are already countless hate sites out there spewing filth against this article (and this is no doubt where all the trolls have been coming from lately). What they perhaps don't realise is that freedom of speech far more sacred to those of us who grew up in a free society than adherence to any religious dogma can ever be. TharkunColl (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously this is a truth that is in all of islam. Even the paedophile prophet says so himself. People must accept islam, or "repression", or "submission", not because it is the truth, but because of force. The paedophile prophet was a mass-murderer, a racist genocidal maniak. This is what happens when you tolerate intolerance. By definition the paedophile worshippers can never be placated until everyone's defeated or dead (quran 8:23)

No, I get it and I completely disagree with those who are trying to remove the images. I simply offered them a solution to protect their sensitive eyes. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sadly to read such a post and a reply on a respectful site!

I think the Adblock solution is really fine. The problem applies only to Muslims, and they have proper remedies to avoid seeing images of their prophet. We can't have Wikipedia ruled by arcane religious laws anyway. Henrik R Clausen

Dear Sir,

I have never thought of being a secular as to be disrespectful to others beliefs or disrespectful to 1.5 billion believers seeing in such posted picture an insult to their prophet.

I always thought of secularism as a balanced thoughtful human respecting rule of thumb ideology and never the opposite. You are not promoting secularism at its best, but you are promoting sectarianism which I am really sorry to see such in here. Wikipedia is one of the common and famous references on the web, in the meantime, they are not entitled to put their own articles about any religion as per being a secular website as some wikipedia administrators replied, you are not entitled of any religious debate, article, study, or even any related to religious nature material.

By doing so and by rejecting the request to remove the picture posted please allow me to tell you that you are far from being secular but more likely closer to be a sectarian who is promoting sectarianism and nothing more. There is nothing called I own this then I do whatever I like, specially when it does provoke others and attacking or disrespecting their core of beliefs.

I really laughed when someone of the administrator was comparing religion to a restaurant "what an ignorance indeed!", if you to assign administrators please make sure that they are well educated seculars on the level of culture at least. I am only passing the following "you have to be respectful to be respectable".

"Your freedom ends when others freedom begins

if you truly thought so you would immediately propose a law outlawing islam, since, to put it mildly, it doesn't respect this principle. Forcing others to become muslims* is a central duty of islam ("hisbah")

• (oh I'm sorry this is not true, they must only DO EVERYTHING muslims do and DO NOTHING that muslims don't do)

Isn't it the ultimate core of understanding and mutual respect. Freedom of speech, a hanger where we hang our personal and social failure on and claim that it is sacred (where the word sacred is a religious term that is not related to secularism in any way). The better yet is "Respect" where everyone is entitled for such, as if freedom of speech means or equal to no respect then goodbye humanity.

Regards. Aulic

No, we are refusing to cave into secular demands. Jmlk17 01:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And indeed, I was always taught that respect has to be earned. TharkunColl (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I recommend this dispute go to Mediation, and if that fails? Arbitration. Then, whatever ruling is handed down? all editors will have to abide by it. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't that done already? Jmlk17 01:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Show me the Arbitration Ruling. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[2] is one. Jmlk17 01:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That's Mediation, where's the Arbitration Case GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not sure if there is one man. Jmlk17 01:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm neither concerned if the images are kept 'or' removed. I am concerned that an article has been caught up in a 'holy war'. I strongly recommend to the combatants, to take this dispute to Arbitration. GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That's definitely not a bad idea at all. Jmlk17 02:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And if it goes to arbitration and the status quo is upheld, then what -- will you find yet some other way to continue to protest and try to impose your will on everyone else? --Mhking (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe this is an Arbcom issue. It's about content, not specific user behavior, which is Arbcom's sole purpose, unless I understand Arbcom wrong. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Jmlk17 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom will reject it as a content issue most likely, but if someone wants to establish as precedent that ArbCom will reject the issue, go ahead. I think there may be a declination somewhere, but I don't know where. WilyD 15:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You're likely right, but I'd agree with tossing it in the ring just to get it on record. I doubt it would silence any of the critics, but better to establish a solid paper-trail. --Mhking (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Censorship

There is no liberty of expresion in that countries. A simple pic make thousend of people to mobilizate. It could be better to censor wikipedia to all Musulman regions, and then, whait.

Sorry, any policy we enact will be applied equally to all. It is possible that there could be some kind of opt-out through a monobook.js but other than that we will not be making a decision to give different people different articles. gren グレン 18:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)