Talk:Kaaba

Pictures of Muhammad (continued)

With respect to this subject let me mention here that pictorial dipictions of Our PROPHET (May Peace be upon HIM) or any other kind of attempt in this regard is total violation of Islamic values. It is an open defiance to the Sacredness of the PROPHET of ISLAM. Picture being relevant is not the issue here. The issue here is the Peronality it is depicting. This issue may be of little interest to many people but for followers of Islam it is very serious.Any picture may be offensive to anyone but this particular picture is depicting a PERSONALITY whose sacredness is beyond any doubt. This picture is offensive to whole of the Muslim Ummah and we all want it removed from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.249.34 (talk • contribs) 05:30, July 4, 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but Islamic values have no place at Wiki as wiki is a medium for knowledge and learning, not religous worship. Therefore Wikipedia policy takes precedence over islamic taboo See WP:CENSOR. Dman727 06:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We would like to now what knowledge this particular picture provides to non-muslims or for that matter to muslims as well ? Learning to respect each other's religious values is better way to sort out differences. This particular picture is likely to create more confusion then sense. The problem here is that every one seems to judge things according to his/her own perspective with least knowledge of facts. If this issue is being pursued then it is clear that something is seriuosly wrong with this particular picture. Why not just replace it with actual picture of the black stone to close this issue once and for all and stop offensive remarks on each other's way of thinking and religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.249.34 (talk • contribs) 04:53, July 5, 2007 (UTC)

We? Who is we? Wikipedia is not oriented towards Islam, nor any other religion. Its about knowledge - see WP:CENSOR I'm sorry that you personally find this offensive, however it would violate many wiki principles to censor the encylopedia to conform to a minority religious viewpoint. For that matter no encyclopedia at all would be possible if it attempt to conform to all religions. I would suggest not viewing the picture so as to avoid being offended. Dman727 05:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

why doesnt anyone realize that by displaying such blasphemeous content, the credibilty of wiki as whole becomes at stake. when this particular picture can very easily be substituted with actual picture of the black stone. i am trying to upload but with their seems to be some error. so if anyone is willing i can e-mail that picture to him and he/she can upload it. please stop mixing up blasphemy with knowledege. This picture provides hardly any knowledge while on the other end it is of offensive nature. so please do realize the importance of this issue and do not behave in narrow minded way. All dipictions of this sort should be avoided at all costs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.249.34 (talk • contribs) 12:06, July 9, 2007 (UTC)

The painting isnt blasphemeous, nor offensive, nor even a picture (its a painting). Maybe to a few, but for those you can always try Islamopedia or simply closing your eyes. The painting is relevant, tasteful and extremely relative to the text at hand. Have you read the accompanying text?? What wikipolicy dictates that we must avoid it (at all cost no less)? Remember Islamo-policy has no relevance here, only wikipolicy. Frankly, this sillyness is starting to get quite annoying. Dman727 12:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

How you can decide if it is not blasphemeous and offensive. Are you Muslim? It is extremely offensive and blasphemeous for Muslims. --- A. L. M. 12:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Simple - I used the same process that you used to decide it is. Our religion has NO bearing here. See WP:CENSOR Dman727 13:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That is different debate and for its answer look at there. However, now you admit that it is (or may be) offensive to Muslims. Hence you will not say it again that "The painting isnt blasphemeous, nor offensive"? At least give us that much for God sake. --- A. L. M. 13:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Dman727 -- are you saying that the offence a picture causes part of the readership has absolutely no bearing on whether it should appear on Wikipedia? If so, I think you may be in the minority on that view. To make a rational decision, one must always weigh the positive against the negative with regards to Wikipedia's goals. If Wikipedia's goal is to inform, then the positive would be the knowledge conveyed by the photo, while the negative would be the alienation of a segment of the population. To be dominated by the latter would be irrational, but to ignore it entirely would be equally irrational. --P3d0 13:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If an article is offensive to a majority of people, is not noteable, and doesnt inform then its certainly reasonable to remove it. In this case, this very old painting is noteable, informs and is tasteful to majority of the worlds population. Is offense 100% irrelevant? Perhaps not. But then I note the article Cleveland_steamer, one I find extremely offensive - probably to a majority of the worlds population, and only slightly noteable, yet the wiki community finds that the article meets wiki standards for inclusion (btw I've never voted on that article). In short "offense" is one of the least concerns. Dman727 13:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's hard not to agree to remove an image that if an image is simultaneously offensive, non-notable, and uninformative. Leaving aside your other points for a moment, what I'd like to figure out is, where is the line drawn? To me it would seem logical that if an image's negative attributes outweigh its pedagogical value, then it should be removed. Can we agree on this as a starting point? --P3d0 17:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh thats easy, the line is community consensus and wiki policy. This is hardly new ground. Rather than trying to reinvent the wheel here, this same exact discussion has been hashed out several times (with the same objectors) on other articles. See Depictions_of_Muhammad, Black_stone, Talk:Muhammad/Mediation, Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy and a few others.Dman727 17:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The consensus is that such images can be included, if they are presented in a respectful way. I would also point out that though there are indeed traditions in the Muslim community which avoid images of Muhammad, that these traditions are directed towards Muslims, not towards non-Muslims. It would be inappropriate for a Muslim to go through the Library of Congress ripping out any page that had an image of Muhammad. It would be equally inappropriate for an orthodox Jew to go through a supermarket destroying anything that was non-kosher. Or for a Christian from the Midwest to go through a California liquor store and berate them for selling alcohol on a Sunday. Let's please keep individualized customs, separate from creating a source of knowledge. The images of Muhammad at Wikipedia are intended to inform -- not to antagonize, not to evangelize. They are intended to educate. Removing them would do a disservice to those who have a genuine good faith desire for knowledge. --Elonka 18:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a relevant policy? That would be ideal. Thanks for the links. --P3d0 18:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No one on this page has clearly stated what really does this image convey ? All the discussion on this topic clearly shows something is very wrong about this picture. This picture does not conform with Islamic principles so crediblity of the article and the knowledge it is suppose to provide is questionable. All the More so then this article is less of facts and more of fabricated non-Islamic material as this picture clearly indicates. If such pictures are to inform about PROPHET (SAW) then equally well they are wrong since Islam prohibits such depictions. If such pictures are to inform about Islam then they dont provide the clear picture about Islam as they are strongly prohibited. If such pictures are to inform about Kaaba then it is totally out of place. A picture of black stone is ore relevent here. If this picture is suppose to portray open mindedness then such iressponsible acts have resulted in un-warranted loss to many people of differing faiths. Non-Muslims dont realize this fact that is why they are insisting on keeping this image.

so is wiki a media of knowlegde or ignorance. Result is wiki being used by people who are happy and satisfied with defaming other religions and playing with sentiments of people of other faiths in the name of knowledge. so once again it is stressed that this picture be removed from this article and actual picture of black stone be placed in its place.[Ghulam Muhammad21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.249.34 (talk • contribs) (06:12, July 10, 2007 (UTC)

I understand that English is not the first language of some of the editors here, so let me try to explain: The image is used with respect. It is a picture about something that happened at the Kaaba, so it is right for it to be here. Please do not use Muslim rules here. I understand that some Muslims say that there should be no images of Muhammad. These are rules that some Muslims follow. That is okay. But please understand. The rules about no images of Muhammad are religious rules. The rules apply to Muslims. They do not apply to non-Muslims. Please do not force Muslim rules on non-Muslims. You said that people want to defame other religions, but please, this is not correct. There is no desire here to defame religions. There is only the desire for knowledge. Please respect that Wikipedia is here to provide information -- not to promote religion. Wikipedia does not promote Christianity or Judaism or Islam or any other religion. The desire here is just for knowledge, to make Wikipedia like a very large library. We want a peaceful and respectful location to provide knowledge to the entire world. That is all. Peace. --Elonka 07:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have to add images then do add them we cannot stop you. However please stop saying following. "The image is used with respect.". No they are not. They are disrespect to us and great disrespect. Hence stop saying so at least. Pleasee. Secondly do not say that "I understand that some Muslims say that there should be no images of Muhammad.". Not SOME but very vast majority of Muslims dislike those images. Thanks. -- A. L. M. 10:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This article (and a lot of its supporters) is claiming to present knowledge about the Holiest place of Islam at one end and on the other displaying images of The Highest PERSONALITY of the Islamic World with the pretext of knowledge which is strictly forbidden in the same religion. where has all the sense gone? cant anyone understand this important point. The Islamic rules apply to every thing related to Islam either person or location or article. Dont you see the point here ? This means that non-muslims cannot and should not interfere with core Islamic values and leave them as they are. on the other hand if non-muslims want to contribute some knowledge about Islam then they should be careful enough to exclude what voilates the Islamic values. no one not even muslims are allowed to make such irresponsible acts on pretext of knowledge. you people are talking about censor. what i want here is an actual picture of black stone on the wall of KAABA which will be all the more informative then an image which was made by someone (who Knows) and its legitimacy is highly questionable from knowledge point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.249.34 (talk • contribs) 09:43, July 10, 2007 (UTC)

There's a response to this whole issue of image insertion: User:Matt57/Pictures of Muhammad and Wikipedia policies. In short, removing these images is against Wikipedia policy. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(reply to 124.29.249.34) By "respect", I mean that our intentions are good, to show an image that honors Muhammad in a positive way. If we wanted to be disrespectful, we would show images like these.[1][2] Instead, the consensus of Wikipedia editors is to use positive images of Muhammad that show him in a good light, as a wise man who made peace. I am confused as to how anything could be more respectful than that. --Elonka 16:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no question of being respectful of not. A pictorial depiction is very strong voilation of the values your article is trying to project here. This picture only seems to be informative for those who have blocked their minds to the simple fact that it is wrong, blasphemous and shows very little to one's knowledge. People keep on saying that deleting this image is against the policy of wiki. If that is so then why an actual image of black stone which was substituted yesterday has been promptly removed and this blasphemous picture placed in its place. This clearly shows discrimination on part of wiki as the editing is being made conditional according to the terms of those who control wiki.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghulam muhammad21 (talk • contribs) 05:48, July 11, 2007 (UTC)

The article is not attempting to project Islamic values (nor any other religion). The article is attempting to educate. In fact, if the article DID project Islamic values, it would likely constitute a violation of WP:NPOV. It is respectful, tasteful, encylopedic, it is not blasphemous to most people. While it is true that offends a small minority of vocal people, that is irrelevant to the task of writing an encylopedia and the overwhelming consensus supports its inclusion. If the picture offends you, I suggest that you not view it. 07:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is projecting something very important to Islam and at the same time depicting something more important in a false and blasphemous manner. What education does this particular picture give ? if everyone is so consious of wiki's policy, then why a legitimate edit is being reverted every time it is made i.e an actual picture of black stone is put in place of this offensive picture. why majority of you are in favour of a picture already mentioned and accepted as offensive for many people? why an actual picture of the black stone (which non-muslims dont see or have not seen) should not be placed here when the topic is related to the mounting of stone itself in Holy Kaaba's wall? why is this issue being compared to pictures of private body parts on some article ? Is this the respect people have for other people's faith and religion? what is meant by saying that this picture is presented with respect when making such pictures itself is strongly condemnable?

wiki will be equally educative and useful if this picture is removed or substituted. wiki's content is taken as fairly authentic by almost all of its users. now if this particaular content (regarding some topic) is falefully conveyed and still many people support it as educative then the credibilty of such people's intentions regarding inter-faith harmony become questionable.Education is important but falsehood should not be allowed to creep into it.That is why this matter needs to be sorted out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.249.34 (talk • contribs) 11:54, July 11, 2007 (UTC)

Can I clarify something here? Do you believe that there are people who truly do not find the images offensive? Or do you think that everyone adding the images to this article must be doing so to cause controversy and disruption? --P3d0 16:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy and disruption of what actual facts ? People who have added this blasphemous picture in the first place should have been asked the question. It is they who have placed a controversial image knowing very well its implications and under the pretext that it does not offend them. well it offends those who are related to whole of Islam. It offends those who know that it is not permissible. It offends those who know that its inclusion in this article is more of ignorance then fact. Finally it offends those who know that it is really an act to put down Islam very directly. On the other hand it does not offend those who have very little or no knowledge about this issue, who have no sympahty for followers of other faiths, who give more importance to wrong than right based on their own narrow-mindedness.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.249.34 (talk • contribs)

It's not on the pretext that it does not offend them. It's on the basis that it doesn't matter if it offends people. I'm not sure I agree with that argument, but let's at least be clear what the argument is. --P3d0 11:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected because of the recent reverting over the image. Could someone explain what the issue is, and whether an alternative image could be found that would satisfy all parties? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue is simple: Muhammad is shown. Some editors feel that the appearance of Muhammad anywhere violates their religion. The trouble is that this image is very notable - it is one of the earliest surviving depictions of Muhammad - and couldn't be more topical - it depicts exactly the legend which is recounted in the text. If this tradition is not topical to the article, or too marginal to be mentioned, that is another discussion which I've not yet seen.Proabivouac 12:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting page, Slim

(Slim, didn't see your edit above.)

Attention trolls: The picture of Muhammad does not have consensus. BYT 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I thought it was the main image that was being objected to. Could an alternative be found to the image of Muhammad? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Pro could help us look for one, as the seasoned consensus-builder in residence on this page. BYT 12:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Curb your sarcasm, BYT. As long as the article discusses the story of Muhammad and the Kaaba, an image of the same is on-topic.Proabivouac 12:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And manifestly lacks consensus. By the way, we have a rule around here that you can't revert a page more than three times in a twenty-four-hour period. BYT 12:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, so why not start with anon who reverted seven times? (whereas my last revert was a self-revert after ALM's vexatious report) Do you really expect that anyone will believe that you are only here to ensure that others play by the rules? Anon was blocked for vandalism, BYT; reverting vandalism is upholding the rules, not violating them.Proabivouac 12:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's only "vandalism" when you disagree with the content, apparently. Yes, anon should have been blocked. Yes, anon was engaged in discussions on this talk page. Yes, this was a content dispute. Yes, you are still obliged to play by the rules. There were four reverts:

• 07:18, 10 July 2007
• 07:27, 10 July 2007
• 09:44, 10 July 2007
• 10:34, 10 July 2007

To the point. This image you're so enthusiastic about -- have you won consensus for it on this talk page? BYT 12:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

See this self-revert, BYT.[3]

Anyhow, so what you're saying is, anon can revert an arbitrary number of times (however many he/she can get away with before block) - and who knows what is the regular usename of anon, or if it is even affected - while those which revert him/her are blocked for doing so. I am absolutely certain that you would not hold this stance were this material any kind of slur against your beloved POV. Otherwise, you might want to start with User:DavidYork71, whose socks have often been reverted as of late.Proabivouac 13:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I asked you whether you had secured consensus for the image you are trying to insert. Is there a reason you don't want to address that question, Pro? BYT 13:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT, mediation showed a very clear consensus to include depictions of Muhammad. Ignoring !votes in blatant contempt of policy only makes it that much clearer. What is your reason for removing them, besides your personal religious sensibilities? There is none.Proabivouac 13:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Blatant contempt of policy" -- it doesn't sound to me like you're showing much good faith here. And I'm a veteran. I shudder to think what traumas the newbies may be experiencing here. Or is it policy to bite them now?

Two questions: 1) Is it your position that it simply doesn't matter whether there's consensus to include an image at Kaaba? (Not Muhammad, Pro -- Kaaba.) That's not how I understood the principles guiding this encyclopedia.

2) Once again -- and I'm only repeating myself because I can't seem to gauge your response to this -- would you say that the image you are trying to include has attained consensus? How would you describe the editorial reaction to it? BYT 13:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT, spare us the wikilawyering. Everyone knows your reasons by now, and yes, including depictions of Muhammad on Wikipedia has earned very broad consensus, broader (judging from the number of editors) than almost anything else we discuss here. I encourage you to open an RfC for this or any other article.Proabivouac 13:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• You can call it wikilawyering if you want.
• I think the people who know what they're doing around here (and I certainly number you among them) have an obligation to try to find some common ground.
• If I can accept the necessity for consensus at Zionism, I see no reason why you can't make an effort here.
• Once again -- do you think it's worthwhile to try to attain consensus for the edits you want to make on this page? BYT 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

But doesn't 'common ground' mean 'remove all pictures of the Prophet from any article'? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect, it certainly doesn't mean that at Muhammad, Tom. BYT 13:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that, there, it is only a truce. I have not seen much acknowledgment that there is a consensus to include the pictures. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There was disagreement on the type of depictions (e.g. veiled or unveiled) and their placement (lead or not), but a clear consensus that at least some depictions would be included, and overwhelming support for the notion that Muhammad should be treated no differently from any other historical figure - but repeated blanking does just that.Proabivouac 21:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• I can only speak for myself. After the Danish cartoons thing, I realized consensus was the only meaningful yardstick here. As a practical matter, whether something, and particularly an image, offends Muslims is now totally beside the point. (See that article, by the way -- there was overwhelming consensus to include patently offensive images, and I've contented myself with improving the text.)

• It's not a truce, what's happening at Muhammad -- it's a quite purposeful piece of humiliation. But it has to stand if there is consensus, which there is.

• Were you aware, Tom, that there was a movement there recently to include an image of the Prophet being disemboweled? There was no consensus for that. Every once in a while there's evidence around here of an encyclopedia, as opposed to a live grenade in text form. BYT 13:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok BYT, removing these images is against Wikipedia policy. See User:Matt57/Pictures of Muhammad and Wikipedia policies. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Matt, and for the link to your userpage. If it's all right with you, I'll talk to some of the other Justices on the bench, too. BYT 14:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT, You will not find a policy that states that you have the right to not be offended. Wiki is not censored.--Strothra 16:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. My point has never been that I am (or am not) offended, and I have ventured no such opinion about the image under dispute. (Read my posts, please, if you're interested in taking part in this discussion.) Rather, my point is that that there exists no consensus to place this image in the article. And also that editors who know better should abide by 3RR without attempting to tapdance their way around it. BYT 19:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I was already involved in this discussion before on the Muhammad article. The arguments are based on the same premises except for you claim that no consensus exists which I hardly agree with. Wiki policies and the majority of editors seem to support it except for those few who argue that the images are offensive - that argument, however, is not valid. Your argument is simply a red herring. --Strothra 21:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit surpised at the claim that there is no consensus. This has been raised repeatedly (by the same few folks), and the result is always the same. The images are perfectly fine and only offend a small minority of folks who make it a career to be offended by them here on wiki. Dman727 21:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That's because consensus does exist. BYT's attempt to assert otherwise does not make it true. Consensus existed on this same issue through recent and lengthy mediation on the Muhammad article. We have already achieved supermajority and consensus (see Wp:consensus#Consensus_vs._supermajority) through mediation in addition to this debate. Really, this issue has been solved already and any further disruptions due to it are bordering on violating WP:POINT particularly through BYT's consistent reversions. --Strothra 21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• ALM
• Myself
• 124.29.249.34
• Ghulam Muhammad
• Zora

... are in opposition to the image. Pro and Matt57 appear to support, as does Dman727 and Strothra. SlimVirgin has asked whether a compromise image can be found, but I suspect that does not necessarily mean she supports our view of this. Tom has taken no position, as far as I can see.

If User:Strothra believes I have made "consistent reversions" -- indeed, any reversions at all -- to the article page, perhaps we could see the diffs that would confirm this. For my part, I believe I have made no edits whatsoever on the article related to this dispute.

Either I'm offended without knowing it (and, or course, editing the page without knowing it), or an apology is in order. BYT 17:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, we all know that those individuals are opposed to the image - however, as I stated above, they are opposed due to their "offensive" nature. That issue was resolved in extensive mediation and thus those arguments are invalid. --Strothra 18:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Another editor suggested we try using the show/hide template as a compromise. I've added it here so people can see what it looks like, though I don't know how it will work with Internet Explorer. I've reverted myself in the meantime. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The show/hide template is far closer to compromise than the all or nothing demands that exist so far. I'm not completely opposed to it. I do have reservations, however, due to its censorship-like quality.

The only reason I can see in support of that edit is the fact that this article, unlike the Muhammad article, is not entirely about the individual. However, I oppose it because it is still a form of censorship. --Strothra 18:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The image is highly topical and Wikipedia's articles is written according to Wikpedia's own policies and not according to the regulations of Sharia. BrandonYusufToropov can continue attacking people that is opposing him here, but fact is that no valid argument for not including the image has been presented here. -- Karl Meier 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT, your head count above is inaccurate. 124.29.249.34 and Ghulam Muhammad are one and the same, while you've failed to count Elonka, Euralyus, King Lopez and Matt57, who reverted the blanking just the other day.Proabivouac 19:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I believe I did include Matt (see above). Strothra, did I ever revert this article? Strothra, do people have to have the same motive in order to register opposition to an edit? BYT 20:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac and BYT, would you consider agreeing to the hide/show template, shown here, as a compromise? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I want to hear what other editors have to say. BYT 14:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I would support a technical solution, but I don't think that's the right one: one should have to opt in to censorship, not opt out of it every time it arises. It's also easy for readers to miss that there is supposed to be an image there. Ideally, there'd be various filters users could apply to their own preferences, but I'm not certain Wikimedia would support it. Alternately, hide/show would be fine, as long as "show" were the default option: one shouldn't have to go around the article clicking things to make it display correctly.

I also recall from mediation that there was some compelling technical reason why we shouldn't use hide/show, but I can't recall what it was. Perhaps something about the way things appear (or don't appear) when mirrored?Proabivouac 21:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If show were the default option, there'd be no point in using the template, because readers would see the image before they had time to hide it. The point is make it invisible except to those who seek it out. Not sure about the mirrored site issue. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

True, but someone must already be looking at the images to blank them. This would enable the offended to do so without affecting the article for anyone else.Proabivouac 21:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We need some reasons with background in policy if we are to make any changes whatsoever. What are the reasons that we should limit the access to this image? That it doesn't suit the taste or religious ideas of a few editors is of course irrelevant to the discussion. -- Karl Meier 21:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Karl, I understand and respect the no-censorship issue. But the other side of it is that these images are sometimes added solely for the purpose of offending. I'm not saying this was done here, but it does sometimes happen. This is quite a depressing situation for the editors who may feel offended, because it's a double insult. We're saying: Not only are we willing to offend you; we're also going to use your feelings as your Achilles' heel and get another dig in whenever we see a chance. Again, I stress that I'm not saying this has happened here. I'm arguing that even the perception of it is distressing. That distress leads to entrenched positions, which leads to more enmity, which leads to more images being posted.

It would be an important gesture of goodwill to agree to a compromise that would break the cycle. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"But the other side of it is that these images are sometimes added solely for the purpose of offending."

Indeed. Several examples of this may be seen in mediation, where this image of Baphomet was proposed for inclusion, and more recently on Talk:Muhammad, where a famously disturbing work by Dali was displayed prominently on talk an edit-warred to remain despite widespread protest. Such trolling does not merit our indulgence, and should be reverted on sight.

Now see Talk:Black Stone#Moving the image lower on the page, where it was successfully argued that the image including Muhammad did not belong in the lead. Calls for censorship shouldn't be "bravely defied," but ignored.Proabivouac 22:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The hide/show template is rather interesting. For my part I don't know and I need to think about it. I suspect that it won't satisfy the folks who seek out being offended though. After all they don't have to click on "show", but then again they don't need to click on "Kabba" either. Perhaps we could use it for all manner of content disputes. For instance on articles about political figures we could use the hide/show template to cover up criticism so that the opposite political party members won't be offended. All the sexual reproduction articles could use the template to hide the naughty bits. I'm reserving judgement for now, but I'm skeptical on the basis that it won't satisfy the pro-censors folks, and it sets all kinds of bad precendent. Dman727 21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

SV, I appreciate your effort for a compromise but goodwill actually is following Wikipedia policies. As a user pointed out this is still some form of censorship. Whats next? Having a little "show/hide" for 'PBUH' wherever Muhammad shows up? Please, no. Stick to policies. Thats what this website runs on, and if it didnt, there wouldnt be anything but chaos here. There's no need of a compromise that breaks policies. See my article on my user page why policies would be broken if these images are removed. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Matt57. --Strothra 01:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I do as well--Sefringle^Talk 05:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What's up with the page? It's got a padlock in the top right corner, but no top banner stating that it's protected/locked/whatever, and the reason why. 81.149.182.210 22:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Slimvirgin's creative show/hide option: I agree with Dman727's concerns, but I also have to say that I would be willing to accept it as a possible compromise. I am curious as to what ALM and Ghulam think about it. I'd also like to offer that another compromise might be simply changing the image caption. So instead of "Muhammad lifting the stone into place," it's simply "The Black Stone being lifted into place." --Elonka 07:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, this is censorship again. Read my link above. Dont compromise on policies. Wikipedia is not censored. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If passive language ("being lifted") often sounds unduly evasive, here it would be exactly because we aim to evade. How about "An influential religious leader lifting the stone into place?" At least the sentence would have a proper subject.Proabivouac 19:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think non-censorship should be the default, as it is elsewhere. If we do this here, then where else, and to accommodate who else? I'm not unsympathetic to those who are offended, but religious censorship is so dangerous that for me it is the over-riding concern. We could add a string to the name of each possibly-offensive image to make it easier to configure AdBlock to avoid them, or people could hack their css files and provide them to others. I've mentioned before that people might use AdBlock to avoid seeing images they do not want to see. As I recall, I was shot down immediately for insensitivity, etc. I suspect that letting the individual avoid the image is not the only motive for image removal. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that the proposal Slim has put forward shows a willingness to edit collaboratively that is worth discussing. I think consensus is worth pursuing on content issues. BYT 14:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that in reply to me? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope -- addressed to the page as a whole, back when yours was the most recent comment, located at the bottom of the page. BYT 14:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tom harrison why cannot you understand a simple thing. That, if the aim is to not seeing pictures then I can stop visiting that page. Problem solved. However, aim is not show it to anyone by default so that my son does not see it and so is other people offended by it. Hence if AdBlock will be blocking it by default and you can see the image ONLY after pressing some button then the problem is solved. However, you are saying that first someone has to see it and get offended. Decide to stay in wikipedia and use AdBlock. In reality, most people decide to leave wikipedia after seeing those stupid pictures and vandalising page few time. Will you tell them all to come back and switch on the AdBlock instead? --- A. L. M. 14:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

ALM, this is not true: In reality, most people decide to leave wikipedia after seeing those stupid pictures. Why dont you read the stuff below and tell me how removing the images does not go against policy? This is an encyclopedia. Its primary job is to inform, not censor or cater to religious sentiments, customs or expectations.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"In reality, most people decide to leave wikipedia after seeing those stupid pictures and vandalising page few time."

ALM, I'm glad you've finally admitted that blanking depictions of Muhammad is vandalism. That's a significant step.

"That, if the aim is to not seeing pictures then I can stop visiting that page. Problem solved."

Exactly.

"However, aim is not show it to anyone..."Proabivouac 08:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: Removing picture is NOT at all vandalism and I have never said it so. You has violated WP:3RR. I take page blanking as vandalism and that what I referred above as vandalism by many when they saw pictures. --- A. L. M. 10:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Been there, done that. I'm not going to yet again rehearse all the arguments from the mediation and the talk pages. I support keeping the image, with no show/hide template. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Then why you are repeating your AdBlock arguments. It has been replied similarly too before. Why to misguide readers with your argument of AdBlock that Tom wish to compromise but it is us... --- A. L. M. 14:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies

Ok I'm going to reproduce part of my page here again to close this matter. Censoring images in any way is against Wikipedia policies. Any questions? Compromises on Wikipedia policies is not allowed, needless to say. Please stay firm with people who attempt to violate Wikipedia policies. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How Wikipedia policies/guidelines may apply to issue of Muhammad's pictures

Wikipedia:Profanity

Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical 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.

Some editors argue that in the light of this guideline:

• Typical Wikipedia readers do not find pictures of Muhammad offensive
• Exclusion of such pictures would result in the article being less informative, relevant and accurate.
• No suitable alternatives are available, as these pictures are historic
• As the policy states, "Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.". Therefore, the primary mission of Wikipedia and its editors is to improve articles so they are more informative. Being offensive is not Wikipedia's mission.
• In addition, there are no issues of copyrights as the copyrights for all these pictures have expired so the images can be used freely where relevant.

WP:NOT#CENSORED

This policy states:

• Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive.
• Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements.

Printing Images of Muhammad: A minority tradition?

Some users (Itaqallah and ALM) have suggested that since printing of Muhammad's images has not been a common affair, therefore Wikipedia too should not print the images otherwise it will be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Cartoon images of Muhammad have been printed all over the World and this is not likely to change now:

Countries where one or more of the Cartoon images were published in some form

• List of newspapers that reprinted Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons

Printing of images is no longer a minority tradition and so UNDUE does not apply. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

very Good points. However, we should only use Cartoon in those pages. Because undue weight does not apply on them only. lets use cartoon on each page. --- A. L. M. 14:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is that printing of images of Muhammad is not a minority tradition. This was the only policy that you guys could bring up and its a weak policy anyway, in comparison to "NOT CENSORED" and "Wikipedia:Profanity". --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Where can I find defination of WP:weak policy? Once again thanks for cool arguments. Lets start voting to use cartoon on each page. I am for it. --- A. L. M. 14:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Read below, the present cartoons are not relevant to this page. If you can find a notable cartoon of Muhammad and the Kaaba, feel free to upload it. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Then how undue weight get generalized for pictures because of those cartoons?? See your own arguments above. Do you think they are logical? Come on! --- A. L. M. 14:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by your first sentence? Please rephrase. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you once again for protecting what is obviously a contentious page, Slim

It's clear that there are some conflicting priorities in play here.

Matt, I'm not entirely sure why it was necessary to copy the contents of your userpage onto this talk page, but it seems to me unrelated to the task of formulating consensus on this issue. Why don't you simply share your own thoughts and contribute to the discussion as one editor to another? If we each quote vast chunks of our userpage, this conversation is going to become unwieldy very quickly. BYT 14:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've pasted the content which relates to the policies. Why dont you respond to my question: How is removing these images not going against Wikipedia policies? There's no such thing as "having a consensus to go against Wikipedia policies". Please let it go. All this started because anons removing the picture repeatedly, something that no one would do under their real username. Respond to the policies issue now. Again, there's not going to be any consensus or compromise that violates Wikipedia policies. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have replied above. That we should only use cartoon per your cool arguments. Hence lets start using cartoons only. --- A. L. M. 14:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure if you want to use one of those cartoons, go ahead but they wouldnt be very relevant to this page, unless someone drew a cartoon of Muhammad near the Kaaba and it received media attention - then we could use that cartoon as well. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Matt, I need some specifics from you. Exactly what policy am I "violating" by not including, say, this image at Jesus, under the heading "Other views," where the article currently discusses New Age takes on Jesus and Bertrand Russell's view of him?

• You're saying, Matt, that it "violates policy" not to include this contentious, non-consensus image of Muhammad here at Kaaba. Would it "violate" the same "policy" to do the same thing at Jesus? If so, what policy is that?

• As editors (the very word implies a certain intelligence and judiciousness), we can include contentious images if there is consensus to do so. I see no policy that states that we must include contentious images in the absence of that consensus. BYT 14:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are you bringing in Jesus here? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Just answer the question, okay? You're very insistent on "policy" here. Would it or would it not "violate" the same "policy" to include this image at Jesus, under the heading "Other views," where the article currently discusses New Age takes on Jesus and Bertrand Russell's view of him?

I have no idea. Maybe its not a free image. Maybe you didnt try to use that image there and see what other people's arguments were. You're assuming the image cant be included, which is a false assumption. In any case, its not relevant to this issue. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You have no idea. That's surprising to me.

It's entirely relevant by the way. You're claiming, repeatedly and with a certainty that stands in stark contrast to your response above, that it's "against policy" to "censor" a contentious image here.

It seems a fair question, Matt. Because we're all concerned about violations of policy, right? Would failing to include this image at Jesus, under the heading "Other views," constitute a violation of policy, or wouldn't it?

I need some clarity on your position. Is failing to insert an equally contentious, non-consensus image, in an analagous setting, equally "against policy" when it connects to a different audience? BYT 15:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, maybe its because that image is not free and its not relevant to anything there - I dont know. This issue is not relevant to this discussion. If you think that image is relevant and free for the article, go ahead and upload it, ok? Then if people are successful in removing it becuase they find it offensive, let me know. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect, Matt, I think it is quite relevant.

There is a fundamental question at stake here: whether our goal is to edit collaboratively, with a willingness to work with and exchange views with other editors, or whether our goal is to hijack articles regardless of the feedback a proposed course of action elicits on the talk page.

For examples of collaborative editing where others stand in rigid (and continual) opposition to certain topics, see Zionism. The article does not look even close to the way it should, in my view. But that does not excuse me from the responsibility of winning consensus for edits I think are appropriate there. The end result is that I have to reach out to people who disagree with me, accept precedent in the article, and find common ground.

You should try it some time. BYT 15:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You're changing the subject and going long winded. The fundamental issues here are not to violate Wikipedia policies. Removing an image that is considered offensive to some editors is the issue here and this (censorship) is against policies. Policies come first. Reaching a consensus comes second. If a consensus means compromising on a policy, that should obviously not be followed through. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt, which policies are you referring to? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You can read above, the section I pasted from my page. WP:NOT CENSORED and NOT-profanity. Its all there above. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You're obviously quite certain about them, so you won't mind answering a direct question I hope. Assuming the availability of a publc-domain image that looks like this, would someone who opposed the inclusion of that image at Jesus to illustrate the donnybrook over The Da Vinci Code be in "violation" of the same policies? Why wouldn't that be censorship, in your view? BYT 15:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok - why would anyone oppose the inclusion of that image? If they were offended by it, then yes it would be censorship. Whats your point? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt, thank you for outlining which policies you're relying on. Let's look at what they say.

WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored is policy, but it doesn't support your argument that not including this image would violate policy. It simply says that "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements." That says nothing about our ability not to include such material.

Wikipedia:Profanity is a guideline, not policy, but it also doesn't support your argument. It says: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical 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."

It also says: "As in all discussions on Wikipedia, it is vital that all parties practise civility and assume good faith. Words like "pornography" or "censorship" tend to inflame the discussion and should be avoided (emphasis added)."

So the question is: how would removing that image "cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The policy NOT CENSORED does support my arguement. It says "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive.". So if you're trying to move an image because its offensive, thats against policy. And be aware that there are perhaps 4 other articles that are using this image, including Muhammad and there are other images of Muhammad all over this website as well. Remove them all as well if they are not "adding any information".

So the question is: how would removing that image "cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate."

Ok so this is going to be your main argument then. Fine. This picture is a picture of Mohammad putting in the Kaaba stone. This event was an actual event recorded in Islamic history, so its obviously relevant and its accurate, as its a painting. I mean, they didnt have digital cameras 1400 years ago, so all we have is paintings for that era. That applies to all painting images in Wikipedia. The image is informative as well as its showing an even that really occured. Its as valid relevant, informative and accurate as the Wikipedia logo you see up there on the top of this page. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's what you gotta do SV : stick to polices, otherwise it ends up in a big mess everytime. You should have semi-protected (not full) that page so anons couldnt vandalize the article again. Thats what you should have done. Instead you've roused up this debate again which has taken place and settled many times before (see the talk page of Muhammad). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that last sentence of the guideline: both "censorship" and "pornography" are completely legitimate words to use in our discussions; if not, then let us change WP:NOT which uses "censor[ship]" quite conspicuously. Much less useful is the word "blasphemy/blasphemous" which shouldn't apply here at all, as Wikipedia doesn't have a religion against which to blaspheme: this word appeared frequently in the posts which started this most recent discussion. Though others may have learned to avoid this term, it is an honest description of the concept which motivates this discussion.Proabivouac 20:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think removing the image in any way impairs the article. It's not like you won't be able to understand the event without seeing the image. BYT 15:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets remove the Wikipedia logo too then. I dont think its going to impair this website, right? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If the article were discussing, say, the invasion of Normandy, and if the reader had to understand the different events taking place on Omaha Beach vs. Utah Beach (or whatever), including a map would be a good thing, and removing it would definitely detract from the article. If the article were France, however, removing the image would not be a problem in my view. This image would definitely belong at an article called Muhammad's role in the rebuilding of the Kaaba, which we could link to from this article. Perhaps you would be willing to work on such an article with me? BYT 16:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to follow those lines, then I could argue that it would infact better belong in Muhammad as found at t-5.67 seconds before inserting the stone in the Kaaba. And no, the article you proposed would probably not have much content and people would ask it to be merged to Kaaba. For once people need to accept that this is an encyclopedia and its job is to inform. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If you were serious about finding common ground with an editor who is working with you in good faith and trying to resolve a difference of opinion, though, you might consider working constructively and considering something other than the zero-sum game you've been proposing here. Working with people who disagree with you can actually improve the encyclopedia. It all depends on what you want from the process, Matt. BYT 16:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT, there's no such thing as finding common grounds that violate policies. As I pointed out to SV, the image is relevant, informative and accurate for this article. Are you honest in treating this image as any other image or are you opposing its inclusion because you find it offensive? I mean, this is a great unique historical image that tells us about an event that actually happened. Why would anyone want to remove an image like this? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's our problem. Removing this image doesn't violate policy -- not in the way that, say, making a fourth reversion in a wtwenty-four hour period violates policy. Removing the image simply doesn't conform to your interpretation of what the policy requires. Not everyone views these matters in the way that you do. That's where the collaboration part comes in. (And no, I don't find the image offensive. If I did, why would I be proposing that we use it elsewhere?) BYT 16:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt, you want us to stick to WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored and Wikipedia:Profanity, and that's fine, but we must do it properly. The sentence you quoted from WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored is: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." This does not mean that editors are not allowed to remove that content. So the policy does not support your argument.

As for your next point, the relevant sentence from Wikipedia:Profanity is: "Words and images that would be considered offensive ... should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate ... (emphasis added).

You argued only that the image is "obviously relevant and its accurate." But that is not the point of that sentence in Wikipedia:Profanity. What it says, again, is an offensive image may be used if and only if the omission of the image would make the ARTICLE less informative or accurate. If it were a photograph, it would make the article more informative, because we could see: "Oh, this really did happen." Or, if it were a contemporaneous image, we could see: "People believed even at that time that it really did happen, so it probably did." But this is a drawing from hundreds of years after the event. It tells us nothing about the event itself, but only what one person hundreds of years later imagined it might have looked like, sort of, assuming it happened. I could have drawn it; you could have drawn it.

So my question again is: "how would removing that image "cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate"? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: The full sentence of the policy that you are quoting says: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical 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." First, the typical Wikipedia reader is not offended by the image, simply because the typical reader of Wikipedia isn't an ultraconservative Muslim. Even BrandonYusufToropov has made it clear that he personally doesn't find it offensive. As for the image, it is as mentioned highly topical, being included in the "at the time of Muhammad" section showing Muhammad interacting with the articles subject. I don't think it would make any sense for us to censor an image simply in order to meet the demands of ultraconservative Muslims. If we are going to meet their demands we will have to delete a whole lot of content from the 'pedia, but fortunately fact is that we don't have to because Wikipedia is not censored. -- Karl Meier 16:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

SV, this is not going to work in the end as you, ALM and BYT want it to, trust me. We can go on and on for this for 2 months and the result in the end is going to be the same. Now, profanity (as Karl pointed out as well) as you're talking about it here and offensive images, are only considered offensive if TYPICAL readers find the image offensive. You're picking parts of the policy for what suits you. The policy says: Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers - do TYPICAL Wikipedia readers find these images offensive? NO. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's a fair point, and we can come to that. But first, could you please answer the question I've asked twice now, which is: How would removing that image cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That question is only relevant if the image is considered offensive by typical Wikipedia readers. Right? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, they're two separate points. I'd first like to know whether you can answer the question, given how much you want the image to remain. Can you please say why its omission would make the article less accurate, relevant, or informative? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No its not two seperate points. Its being used in the same sentence infact. The question is irrelevant in this case as I said, since typical Wikipedia readers dont find the image offensive. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, it is the oldest and most notable depiction of the Kaaba to be found on this article.Proabivouac 18:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It was painted hundreds of years later, so it doesn't tell us anything about the Kaaba. It tells us only about the artist. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, 1) it also tells about the famous story, which is depicted pretty much exactly as it is desribed in the records; 2) it confirms that the appearance of the Kaaba has not changed much since 1315, and 3) it is actually the only image on this page which gives any glimpse at all of what the Kaaba looks like when uncovered by the kiswah (among many other things, but those should do for now.) The notion that this is just a random artist's fanciful invention is completely unjustified.Proabivouac 19:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I'm asking why you feel that removing the image would leave the article less informative, accurate, or relevant. The guideline you say we must follow asks editors not to use the censorship argument. So I am asking what your editorial and intellectual opinion is regarding why that image adds to the article. You must have one, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing that we keep it. So what is it? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've explained many times how the image improves the article. Others have given the argument too. Even then, I repeat, the requirement of an image being informative, accurate, or relevant is only valid if the image is offensive to the typical Wikipedia editor. Answer this question: Is this image offensive to you and typical Wikipedia editors? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The article directly discuss what is illustrated by the image, and having both text and an image explaining to the reader what happened is better and more informative than including text only. Of course we can explain everything with words, and we could properly also remove all the images from for example the Pig articles due to ultra conservative Muslims perhaps being offended. However, explaining historical events as it the case with this article, or for example the anatomy of the pig with words only will make our articles less informative and less attractive to the readers, than if we choose to use a wider range of media to communicate relevant information with. -- Karl Meier 18:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How on Earth could deleting the oldest and most noteable depiction of the event improve the article? Putting aside for a moment the issue of islamic taboo, removing this image only makes the article less informative. The painting does what any photo, painting or drawing does of an event, help the reader and viewer understand the event. For modern events, photos and clips of events illustrate them in words cannot do (i.e. "a picture is worth a thousand words"). For ancient events, paintings and drawings serve the same exact purpose. Frankly I believe that a fundamental debate about whether photos, paintings and drawings serve a purpose in an article is bordering on disengenious. Furthermore, lets be honest, the only compromise acceptable to the professional offendees would be the worldwide destruction of all images of Mohammed. Dman727 18:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This was stated very frankly above:

"…do not behave in narrow minded way. All dipictions of this sort should be avoided at all costs."[4]Proabivouac 20:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think striking up an extreme position in either direction is unhelpful: that all such images should be avoided in accordance with some Muslim sentiment, or that they must all stay in accordance with some anti-censorship sentiment. Rather, we need to look at each case separately and decide how much information the image is adding to the article. I hope Matt will answer my question about that. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

SV, no, Wikipedia does not cater to religious customs or beliefs and compromise on its policies and mission of being a source of information. The images are not offensive to typical Wikipedia readers and so your argument is moot. As to why the image is relevant and adds information to this article, others have given very good answers above in addition to my own. Why did you not reply to the issues others raised here? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I won't ask the question for the fifth time. I'm going to assume by your failure to reply that you don't have an editorial or intellectual argument that omitting the image would make the article less informative. The no-censorship argument is simplistic. We censor Wikipedia every time we include A but not B. We censor ourselves every time we go out in public; every time we're polite to someone we don't like. There is no such thing as no censorship.

Which issues I have not replied to, Matt? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Karl and Dman brought up some arguments which respond to your question. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't keep referring me to previous posts. I don't see anything to respond to. If I've missed something, please tell me here what it is. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok SV, I'll have to spell it out for you then: Karl's response to your question, Dman's response and now Tom's response below and you'll have many more if you like. Let me know if you dont get any of it and I'll rephrase it for you. I had responded to your question too and I can explain more if you need, but first you need to respond to Karl, Tom and Dman. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, re "We censor Wikipedia every time we include A but not B."

The contemporary denotations of "edit" and "censor" are very different, as a quick glance at any dictionary will show.

Re "We censor ourselves every time we go out in public."

The appropriate analogies to Wikipedia aren't interactions with random strangers on the sidewalk, but such public venues as libraries, museums and academic courses. Unless Edinburgh University Library is impolite to hold this original, or Edinburgh University Press impolite to have reprinted it? Certainly, Wikipedia should aim for respectability - and very often doesn't - but from a scholarly perspective, there is nothing at all disreputable about this material, or about making it available to the public.Proabivouac 21:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Break 1

How would removing a picture of the re-dedication of the Kaaba make our article on the Kaaba less informative? Because it would remove an illustration of one of the most significant events in the history of the subject. It would do so because some people find it blasphemous. Including a picture of any other historical figure doing anything else would pass without remark, unless someone said, "Hey, nice picture of Caesar at the Colosseum. That puts us on track to a featured article." Nobody would ask, "Could we remove this picture without impairing the article too much?" Raising the bar for pictures of Muhammad, is religious censorship. The motivation for removing this picture is that it is of Muhammad. Removing it, hiding it by default, fuzzing out the face, making it less prominent; any of these will then become a basis for further demands to compromise. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a slippery slope argument, Tom, and they're always weak. I take your point about religious censorship, I really do, but this is an article about a religion, and so it's obviously going to be a factor, just as writing about sex will raise the issue of sexual censorship, and writing about snuff movies will raise the issue of whether to show an image from one. Religious censorship isn't different from any other kind. What is happening is that people are saying: "I don't like this image/text because (fill in sexual, religious, intellectual, or other argument). And therefore other people must say: "We want to keep this image/text because it makes the article better in (fill in the ways it makes the article better).

It's the latter I'm waiting to see: the ways in which this image makes this article better. Someone has argued that it's an old image depicting the event. But it's not a very informative image, and it's not contemporaneous. So really it's just like something Tom or I could draw. So: are there any other ways in which this image makes this article better? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, if you accept one slippery-slope argument, you'll soon find yourself accepting others. Arguments need to be replied to, not just dismissed. If it were any other article it would be regarded as an improvement, and it clearly is an improvement, as would be any other historical illustration. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

SV, "it's not contemporaneous." It is indeed contemporaneous with the Kaaba, which existed in 1315, and presumably served as the basis for this illustration. It is not contemporaneous with the depicted events, but then neither is the written record of the same events, not by a longshot. That the illustration is not contemporaneous with the first appearance of the written records is a trivial point, especially as the entire story is most probably mythical anyhow.

"So really it's just like something Tom or I could draw." Perhaps if you are very skillful; I certainly could not reproduce it. But even if I could, it would fail notability; this image is held in the special collections of a prominent university library and certainly does not.

Ask this: Would there be any objection at all to this image were Muhammad and the Black Stone not part of it; i.e. if it illustrated only the kiswah being lifted to reveal the door of the Kaaba? Would it be called uninformative? And yet the presence of Muhammad and the black stone only adds information and context to the image (unless we are upset that he is obscures the right door?)Proabivouac 22:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there might actually be a technical solution here. The issue of "offensive pictures" is not unique to this article, it's also applicable to images in other articles, especially about sexual subjects. Perhaps the MediaWiki software could be adapted to include a "filter" option? It could be accessible in Preferences, so any User could tag checkboxes like "Show all images" or "Don't show images that are tagged as sensitive to Religion|graphical sex|etc." Then in certain image tags, we could add an option like "Filter=religion", which would trigger the appropriate preference. If it was triggered, the "show/hide option" would be enabled, and the image wouldn't automatically shown. Instead, the caption would be seen, with a disclaimer like Slimvirgin posted, "This image may be objectionable to some viewers. To see it anyway, please click 'Show'". --Elonka 04:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Elonka read this [5]. I do not wish to censor all religious pictures. I love them. How can one imagine that Jesus is going to appear nacked on the page and hence he should censor without seeing him nacked first? --- A. L. M. 08:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

TOM POV: "Because it would remove an illustration of one of the most significant events in the history of the subject." He wish to have this image based on this POV, good point. I decline that such a minor event could be most significant. I will ask for any reference from TOM to prove this claim of one of most significant event.- --- A. L. M. 08:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The mistake that people here (SlimVirgin and Elonka) are making is giving in and listening to unreasonable demands, all because they want people like ALM and BYT to stop being offended and they see no other way out of it. Look at it rationally and stick to the rules: The job of this website is to inform. Anything that gets in the way of that should be swiftly ignored. I can stay in all year for this dispute, trust me. Elonka, what you're suggesting is probably not going to happen, it will involve the software developers to devote their time for this issue and they're busy with other stuff, you know. They dont care if a handful of articles have this problem. We have about 2 million articles here. Your solution would be justified if it applied to a good number of articles but it doesnt so its probably never going to be implemented. I appreciate your effort of trying to cooperate and find a compromise but I dont see any compromise here, except maybe - like we have in the Bahá'u'lláh article, they warn the reader by saying at the end of the lead:

Please note, a photograph of Bahá'u'lláh can be found at the end of this article.

So for example we could have:

Please note, a painting of Muhammad can be found in this article.

Thats all we can do. SlimVirgin are you there? You disappeared from this debate yesterday. I think you might realize that you probably made a mistake by fully-protecting the article and starting this debate, and not semi-protecting and ignoring these unreasonable demands. Now you've started off this debate again. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok and just to be sure, you all (Elonka and SlimV) are aware that there are many images of Muhammad all over Wikipedia, right? You're talking over here as if this is the only article which has a problem. Just making sure. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about other articles, Matt, just this one at the moment.

There's clearly no consensus to remove this image or to use the show/hide thing, which I see as a great pity, because it would have given both "sides" roughly what they wanted. The best thing to do is to post a warning at the top of the page. This may mean the article won't be read by some of the people who are probably most interested in it, but I don't see what else we can do. Elonka, thanks for your technical suggestions. They're definitely worth passing on to the developers. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Posting the warning is the only practical and acceptable thing to do, as it has been done for the Bahá'u'lláh article. So is this issue considered closed then? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Caption change requested

Appended to the caption is the message, "For more information on this image, please see Depictions of Muhammad." In fact, there is no further information about this image in that article which can't be more easily found by clicking on the image and viewing the Commons description, except for this: "…during the rule of the Sunni Arab Muzaffarid dynasty…" Which, as it happens, is false; accordingly I have removed it. There is no reason to send readers to Depictions of Muhammad looking for information which doesn't exist.Proabivouac 23:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be kept, as a way of reducing the edit wars. The link isn't just to more information about the image, but to more information about the controversy about the image. --Elonka 04:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pro on this issue. The article doesn't elaborate further on the image nor is it necessarily relevant. --Strothra 04:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The image description page is on the Commons. It is my feeling that if a reader wanted more information about the image, that they should be advised to review the page at Depictions of Muhammad. --Elonka 05:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that is misleading advice: there is no more information about the image to be found on that article. I say this as one who not too long ago followed the link and searched the article several times for the promised information before realizing that there was nothing besides the caption (which I then compared to the commons description and vetted to find the error.) Remember that there are readers involved here; However well intended, it's quite unethical to funnel them to that article in this way, even to reduce edit-warring. At the very least, the link could accurately state, "For information about Muslim attitudes towards Depictions of Muhammad in general…" Promising more information about "this image" is misrepresentation.

Nor am I aware of any controversy surrounding this image in particular. There was a controversy surrounding the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons, and a smaller one about the image on the frieze of the United States Supreme Court building - and there is more information about both of these, and about the controversy, in Depictions of Muhammad - but none surrounding this one. One may as well provide a link to Hijab from an image of Britney Spears.Proabivouac 06:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There is manifestly no consensus to include the image in this article; removing it does not harm the article in any material way (as it would if the article were about the rebuilding of the Kaaba); and (sad but true) there is no willingness to compromise by placing the image in a linked article. Thus the best approach to removing the inaccuracy you have identified -- and the most obvious one, if I may add -- is simply to remove the image and the caption. BYT 13:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Proav here. Also this caption is sort of "weak". If you're trying to tell people that images should not be removed, include that as a hidden text comment, and semi-protect the article if there's a problem, that is it. Just remove that part of the caption. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I'd long though that the best and most obvious approach to removing an inaccuracy is to remove the inaccuracy.

BYT, would you have any objection to including a 1315 illustration of the Kaaba which does not show Muhammad, but only the kiswah being lifted to reveal the doors and masonry beneath, as they appeared at that time? Would you agree that it would be informative?Proabivouac 19:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Add category

{{editprotected}} I wish to add Category:Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques Chesdovi 13:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed image addition

I would like to include this image in the Location and physicial attributes section.Proabivouac 21:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent image, I wonder why it wasnt added before. Thanks for digging it up! Pretty interesting as well. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm…it was removed last year as "suspicious",[6] but without any corresponding discussion or objections. The original image is here and was created by a Wikipedia editor using photoshop, supposedly from an older original. I would definitely prefer to find the original, and use it if we can. Otherwise, we have no way of verifying that these details are accurate (though I have no reason to doubt it.)Proabivouac 22:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've written a message to the uploader here, I hope we can find the origin of information for these images. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've unprotected and added the warning as discussed. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, as you're still providing the adult supervision around here, would you object to the removal of "For more information on this image, please see Depictions of Muhammad" from the caption, per this discussion above? It is as if we were to link Oh, God! to Idolatry in Judaism in order to combat potential misconceptions that the creators were following Jewish teachings: an OR-ish creation of controversy where none (outside of Wikipedia) exists and an inappropriately reader-confrontational use of links.

The warning looks fine, by the way. Very matter-of-fact and unobtrusive.Proabivouac 22:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say that with the warning at the top, it's perhaps not so necessary to link to that article in the caption too, though I also think it does no harm to leave it there. If it's to stay in the caption, it might be better to say "For information on why this image might be regarded as offensive, see ..." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We already have a warning that mention that we sometimes include images that might be offensive to some. The disclaimer which every page link to make the reader aware that "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers.". There is no need for this "warning" at the top of the article, as it is redundant, and if we are going to warn readers about everything in our articles that could possibly be seen as offensive, nearly all our articles would be filled with such warnings. One example is that it is not just images of Muhammad that is considered offensive by ultraconservative Muslims. -- Karl Meier 06:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think, in principle at least, that such warnings are appropriate. It's a way to have it both ways. It helps people to choose what they want to see. Censorship is bad, choice is good. Just like movie 'censorship' - cutting/banning is poor form in an open society, on the other hand, people appreciate being informed about what they are about to see (violence, nudity, etc). The warning is so small that IMO any attempt to remove it could be considered a form of trolling. Just my opinion. Merbabu 06:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You both have good points; I'm still thinking about it.

For now, I'd like to ask, what is the point of linking again to Depictions of Muhammad? Yes, the phrase "depiction of Muhammad" is here, but what value does the link add? The phrase is transparent and doesn't need to be explained, while those for whom the warning is presumably intended will hate that article more than anything which exists here. Indeed, we have already seen one vandal (since blocked) who moved from blanking the image here to blanking that entire page, almost certainly by following one or the other unneccesary link.Proabivouac 08:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Merbabu: We will have to include a lot of warnings then, and I don't see why the warning that we already have should not be sufficient. How many times are we going to warn people against Wikipedia and it's lack of censorship? Politically I largely support the Danish People's party, and I and other people supporting that party most like feel that the criticism that has been raised regarding DPP has been largely unfair and sometimes rather offensive. Can I have a "this article include criticism" on the top of the article, to warn me and others that large agree with the policies of DPP against an article that include content we might very well object to and feel offended by? Or how about a function where I can click and turn the "criticism" section into a "praise" section? -- Karl Meier 08:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Your first sentence refers to a "warning we already have". Which warning? Do you mean the "Please note that this article contains a depiction of Muhammad." which you removed? Is there another warning? It is not clear to me what you are now referring too. As for your reasoning about criticism of political parties and some kind of button, i think you are getting off track and is also unclear - let's keep analogies relevant and reasonable. --Merbabu 08:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It is the warning that I quote above, which is from the disclaimer that is included on every single page on Wikipedia: "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers.". -- Karl Meier 08:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, would you agree to include similar warnings on other pages that include content that some readers might object to or find offensive? Would you support me including a similar warning on the Danish People's Party article? -- Karl Meier 08:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

On other articles? Possibly yes - but, i haven't given it much thought yet. In this case here it strikes me as a good faith gesture that supports the no-censorship policy and will possibly assist in preventing the tiring removal/reinsertion of such 'offensive' pics. As for the specific question of political party pages I've already commented on that analogy. Perhaps you can explain its relevance. --Merbabu 08:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it support the no censorship policy to include redundant apologies everywhere for our lack of censorship. Wikipedia is not censured and it is being mentioned on every page that we include images that might be offensive to some readers. That should be enough. Also, as I understand you, your position on this issue is that we should use a different approach on articles regarding Islam (and religion in general?) than we use on articles regarding political parties (and articles regarding politics in general?). If my understanding of your position is correct, then my question is why do you believe that we should use a different approach to articles when editing Islam and religion, then we have when editing articles regarding for example politics and DPP? The policies we are editing these articles according to are the same. -- Karl Meier 10:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I like this warning because it also links to Depictions of Muhammad which shows that there are many other images of Muhammad too so they should not remove it and not be shocked by seeing these images. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am puzzled why this discussion is taking place here. There was a centralized discussion on the inclusion of depictions of Muhammad, and the consensus was that such images are appropraite. If some editors believe that a warning should be added to all articles containing images of Muhammad, they should suggest this first on Talk:Muhammad. Beit Or 17:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. -- Karl Meier 22:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As do I. I requested full protection of the article again. --Strothra 22:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The warning is intended to steer potentially offended editors away from reading further, or if they do, to leave them with the responsibility for having done so. However, I am concerned that it will have the unintended effect of cuing and facilitating vandalism.Proabivouac 22:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac's question

I wanted to respond in depth to Pro's question:

BYT, would you have any objection to including a 1315 illustration of the Kaaba which does not show Muhammad, but only the kiswah being lifted to reveal the doors and masonry beneath, as they appeared at that time? Would you agree that it would be informative?

• Pro, if consensus existed for it, I'd support putting it in. If, however, there was no consensus, and if it consistently polarized the talk page, if it led to frequent bouts of trauma with people attempting to access the article, and if it basically destabilized the encyclopedia and kept me from real work because it was necessary to take part in perpetually hair-splitting debates like this one, I'd say leave it out. But read on.

• Now then.

• Some editors act as though these kinds of judgment calls are unique to articles about Islam.

• They're not.

• Some people act as though the word "editor" meant nothing more than "provacateur."

• It shouldn't.

• This effort of yours has consensus now, Pro.

• It is also, let us be frank, a provocation. (BYT's Michael Corleone impression:) You insult my intelligence when you claim otherwise.

• But the word "editor" itself implies a certain maturity that I had hoped you possessed.

• The very word "editor" implies a certain judiciousness and a discretion and, here at WP, a presumed willingness to work on behalf of, not in fury against, the average reader.

• This is not an occasional provocation. It is a systemic provocation.

• Do you and Matt and Karl and Arrow provoke Christians about their "censorship" of alternate theories concerning Jesus' domestic status -- at Jesus.?

• Do you and Matt and Karl and Arrow provoke Israeli nationalists about their "censorship" of reports of casual contemporary racism, or of military forces attacking unarmed women and children -- at Zionism?

• Do you and Matt and Karl and Arrow provoke the "Israel lobby" about their "censorship" of efforts to report on their influence on American foreign policy at Israel, an influence that is now alienating large chunks of the intelligentsia within the US the academic and policy community?

• No. All of that would be "insensitive."

• You and Matt and Karl and Arrow and the rest are, let's face it, much more likely to work on pages like this. And then lecture me and a billion other people about the importance of freedom of speech.

• This is not a question of informativeness. This is a campaign. It wasn't happening three years ago. Now it is.

• Happy hunting. Looks like there is now consensus to put this latest, incredibly incendiary, incredibly insensitive, image in.

• Go for it.

• Please don't say I block consensus or make it up as I go along.

• Please don't lecture me about freedom of speech.

• And please do watch that reversion count. You get three within a 24-hour period, even if you don't like what the other person is saying, and even if the other person is clueless about 3RR. BYT 14:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

BrandonYusufToropov: This page is for discussing how the article should be developed. It is not a forum for your bad faith accusations or requests I and a number of other editors should go and "reveal" how the evil Zionists attack defenseless Muslim women and children and how they conspire to control the US government. On the subject however, I am quite surprised to see that you now consider the image which was painted by a Muslim to be "incredibly incendiary, incredibly insensitive". Just two days ago you mentioned that you didn't find it offensive. What happened? -- Karl Meier 16:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a convenient fiction. If these comics as linked from his user page are any guide, BYT opposes the depiction of any animate creature.Proabivouac 23:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT, so whats your point? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, that was a yes or no question. Interesting though that one would support the censorship of something because it is offensive about one thing, but while supporting the uncensoring of something on a different topic. How convenient. --Strothra 17:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge

For the record, I am opposed to the idea of merging the articles of Black Stone and Kaaba. The Black Stone is a significant object in its own right, and it is appropriate to have a separate article about it. --Elonka 20:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think its better to have its own article too, because this is something very significant like you said, so I agree.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a section here about the Black Stone, at least? My thinking was that this a very important part of the Kaaba as well as being its own subject. Black Stone isn't so large that it couldn't be that section (and would be smaller once duplicated information was removed.) In principle, there would be a Black Stone article would a very detailed treatment, but the existence of that article in its current state isn't a good reason not to have this general information here.Proabivouac 01:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree there should be something significant on the Black Stone, e.g. a picture of the stone in the Location and Physical attributions section (since thats where its being talked about). I think the article contains enough of a short mention of the stone and the picture should do the needful. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• oppose merge per above. They are different topics--Sefringle^Talk 03:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The need to compromise

A couple of editors seem to be saying that they must have things their way entirely. The image must stay; the caption link to Depictions of Muhammad must go; the show/hide option is unacceptable; and the warning must go too.

This isn't reasonable. Neither side can have everything it wants. Therefore, please continue discussing which compromise is best. I've protected the article again in the meantime. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The point here though is that any compromise is not rational because it is not what has been done in other articles repeatedly. This same issue has been discussed before and resolved in the only possible way - according to Wiki policy that does not allow censorship. A warning is ridiculous - why don't you try to propose a policy to place a warning at the top of every article that contains something potentially offensive and see how far that flies? Why should this article be any different from all others? If it's offensive then so be it. There is no policy against offensive material, if fact the tendency of Wiki has been in favor of its inclusion - ie the use of certain pornographic images and profanity. As long as it does not violate standards of inclusion that are already established, this discussion is pointless and interrupting progress that we could be making on the article. --Strothra 23:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite the inconsistency with WP practice elsewhere, I'm not opposed to a warning in principle. My question is, will it really keep the potentially offended from reading on, or will it only cue them that there is something in the article to vandalize? If the actions of active editors are indicative of what readers will do - I doubt they are, actually, but as this premise of "representation" is the only justification for this debate to begin with - the editors who've expressed the most offense don't avoid these pages at all, but hang around them looking for different ways to blank the images and keep the debate alive long past its rightful shelf life. It seems not anything about the visual appearance of the images themselves (cf. Kryptonite,) but the fact that they are being displayed that is causing the offense; this is plain in BYT and ALM's objections, at least. If so, then this message will cause the very same offense (per BYT, communal humiliation/provocation) to any who read it.

If, on the other hand, the appearance of this warning means that editors who then continue through the article are individually responsible for what they see, for whatever reactions they might have to it, and most importantly for whatever disruptive behavior the might then undertake, then this warning is a small price to pay.

In sum, a compromise that contributes to stability and prevents disruption is worthwhile insofar as it does, but one which unintentionally encourages disruption and/or facilitates vandalism is undesirable. To take another example, were all these articles placed in a Category:Articles with depictions of Muhammad, vandals could simply stroll through the Cat membership. The same might be true of filter tags, depending on how these were technically accomplished.Proabivouac 01:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you compromise on the issue of censorship? Cut the image in half? Photoshop a new head on Mohammed? Wiki policies are in place to address this question. The policy is WP:CENSOR and says that we dont censor based on the objections of being offended. However I'll answer on how you compromise. You compromise by showing only noteable, informative images in a respectful manner.Dman727 01:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We do have the show/hide option. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Have those desiring the censor of the image expressed ANY support for the show/hide option? I'll support it with a default show if they'll agree to stop trying to censor wiki on the basis of Islamic taboo. So far the only option I've seen from the pro-censor folks is the complete removal of all Mohammed images for anyone and everyone. Naturally there is an option for those afraid of the image..simply change their browser to a different web page.Dman727 02:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT, could you say what your view is of having a warning at the top of the page? Is it worth the trouble, will it be helpful, or is it likely only to inflame? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

A supermajority has already made a decision during the debate on the Muhammad page that it is indeed acceptable to include images of Muhammad, with no censorship and no warnings/apologies. The image that we are going to include here is also both highly topical and valuable to the article, and the consensus is to include it and not to censure it. -- Karl Meier 09:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's another option for a compromise. There is an altered version of the Muhammad image, where the face has been digitally blanked out. Let's use that image here at the article, and provide a link in the image caption, to the unaltered image. Would that make everyone happy? --Elonka 18:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Views from other scholars on the image issue

As another point of view here... I was attending an academic conference (on games and society) this weekend, and had the opportunity to go to a talk on "Computer games in Islamic culture." Which has nothing directly to do with this particular debate, but I did get the opportunity to meet some Muslims there, and I asked them about our current issue. The people that I talked to were generally Sunni, well-educated, highly-literate, and their views relatively liberal (it was, after all, a gaming conference). For example, despite the ban on "images of living figures," they were okay on taking photographs of family, seeing animated figures in computer games, etc.

They had heard of Wikipedia, had a positive impression of it, and were interested when I brought up the idea of articles about the Kaaba and Black Stone. Through all this, they were nodding and smiling and engaged. Then when I got to the point of mentioning "some 14th century artwork of Muhammad lifting the Black Stone into place," they actually recoiled like a physical blow. One woman laughed nervously, and said that if she were to see such an image, she would feel as though she had just committed blasphemy. I asked her to try and better explain the issue, and she said that part of her prayers are to keep her mind free of any particular image, and just to focus on the indefinable concept of God. But if she sees an image of Muhammad, or any prophet, that it would change the nature of her prayers, and her thoughts would then unwillingly form the image of the painting she had seen, even if she did not wish it. And that since the painting could not possibly be a true image of Muhammad, it would then somehow corrupt her own thoughts. It was startling to me, to see how this highly-educated and very open-minded woman, a trained engineer, suddenly became so distressed.

Her reaction, and those of the other scholars I spoke to, are making me rethink my position on this issue. I did bring up to them the quandary that we have about how we want to provide a source of knowledge, but we also do not want to offend, but neither do we want to censor. None of them had a good answer. Some, as librarians, grudgingly agreed that it's important to keep access to knowledge, and that it's wrong to simply remove books from a library simply because someone may find them offensive. Some had ambivalent feelings about the "show/hide filter" option, saying that even then they would be uncomfortable with knowing that the image was on the page, even if it was hidden from them.

The discussions gave me much more insight into the problem, and my own feeling now is that at a very minimum, we must post a warning on the page, to give a good-faith heads-up to those who are reading a Wikipedia article, that there may be an image further down that they might find as shocking as some of us might find the images on a shock site such as goatse.cx. I personally still believe that it's important that we provide the images here on Wikipedia for those who wish them for scholarship, but we must be responsible in how we provide them. --Elonka 18:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you were correct when you said that this was not relevant. Please restrict your discussion here to being about the article. Personal matters are better expressed via e-mail or editor discussion pages. --Strothra 18:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)