Requests for comment/ace.wikipedia and Prophet Muhammad images

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Information icon4.svg
A second request for comment was made to deal with the specifics of the template itself .

Description of issue[edit]


  1. The template below was created by admin ace:User:Si Gam Acèh @ 07:24, 10 July 2010
    See here, here and here for the images. We urge all Wikimedia projects from muslim countries to put the template on their main pages. Also all muslim wikipedians must protest Wikipedia.
    Acehnese Wikipedia is ready to boycott Wikipedia if there is fatwa from competent ulama. This template will never be removed as long as images insulting Prophet Muhammad pbuh that hurt every muslim not deleted from Wikipedia.
  2. ace:User:Si Gam Acèh added the template to the main page @ 14:22, 10 July 2010 [1]
  3. A notice was send to the Foundation-L mailing list, pointing out the template. @ 12:17:44, Jul 16 2010 [2]
  4. The template was removed by steward Laaknor @ 12:39, 16 July 2010 [3], who left a message to Si Gam Acèh asking him to not attack other projects [4]
  5. Replaced by Si Gam Acèh @07:25, 17 July 2010 [5], who responded: [6]
    The history of the note, "As long as Wikipedia dares to attack muslims, WE WILL NEVER STOP ATTACKING YOU ALL!!!" should likely be clarified -- No other members of this project have performed any edits in relation to the template.
  6. User Nemo_bis questioned Si Gam Acèh about the template, [7], and was later joined in the questions by Laaknor [8] and Prodego [9].
  7. Steward J.delanoy reverted the change again, removing the template [10] and was himself reverted by Si Gam Acèh [11].
  8. Reverted back to no-template by Hercule [12] @ 01:14, 18 July 2010, and then back again by Si Gam Acèh [13] @ 04:12, 18 July 2010
  9. Removed by Jyothis, [14], re-added by Si Gam Acèh [15], reverted by Jyothis [16].
  10. Jyothis requested Si Gam Acèh not to revert the main page status and informed that they may lose the sysop status should they chose to revert again. @ 6:25, 18 July 2010
  11. Si Gam Acèh restored the template again to the main page and was desysopped by Jyothis @ 06:47, 18 July 2010
  12. Jyothis notified Si Gam Acèh about the desysop on their talk page @7:05, 18 July 2010.
  13. Fadli Idris blocked Jyothis, Hercule and J.delanoy (Involved stewards, global sysop) on the ACE wiki, each for one week, with the edit summary "Menghilangkan isi halaman" (Machine translation suggests that this means "Eliminate the contents page", so i presume this means "Removal of Content")(log). These blocks were later reversed by Leinad @10:20, 18 July 2010 (Reversals @ 16:58, 18 July 2010)
  14. Fadli Idris unprotected main page @ 10:54, 18 July 2010
  15. Si Gam Acèh re-add the template @ 11:09, 18 July 2010
  16. Juhko changed the visibility on 16 revisions of the main page (Hiding) ([17]), which was later reverted by Darkoneko, with the summary "abuse of masking tool" [18]. Juhko states that this was intended to clean up the edit war on the mainpage ([19]) @ 11:31, 18 July 2010
  17. Si Gam Acèh blocked for 31 hours for related edit warring on en:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (Log), by JamesBWatson, @ 12:51, 18 July 2010. Similar edits were made on the French wiki about two hours later (Edits)@ 15:15, 18 July 2010
  18. the 2 remaining sysops, Juhko and Fadli Idris (both involved), had their rights removed. this one Template is blanked, main page is "cleaned" and fully protected (by Darkoneko).@ 13:48, 18 July 2010
  19. Si Gam Acèh commited canvassing across muslim Wikipedias, called some users for his cause and other Wikipedia projects he vandalized the articles [20]. He was expelled from German and Spanish Wikipedia, and was blocked for some days in French and English Wikipedia. 19 July 2010
  20. Si Gam Acèh modifies the voting page on the issue on ace.wikipedia to read "NOTE THAT ONLY ACEHNESE WIKIPEDIA CONTRIBUTORS WHO CAN VOTE!!!" [21] @ 08:12, 19 July 2010
  21. Si Gam Acèh notes, on the main page's talkpage [22], that "The most active users are four: user:Abi Azkia, user:Fadli Idris, user:Jiyuukaminari and user:Si Gam Acèh. All live in Banda Aceh, except Abi Azkia in Pidie. We usually communicate by phone." @ 08:50, 19 July 2010
  22. Si Gam Acèh blocked for 24 hours on by Darkoneko (log), for repeated additions of the template to the main page, though the alteration of a transcluded template.(edits, Darkoneko's comment) @ 09:25, 19 July 2010
  23. Si Gam Acèh unblocked with strong invitation to participate the comment request part on ace.wikipedia (log) @ 10:20, 19 July 2010
  24. Juhko's sysop right is restored by Darkoneko (discussion log) @ 11:56 UTC, 19 july 2010
  25. Alternate template added to mainpage by Juhko (diff) @ 12:24, 19 July 2010
    «Acehnese Wikipedians are invited to join this comment request, and do NOT ruin our noble free encyclopedia project anymore. This template shouldn't be changed to what it has formerly been, thank you.»
  26. Si Gam Acèh nominates the Acehnese Wikipedia for closure (link), and informs several Acehnese users of this nomination (diff) @ 09:09, 26 July 2010.
  27. Si Gam Acèh states that "now, we are going to consult this problem with ulama and we will decide what should we do." (diff) @ 04:24, 30 July 2010
  28. Si Gam Acèh moves to Commons, marks multiple of his uploads as "copyright infringement" [23][24][25] (Note the identical camera make in metadata) and refers to David Levy as a "terrorist"[26] @ (multiple times) 30 July 2010. Blocked locally.
  29. Global lock for Si Gam Acèh proposed by Kylu @ 03:36, 31 July 2010
  30. 2013 events [27] [28]


  • Is the language of the template and its message appropriate for the main page of this project?
  • Does this constitute a violation of any of the global-scope rules, policies, or pillars which we expect all our projects to abide by?
  • Do any of these edits make Wikipedia (or Wikimedia as a whole) a better place and assist in fulfilling its mission?
  • What, if anything, should be done about the template?
  • What, if anything, should be done with those involved?
  • If such protests arise in the future, how should they be handled?

Involved parties[edit]


  • Note, statement from Mahmudmasri on the talkpage. Kylu 06:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
He is not muslim. -- Si Gam Acèh 12:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC) what ? DarkoNeko 01:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't think that he is muslim because his name is Mahmud. -- Si Gam Acèh 04:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
His or her religion should be of no importance. DarkoNeko 08:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It's very important. So he is not representative from muslim. -- Si Gam Acèh 09:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Neither are you. DarkoNeko 09:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I am 1000% muslim. -- Si Gam Acèh 19:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who is muslim and who is not in an encyclopedia. --Juhko 19:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
What I want to say is he is not representative from muslim. That's all. So you don't take conclusion that this muslim doesn't feel insulted with the images. -- Si Gam Acèh 20:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
And Darkoneko's point, if I'm not mistaken, is that you do not represent the collective Muslim people (despite your continual attempts to speak on behalf of all of them).
There are Muslims who agree with you and Muslims who do not (because they either are not offended by images of Muhammad or do not believe that their offense is grounds for dictating an encyclopedia's content and/or protesting a decision contrary to their preference). —David Levy 20:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
See these again: [29], [30],[31], [32], [33], [34]. I can show you more, more and more. And please ask 1.500.000.000 muslims and tell me how many muslims don't feel insulted. (Note that actually it's not about what muslims say, but this is about what about Islam says). -- Si Gam Acèh 06:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Which talkpage? --Juhko 12:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
This talkpage. -- Si Gam Acèh 13:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Well this talkpage...thanks. --Juhko 13:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

From J.delanoy[edit]

I don't have much to add to my edit summary on acewiki. If we are going to even make an attempt to follow NPOV, this sort of behavior cannot be allowed. Using any part of any project to attack someone or something for any reason is completely inappropriate, and using the main page of a project to do so is far, far worse. Especially since acewiki's main page is fully protected. If I had reliable access to the internet during the week, I would most certainly make a request that Si Gam Acèh be desysopped. This behavior would be bad enough coming from any user; coming from an admin it is totally unacceptable. J.delanoygabsadds 03:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Is attacking Islam and more than 1.500.000.000 muslims can be allowed ????? Is attacking Islam and more than 1.500.000.000 muslims completely appropriate????? Is attacking Islam and more than 1.500.000.000 muslims far, far better ????? Is attacking Islam and more than 1.500.000.000 muslims acceptable ????? -- Si Gam Acèh 04:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Nobody is attacking "Islam" here. Nobody is attacking 2 million muslims, and frankly, you don't speak for either. Swatjester 21:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
You should consider writing your own statement, Si Gam Acèh. Kylu 04:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I have considered all my statements. I think you should consider writing your own statement too, Kylu. -- Si Gam Acèh 05:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Done below. I'd encourage involved parties to try to help come up with some sort of mutually acceptable solution. Kylu 17:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

From Prodego[edit]

I don't think there will be any disputing that a banner urging a protest of another site, particularity a WMF site, is completely outside the mission of the Wikipedia, and obviously unacceptable for display on the Main Page. That the urged protest is about whether the prophet Muhammad's likeness should be displayed on enwiki or not are beside the point in this discussion (and that issue has been extensively discussed elsewhere). The banner should be removed with a clear warning not to restore it (or unprotect the main page), and that restoring it again will lead to a desysop. Leave blocking decisions to local admins. Prodego talk 04:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I see the banner is now on articles as well. While I don't think there are problems with it in the projectspace, the mainspace is just as inappropriate a place for this banner as the main page. It should be removed from there as well. Prodego talk 04:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
If something is outside the mission of Wikipedia, it should not be acceptable anywhere on the project, no? I am not seeing why it would be acceptable in Projectspace -- if the issue is the disruptiveness of the banner, the space that it resides in doesn't matter. For analogy, we wouldn't allow personal attacks against editors in the project space or the main space. Swatjester 21:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The vast majority of project space - user pages, talk pages, etc do not have a defined mission. It is clear that mainspace (of Wikipedia) is for writing an encyclopedia, but (within what the WMF will allow) I think the communities of each wiki should be able to define what is acceptable in the userspace, and what is not. This argument was hashed out on enwiki about userboxes some years ago, but I don't think there would be anything wrong with a different project having a different solution. Prodego talk 19:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

From Jyothis[edit]

Looks like the user has really lost the point of why we are here. Just to reiterate, we are here to make an encyclopedia in all our languages. We are here to summarize the human knowledge in our own language for our future generations to use and to ensure that it does not get lost in translation or word of mouth. It should be free for anyone seeking information. About the reason for protest, history has proved over and over again that if mankind is deprived of something, it will find a way to get it. In this case, they have made it easy for people to see that these pages existed. Way to go fellows! I should thank you, as I did not know about the "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day", until you guys put it up on main page. I should say "Thank you"!

"A freely editable project" does not translate into "I am free to write anything in its main page just because I am blinded by the fact that I was made an administrator by the community who is working to build an encyclopedia" or " I am an admin and there fore, I am the community". This should be considered and countered as vandalism and this should not be tolerated in any project. Main page is not for your pleasure and experiments. It is for the world to see and use the wonderful things that we have created inside. Millions of users who is looking for that specific bit of information from wikipedia projects are the real owners. As an editor, you are the builder and keeper of the key. Your job is to keep building it, keeping it clean and safe and create a friendly atmosphere for the world. Please, let us do our job than creating issues.

It is not appropriate for a foundation project to have such a message on the main page. Community is free to exclude the content that they deem inappropriate in their project. But this is more like a politically motivated attempt to cause problems and to hamper the progress of a young project in its budding stage. It is also not acceptable that the user used the project's main page to push their point of view and speak against the project itself. You can have your point of view on a subject. But please, let us keep that aside when we are building an encyclopedia. Let us not generalize that my belief should be every one elses as well. We are and should be free to have our own point of views, but let us remember that we are not supposed to enforce it on our fellow beings who has an equal right (yes, equal as in all human beings are equal in front of the supreme power) to have their own ways. Let us not forget that the foundation projects are usually given a higher weightage by the search engines and this action causes much more damage to the searches in tha language.

Infact, it is pulling wikimedia projects into another issue that will only cause people valuable time that could have been used to perform the mission at hand. If this was done in a user's page, that could have been given a reasonable consideration. At this point, This should be considered as vandalism and should be dealt with the usual way. If a couple of users starts believing that they can wage the war and boycott wikimedia projects, All I have to say is that it is unfortunate and all we can do is to nominate the project for closure. If that is what some people wants and causes, let their names be written in golden letters for the future generation to know that they caused an encyclopedia of this potential to be taken away from a community of people who are not lucky enough to have english as a second language. Let us not forget that there are languages that is reviving its existance thru wikipedia. Let them be known as the war heros, who achieved greatness by denying the native language speakers an opportunity to learn and generate content in their own language across internet.

If I were to comment on what needs to be done with the folks who joined joined hands to vandalize the project, I would suggest to remove their sysop bit and let them continue as editors. They need to remember and know what their role is and protect and build the encyclopedia as we all should be doing. The template should be deleted and care should be taken to ensure that the project follows the standard guidelines of foundation projects. If the community decides that they do not need to stay with foundation, let us move in that direction and nominate the project for closure. There should be no compromise on the fundamentals and quality standards that we build our houses on. We should follow a zero tolerance stand towards the likes. Let alone once would become a norm and standard and it will cause more harm than good in the future. I see comments from them that they have discussed it with the community and they agree. I hope they have really thought about it and hope they really have support from everyone to do this. All I can say is that I will not boycott air just because I cant see it.

Let us get back to our job - Building an encyclopedia for the world to use.

Thanks! --Jyothis 05:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we are here to make an encyclopedia, NOT TO INSULT ISLAM AND MORE THAN 1.500.000.000 MUSLIMS !!! -- Si Gam Acèh 04:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

From Jamesofur[edit]

Ok.. I don't usually say anything here but I'm a bit frustrated. I don't like the template, I think it's inappropriate and doesn't have a place on the main page (or articles). HOWEVER, the way we've gone about this isn't sitting well :/. The edit warring on the main page looks horrible to both sides in my opinion and given the accusations of pushing our views it looks even worse to have outsiders repeatedly remove the template and then desysop the local user when he keeps putting it back. Would it have hurt so much to leave it while the discussions still went? Is it really an Emergency? It takes 2 people to edit war (or in this case more then 2) and I'm not sold that anything came out of the desysop other then verifying the "you're pushing your own beliefs on us" opinion. If in the end a decision was made that this wasn't going to work out and we pointed him to Wikia or something for a fork then fine but I don't like this :/. James (T C) 07:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If this were say, a giant penis, would it be unacceptable to leave it up while discussing? Of course not. It's vandalism, and as long as it remains up, it is harmful to the problem's goals. It's a misnomer that editwarring means that both parties did something "bad". Technically reverting a persistant vandal is edit warring, but nobody would criticize the person who repeatedly hits revert to remove a Goatse image. The question of whether this was an emergency seems satisfied when you consider this was on the main page of the project. Were it just on some article somewhere, I might be more in line with your view. But as it stands, I think you're giving the necessity of the stewards' actions short shrift. Swatjester 21:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps. I'll fully admit part of my feeling at this point is "it just feels wrong" despite the fact that I'd like to see it removed. It doesn't appear to me that we are actually trying to talk with them much it just seems that we're basically saying "stop or we'll make you stop". Perhaps that is what we should do, but I think a lot of people are trying to say that we are working with those involved and I'm not sure that's really true.James (T C) 00:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the word true and the concept of truth. On the Foundation mailing list you can see the discussion of "talking to" versus "talking with". With only works when both sides are willing to cooperate, no matter the err. Talking to occurs from both sides when there is not collaboration. Keegan 06:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

From Si Gam Acèh[edit]


See here, here and here for the images. We urge all Wikimedia projects from muslim countries to put the template on their main pages. Also all muslim wikipedians must protest Wikipedia. Acehnese Wikipedia is ready to boycott Wikipedia if there is fatwa from competent ulama. This template will never be removed as long as images insulting Islam and Prophet Muhammad pbuh that attack more than 1.500.000.000 muslims not deleted from Wikipedia.


-- Si Gam Acèh 11:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well that's certainly a well-reasoned and logical argument. Firstly, you don't speak for all the muslims, and secondly, even if you did, it's only one of the two major branches which gets its collective panties in a knot over this issue. You'd be talking exclusively on behalf of Sunni Islam. Ironholds 02:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh ya? Please see:
I can show you more, more and more. But what is Wikipedia's respond ?????-- Si Gam Acèh 05:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Our demand is only one. Delete the images from Wikipedia. We can not force Wikimedia to do it. But we can not work in a community where the community has insulted our religion and our beloved prophet. We will see in one week. If after one week, the images are still not deleted, we are going to go to Proposals for closing projects. Actually this is very difficult for us, because we have done all out for Acehnese Wikipedia. As for me, I have sacrificed my time, power, money (though I am not rich) and study. You can see this and this. But we love our prophet more than Wikipedia. Good bye. -- Si Gam Acèh 05:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia or Wikimedia should not take part in an inner-muslim debate on iconoclasm. -- Mathias Schindler 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Si Gam Acèh, could I ask one thing of you? Please take a moment and read the article Depictions of Muhammad. This is a complex Islamic issue and the article discusses it well. You sound like you love your faith—I also love Islam, and have studied the theology for years (but I am by no means an expert). Would you claim that the Persian and Ottoman Muslim artists were also outright attacking the world population of Muslims? This is complex theologically, and I think you would enjoy studying the complexities of the issue. Keep in mind that there is a great diversity of opinions even in the great and diverse Muslim community of the world. Your continued responses, such as claiming this is an attack on 1.5 billion Muslims, seem militant and unconsidered. The Danish cartoon controversy was offensive. What Wikipeida is doing (in trying to be a repository of encyclopedic information) is fundamentally different, please don't let your anger over those images which were blatantly meant to inflame the issue affect the way you interpret the intentions of the Wikipedia project. The Wikipeida project's coverage of Islamic issues is getting better, and we should be proud that Wikipeida has good coverage on such an important issues as Depictions of Muhammad in Islamic theology. All the world should be able to read about these important Islamic topics. And to include historical images such as those produced by faithful Persians and Ottomans is an aspect of the theology. Keep in mind, before attacking others, the important fact that this issue is not Qur'anic. I would like to hear what you think after reading that well put-together article. Oh, and you would perhaps have more success in the debate if you don't attack others with terms like Kaffir.
Peace and Passion 22:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
You misunderstand brother. Although personally, we disagree with any depictions of Prophet Muhammad, we only reject the insulting images those are this, this, this, this and these. One more, why I said kaafir to him, because he attacked me first. -- Si Gam Acèh 19:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Support Support I highly support Si Gam Acèh. Wikipedia is full of atheistic and homosexual propaganda and passes all morality barriers with all these pictures of Mohammed, pictures of naked body and so one. Is it a encyclopedia, the project of high moral values or just another silly project of moral decadanse? I'm not a muslim but I respect them very much to fight against this liberals who wants to rape any sacrality. The pictures of Muhammed are totally useless as nobody knows how the Prophed looked and it's just an attack against all Islam world with an intention "see, we don't have any Gods, any morality, we can do anything and your God and your morality is nothing". Hugo.arg 10:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, in a strict sense, the project itself has no god/religion and really shouldn't, otherwise you'll have strict religiously minded folks who dislike pagans (for instance) and decide to prevent them from editing in order to promote their own view of things. This isn't a statement on things such as the en:Crusades or the en:Salem witch trials that happened hundreds of years ago, we're talking about kicking people out of their tribe if they change religions, and simply being the wrong religion in the wrong place. Thank God that you have the freedom to be religious in your own way where you live: Not everyone has this, and frankly it's typically the secular state and institutions which are themselves forbidden from backing any particular religion to thank. Now, I'm going to say something that I suspect will tick you off to no end: Respect other contributors, edit according to the NPOV policy, or (if you don't want to comply with those wishes) get off Wikipedia. That was non-negotiable far before I ever got here, it applies everywhere. Kylu 11:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
@Hugo.arg (edit conflict) : This argument can easily be reverted to show the other point of vue : "See, we have god(s), we have morality, you have none of those and mustn't be heard". I have trouble with people telling that "atheists and homosexuals" have "no morality". I'm afraid you are confusing here religion, sexuality, and morality : where some people place religion on a pedestal as having the highest moral ground, some other place Law there ; while both are valid, dismissing one as "non moral" is nonsense at best, and probably a personal attack too ; it can therefore be considered in contradiction with one of the founding principless, and certainly is in total contradiction with another one. As for sexuality, who would you consider more "moral", between - for example - the heterosexual rapist and murderer, and the homosexual "joe guy", that gives money to charity every month and helps old ladies through crosswalks ? I know it's hard to admit rapists and murderers can be heterosexuals, since they have morality, unlike homosexuals, but let's just imagine for a moment here that a homosexual can be a good person too... Yes, that was irony.
Now, dismissing these depictions as they can't correctly represent whoever (or whatever) they are supposed to is also nonsense. There are lots of examples of pictures that similarly cannot correctly represent their subject (two Centrosauruses - who knows what colors were dinosaur hides ? -, Attila the Hun - painted here 800 years after his death -, Planetoids collision in the Vega system - "where no human eye has ever set foot"). All these pictures still have one major interest : they allow the reader to have a base to visualize something they wouldn't otherwise be able to.
Study of anatomy has been forbidden in Europe from the Vth or VIIth century to the XVth century. Pictures of naked body would undoubtfully have been considered offensive back then. So would pictures of internal organs, be they drawings or photographs. In over 5 centuries, culture has evolved, and those are no more considered offensive, merely educative. Although I still find L'Origine du monde, a painting by Courbet, shocking, I keep congratulating fr:Musée d'Orsay for buying and displaying it as it is a major piece of art that certainly helped conception of morality to evolve. Yes, it is a painting showing a naked body. Yes, it was first said to be immoral. And no, it is not offensive to anyone in particular, it's just pigments organized in such a fashion that they display skin and body hair (and bedding).
Should anyone be accused of "raping any sacrality", it should at most be the authors of said pictures, not the users who merely imported them here. I do not and cannot condone the caricatures published in Jyllands-Posten, as they are obviously offensive (and were meant to be, which is the reason for my impossibility to condone). But neither do I condone the subsequent rash actions, as I consider violence never to be a solution - especially widespread, untargetted violence... the burnt-out cars and the school set ablaze had probably nothing to see with the authors, way to be ineffective...). And neither do I or will I ever condone the will to forbid collecting such images for documentary purpose : it - again - still is the best way to allow the reader to have a base to visualize something they wouldn't otherwise be able to. Besides, I have trouble seeing the "sacrality rape" when merely displaying an individual in his everyday duty, for example prohibiting calendar intercalation, dedicating the Black Stone at the Kaaba, or receiving fealty.
Alphos [bother me] 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a double morality. The painting anti-islamic pictures, making laws against hijab, laws against crosses at schools is OK but anything against lgbt propaganda, against feminism, against current establishment is a big crime. If children at Islamic countries are tought that it's prohibited to do any pictures of Mohammad but they they found them at Wikipedia? Why to confuse them? Why need these hunderds or pornographic photos at the commons? Why parents even should afraid let to use wikipedia for children because there are not only pictures of naked body but even pictures of sexual acts? I have seen all Lithuanian encyclopedias and none of them contains such pictures, even the Medicinal Encyclopedia. Your statement it's just pigments organized in such a fashion that they display skin and body hair is pointless because you can say that any insult "is just combination of letters" or even killing man is "just desorganization of his body functions". Hugo.arg 17:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you advocate that we ban all material that contradicts anything widely taught to children? For example, should we delete all content pertaining to evolution (which might "confuse" creationists)? —David Levy 18:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Does removing such images change the fact that such images exist? Does removing nudity mean that the Internet won't be chock-full of pornographic content anymore? Will ignoring a problem cause it to go away? The answer to all these question is no - even if we remove certain content from Wikipedia it can still be found at other places on the web with relative ease. Children WILL eventually run into nudity or faces of Muhammad, even if they don't intend to. A simple google search will find the content after all, and most times the context will be a lot less educational then Wikipedia (Porn sites or hate sites speaking against a certain group).
Does the right of a parent override the right of others to see certain content? I say no. The parent could equally buy an Internet filter or restrict the child from unmonitored Internet access (Something that, seeing the rest of the internet, is a sensible move anyway). Besides, a good parent explains instead of decreeing - you could tell a child that drawing images is forbidden, but that other culture's don't consider this a rule. You can be as liberal ("They have a free choice to do so") or as conservative ("it is evil, so close the images every time you see them") as you want in the explanation of the issue. As said before, inclusion of picture's isn't a sign that anyone agrees with the content - merely that it is historically important. Besides, "Offensiveness" is entirely personal. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The big difference between L'Origine du monde on one side, and insults and homicide on the other side, is the intent, I'd say. Courbet's painting, while shocking, was not meant to be so. Besides, if I may suggest, look more carefully at your Medicinal Encyclopedia, i daresay there is a picture (be it photographic, drawn, or otherwise) of a penis, a vulva, and even a liver and kidney (keep in mind pictures of internal organs were in european countries banished for the most part of the Middle Age). Excirial earlier stated that depictions of Muhammad (even caricatural, thus offensive ones) are to be found with one click on Google. I believe similar images can be found displaying penises, vulvae, and most definitely intercourse. Searching for those on Commons is a waste of a teenager's time, seeing as he can provide himself with free porn with the mere blink of an eye... Google will certainly provide him with far wider possibilities and many more hours of fun in this matter. Should "we" close Google for insulting:
  • foreach (religion as followers_name => number_of_followers) { number_of_followers followers_name } (let's just put things like that : no religion forgotten, no statistics mistaken),
  • foreach (political_group as supporters_name => number_of_supporters) { number_of_supporters supporters_name } (ditto),
  • and same with soccer teams (hey, some might dislike whichever critics Wikipedia stores),
  • artists (see above),
  • or anything you might think alike ?
Now I'd like to rebut the first idea in your last answer : you seem to be campaigning here against the antireligious laws - or maybe against the antihomophobic ones, I'm not sure -, in which case you are gravely mistaken on what this RfC was opened for. None of us (and that includes you) is here (on this RfC or on any of the sites managed by the Wikimedia Foundation) to do politics. If you wish to hold debate on this particular matter, this is by any means not the place. I would be happy to discuss these excessive actions (for most of them based on a misunderstanding of what secularism actually is - instead of a political system where decisions are not motivated by religious grounds, some governments lato sensu, parliaments included have shifted to a political system where religion is effectively expelled from everything public, which is a rather drastic move in excess of a twisting of some of the underlying Constitutions) with someone able to accept a peaceful confrontation of arguments on this, I myself do not believe this is the right place. And above all I don't really expect you to be able to sustain a peaceful confrontation of arguments : your previous attack of atheists and homosexuals is a great hint in this matter.
Alphos [bother me] 22:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

From Juhko[edit]

As I said, "if the template is any point of view, it's a point of view about Wikipedia's content, not straightly a political or religious point of view. As said, Comment on the content, not on the contributor." Also stewards please stop the wheel war. I also commented on Si Gam Acèh's talk page "How do you justify that willful insulting every muslim isn't one point of view? Images in linked articles clearly declare the imaged persons as prophet Muhammad; removing these images requires consensus, and linking current events from main page is NPOV. That could be compared with linking to every day quarreling from "Current events" -page. Template text may be changed if it's read as too belligerent, through consensus." for User:Laaknor on the talk page.

I don't take position about should the images insulting prophet Muhammad removed, or kept here due to considered as some kind of citation what really happened, but keeping template on Main Page is not against any policy. Si Gam Acèh must also be sysoped immediately due to 3RR was satisfied as much for stewards army.

Sorry of my English. Regards --Juhko 12:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have some sample templates that I've tossed together using your template code that I think would be acceptable by everyone during this time. Please see ace:Ureuëng Nguy:Kylu for them. The first (red) is for the main page and "project" pages, the main talk page, and any users who would like to use it. It wouldn't be really appropriate for all articles. The second, in green, would be more appropriate for user pages and talk pages and could be used to voice your opinions as needed. Feel free, of course, to modify these, especially with translations into Aceh. If your community wishes, you could contact either the stewards or administrators from the Arabic Wikipedia to help set up a "bad image list" to prevent visitors from using images of Muhammad on your project. I don't claim that any of this is going to defuse the situation, but I'd really like to help reduce the tension somewhat. Is this acceptable to you and your project so far? Kylu 17:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Part of comment requeset on ace.wikipedia[edit]

Modified this voting -> comment request with three options and added talk sections. Please comment these suggestions. --Juhko 10:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

From Nemo_bis[edit]

  1. A protest on some wiki is not the correct way to question the policy of another wiki, so I suggest not to discuss the problem of the depictions of Muhammad at all, otherwise the user will achieve his aim.
  2. Such a message on the main page is an obvious example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; in this case, it's also obviously against NPOV. It can't be allowed.
  3. As I said, I think the global community should try to talk with the local community. Actually, is such a small wiki that I don't think many visitors saw that message, so I think that stewards could have waited some days before removing it. On the other hand, as you can see above and from his reply to my questions, Si Gam Acèh is not collaborative at all; when he replied he had been reverted three times on the main page, I don't know if without those reverts he would have been more open to discussion as he seemed to be some months ago.
  4. The local community must be allowed to remove images they consider offensive locally if there is a law that enforces this and there's a clear consensus, but Si Gam Acèh said that Sharia is not enforced (yet) in Aceh and I don't know if such a policy was created. Moreover, Si Gam Acèh has not been able to show a consensus for his actions.
  5. 3RR is not a global policy. On the other hand, Si Gam Acèh threatened to delete all his contributions (or maybe the whole, hence I think that an emergency desysopping of the involved local admins was necessary. It must be noted that this is probably what they meant with "boycott" when they created the message, so such threat was prior to the reverts.
  6. «What I do is what all muslims must do», «boycott Wikipedia if there is fatwa from competent ulama», «Islam, the right religion which has admitted by our God, Allah ta'ala», «All Acehnese people are muslim. For muslims or Acehnese people, all aspects must be controlled by Islam»: Si Gam Acèh is very POV, has obvious problems with The Truth and seems to want completely subject to Islam authorities, and I'm afraid the whole wiki could be POV and NPOV contributors were discouraged by its content (I mean, I don't see any blocked user, but a reaction like "what a POV crap here, just use" is enough to discourage good contributors).

Nemo 15:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Support --Shipmaster 06:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
«Islam, the right religion which has admitted by our God, Allah ta'ala». I didn't say it. I just translated what Abi Azkia said. -- Si Gam Acèh 08:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Support Support though I'd be inclined to say "if there is a law that enforces this or there's a clear consensus" otherwise you could have a project breaking a law because a significant minority objected to complying with it, or not filtering something out despite a consensus to do so because it wasn't illegal. WereSpielChequers 08:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
«All Acehnese people are muslim. For muslims or Acehnese people, all aspects must be controlled by Islam». That statement has been agreed by all community. No one disagree. If only I who agree but the others don't, of course I can't implement my view. -- Si Gam Acèh 08:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, the majority anyway (98.6% according to w:Aceh). Also tens of thousands of Christians, Hindu, and Buddhists. I assume you have no problem with them editing, yes? Kylu 12:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
For example I have been there since August 2009 although I'm not Acehnese or muslim myself. --Juhko 12:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Kylu, what I mean with all "Acehnese is muslim" is in context Acehnese as an ethnic group not as Aceh province inhabitant. The Christians in Aceh are Bataks and Chinese. Non muslims in Aceh are not from Acehnese ethnic group. Of course, we have no problem with them editing. And community that I mean in this sentence "That statement has been agreed by all community" is Acehnese Wikipedia community who speak Acehnese. -- Si Gam Acèh 19:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
What if I (a non-Muslim) wish to learn Acehnese and edit the Acehnese Wikipedia? Am I not permitted to? Am I to be bound by Islamic law? —David Levy 13:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem. It's OK. You can edit in Acehnese Wikipedia. No one prohibit you. You are bound by the consensus not by Islamic law. -- Si Gam Acèh 19:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
1. On what principles does the Acehnese Wikipedia community base its consensuses? It was stated in a Foundation-l post that "according to an administrator on his talkpage, the site bans anything that violates Islamic law."
2. If you believe that editors are bound by consensus, why did you repeatedly edit several Wikipedias in a manner that you knew contradicted consensus (and felt was dictated by Islamic law)? —David Levy 20:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
1. Acehnese Wikipedia community base its consensuses on Wikimedia principles, except about special cases such as Prophet Muhammad pbuh image, we can't display it. We ban anything that violates Islamic law because all contributors have agreed it.
2. Because they attack Islam, Prophet Muhammad pbuh and more than 1.500.000.000 muslims. And I attacked them back. -- Si Gam Acèh 06:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
1.Wikimedia Projects possess a great deal of latitude, but consensus cannot override the Wikimedia Foundation's core principles (one of which is that its projects maintain a neutral point of view).
This is not to say that it's unreasonable for a project to determine that images of Muhammad will not be displayed. But to "ban anything that violates Islamic law" is unacceptable, even if "all contributors have agreed it." The same would be true if a Wikimedia project with predominantly Christian, Hindu or Jewish editors (or adherents to any particular religion) were to ban content inconsistent with their beliefs.
2. In other words, you respect your consensus and no one else's. —David Levy 06:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
1. Hercule told us before, it's no problem as long as all contributors have agreed.
2. How can we respect a consensus which insults Islam, Prophet Muhammad pbuh and 1.500.000.000 muslims??? Never! -- Si Gam Acèh 09:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe that Hercule was referring to the decision to exclude images of Muhammad, not a decision to base the encyclopedia's content upon a particular religion. —David Levy 18:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly... Hercule 20:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

From Kylu[edit]


Si Gam Acèh suggested I create a statement here. While I don't think it's really pertinent, I'm willing to do so.

I have attempted (and think I have been successful at) not using any steward abilities during the course of this conflict, involving myself solely as an editor. This said, when I noticed the conflict brewing, there were already three reverts involved and a growing suspicion on my part that the conflict would do little but escalate.

I suspect that anyone who has pursued dispute resolution in any form would agree that the outcome of a dispute is rarely ideal the first round of negotiations. This issue has now drawn some attention, and it's my hope that this attention will turn into constructive discussion between the parties.

Note: deleted a redirect on the project, requested via template by local (currently desysopped) user. Ignoring requests like these isn't going to make the situation better, so... Kylu 17:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

My opinion on the issues are:

  1. After the first revert back to the template, we should have stopped and all sides should discuss the problem.
  2. I don't think that the template is effective: Closure (one requested action) is not likely until all locals stop voluntarily editing. The template was posted and editing continued. The alternative requested action, deletions of images of the prophet on a different project, is unlikely at best. Furthermore, protesting the image of something by linking to it is somewhat self-defeating.
  3. The template is POV, specifically it's a "political" call to action and does not belong in mainspace or transcluded there.
  4. A more valid strategy, perhaps, would be to create such a template protesting the inclusion of such images and hosting it on non-public facing pages (user and user talk pages, for instance) which are not held to the rigorous NPOV standards as mainspace.
  5. I imagine that the local use of a bad image list would be acceptable to both sides, preventing these images from being used on ace.wikipedia. I am aware that this is not one of the points of contention, but I suggest it as something for the local community to consider.
  6. I'm highly opinionated. :)


For ace.wikipedia admins:

  1. On the page ace:Wikipèdia:Bèk peuhina Islam, do you accept any votes by people who have not edited ace.wikipedia previously?
  2. Do you accept votes by non-Muslims?

For others:

  1. Please place yourself in the shoes of the other party. If you were a steward, how would you have reacted to this? If you were a Muslim and one of the ace.wikipedia admins, how would you have reacted?


From ace.wikipedia administrator Juhko[edit]
  1. I'll accept votes from every regular wikipedian
  2. Yes. Please note that I'm not even muslim myself, but I support keeping the template on main page

--Juhko 16:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Can you think of anything to satisfy both those opposed to the inclusion of the Prophet images and our NPOV policy, and still abide the independence of other projects? I like the idea of a solidarity template for use on user/user talk pages, myself, but we're lacking in other usable ideas. Kylu 19:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any other ideas than these. Removing images and Acehnese Wikipedia's mainpage template are two different cases. Myself I strongly support keeping the template or at least a link to the poll on main page, but I really don't wanna take position to what to do with the Prophet Muhammad images. Giving information is the most difficult thing but due to cases like this one, the images must at least be used cautiously, maybe in small size and only at places where they're really needed. --Juhko 19:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Is the template, in your opinion, neutral as per the NPOV policy, or do you think it is a political statement which fails this policy? If it fails the policy, can you think of a different way of making these views known without violating it? In short, if you were one of us, how would you suggest solving the situation? It seems to me that the majority of Wikimedians don't think that allowing the template on the main page is acceptable. I'd love a solution that makes everyone happy. Kylu 00:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Myself I think the template doesn't fail any police, but you'r right about that. --Juhko 09:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
From ace.wikipedia administrator Si Gam Aceh[edit]
  1. NO. That is only for Acehnese Wikipedia users.
  2. OF COURSE, but see number 1.
What do you consider "Acehnese Wikipedia users"? A certain number of edits? Kylu 20:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know really. I think only for Acehnese speaker. How is in other Wikipedia? -- Si Gam Acèh 20:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand very little that language but I am admin in that wiki, accept my votes? I have seen in other wikis restrictions like at least 100 edits and account made at least 7 days before voting begins. --Juhko 20:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
We write in Acehnese. Can non Acehnese speakers understand it? We don't think we should translate in English. -- Si Gam Acèh 09:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
So does that mean yes or no? --Juhko 15:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
From Shipmaster[edit]

I wasn't going to put anything here myself as I agree with Nemo's statement. I am an admin and bureaucrat on the Arabic wikipedia. I am a practicing muslim myself, to answer the question Kylu presented, i find the template and the vote very irritating, I disagree with the content of both. We don't have the images on ar.wp by community consensus, but we don't push this view on others. I will not vote on that vote page because I think - with all due respect - it is ridiculous to do so. I dont know Acehnese but from my lifetime exposure to Islamist rhetoric I think the prologue to the vote is full of such, completely POV and is directed totally and completely towards muslims (I wonder if Juhko can shed more light on that). I am also disturbed by Si Gam Acèh personally attacking mahmudmasri on the talk page just for disagreeing with him, this behavior gets you temp-blocked on ar.wp, not just de-sysopped. --Shipmaster 18:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. May I suggest that you put a comment under Nemo's statement to the effect that you're supporting it, that way we can keep track of the positions of those involved? Kylu 19:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Is kaafir an attacking word??? If you think so, that's up to you. But you must know that he attacked me first. -- Si Gam Acèh 08:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
From Excirial[edit]

Seeing the above comment from shipmaster i think i could also weigh in, even though i originally didn't plan to as i agreed with the statements made by Kylu and Nemo. Before anything else i agree that any Wiki has the right to write its own set of rules, as long as they are in spirit with the 5 pillars - and that means that every Wiki may also choose if it wishes to allow a certain set of images. The inclusion of the images of Muhammad is one of the most debated topics on Countless debates were held and many users weighted in into the decision to include these images. This was certainly not a decision that was made on a whim, or one where other viewpoints were simply ignored. Attacking another Wiki simply because they don't agree with ones personal viewpoint is not simply not done - if you expect to receive the freedom to create your own rules, you should equally allow others to do so. Regardless, such an argument should not be fought on the main page; pointing users to a current relevant debate is fine, but messages such as the one that was added is a blatant violation of NPOV. If the current template was restricted to the userspace i would find it tolerable though, as anyone is entitled to his own opinions.

Besides this i would point out that i am worried about Si Gam Acèh recent behavior. Language such as mentioned under point 5 is simply not productive, insulting other users on the talk page is not done, and i find that vandalizing another Wiki is behavior that no admin should ever exhibit, regardless of his stance or position. On the other hand i have to commend Juhko for his attempts to work towards a compromise. I don't agree with his stance, but it is clear that he is interested in finding a middle ground that everyone agrees with. But honestly - this issue wasn't exactly handled in the most optimal way (On either side), which resulted in the current friction between editors. Do note that i'm not pointing fingers to anyone here (It is quite likely that i would have made the same mistakes), just observing the result. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to admit that when reading this, your note on vandalism jumped out at me: I had no clue, then visited Si Gam Acèh's global contributions and saw the against-consensus edits on en and fr Wikipedias. I had no idea at all, and thank you for bringing that to our attention. Hopefully, there is still a chance to resolve all this in some sort of amicable way. If you do have any suggestions for compromise and solution, please let us know. Thanks! Kylu 20:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

From SWATJester[edit]

Some thoughts: Simply put, it's never acceptable for a user or users on any project to actively disrupt the greater Wikimedia community for their own personal beliefs. Anyone with admin tools or greater who has lost sight of that and thinks it is acceptable, should not have the tools. The issue of whether the images are acceptable has long since been discussed and debated into the ground. It's been made overwhelmingly clear that they are, by consensus. If a project has personal issues with the images, they are free to come up with alternative means of dealing with it, but urging attacks on other Wikipedias is ridiculous. Swatjester 21:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean this to be a general statement or a response to mine, above? Kylu 22:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Whoops. This is a general statement. I put it in the wrong section. Swatjester 04:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Resectioned, no problem. :) Kylu 04:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

From David Levy[edit]

This is not a borderline case. Si Gam Acèh's actions have been grossly inappropriate. He used the main page of a Wikipedia to advocate protests against other Wikimedia projects. He reverted all attempts to remove the template. He vowed to "never stop attacking" Wikipedia until his demands were met, with the threat of removing all of his contributions and seeing to the Acehnese Wikipedia's shutdown if they weren't.

Such conduct is not remotely acceptable. Si Gam Acèh is entitled to "boycott" Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, but he unequivocally is not entitled to utilize a Wikimedia website (let alone its main page) as a forum in which to stage his "attack."

Any response other than the template's removal and Si Gam Acèh's desysopping when he persisted in the above behavior would have been inadequate. In my assessment, he has gone so far over the line that he should not be trusted with administrative rights ever again. —David Levy 23:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Support Support unequivocally. -- OlEnglish 07:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Support Grossly innapropriate Acather96 16:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Support Agree completely. Having an opinion is one thing, but using the Foundation's resources without permission to advance a particular agenda is not acceptable in any way. 09:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC).

From Fadli Idris[edit]

Any body can explain to me about NPOV accepted for insulting other religious? Please see this images before. --Fadli Idris

I think the general argument on en.wikipedia is that while the image itself is intended to insult Islam, it was not created locally by Wikipedians. It can be seen as valid commentary, then, on both sides of the debate: Those who disrespect Islam and its Prophet, and those who take such insults with deadly seriousness. The image is not neutral, it's decidedly anti-Muslim, but its treatment there as an example of the sort of illogical hatred of each other is something we could all learn from. As long as someone allows someone else's hatred to fuel their own, peace is a distant goal. Kylu 02:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Also this, this, this, this and these ????? We can't accept them!!! -- Si Gam Acèh 07:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Do a Google image search on "Muhammad". In the first 21 results returned there were: 4 satirical images, 8 images showing Muhammad with a face, 6 displaying calligraphy 3 unrelated images. Seeing that Google indexes these images as well, would you argue against using Google or any other search engine? If you would argue that Google merely indexes other sources, i would point out that is everything Wikipedia does as well. We don't generate our own controversial content after all. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 09:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
When Google displays the images, it wins 1-0. If I continue not to use Google, It wins 2-0. But Wikipedia is different case. I can do something with my position here, but not with Google. I can't do anything. But if I am the government, I will do something. -- Si Gam Acèh 21:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
And your apparent belief that a Wikimedia administrator holds a position of government is fundamentally incorrect. —David Levy 21:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
We never think that a Wikimedia administrator holds a position of government. But we are involved here. So for us, there are only 2 choice. We make a change or we quit. -- Si Gam Acèh 09:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
So quit... Hercule 20:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Is that a legal threat? I can't speak to the policies here, but I can't see that a statement like that would be allowed on enwiki.-Terrillja 21:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
We also can't see that images like those would be allowed on Wikimedia projects. -- Si Gam Acèh 09:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Your opinion is nothing compared to the core principles that existed even before you registered to Wikimedia. If you don't agree them you have nothing to do on it's projets. --Hercule 20:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
A neutral point of view has two characteristics:
  • It describes the opinion of every major party in a conflict, giving appropriate weight to each party.
  • The supporting text does not cast judgments as to what viewpoint is "the best" one.
The same rules apply to images - if an image has historic value it is included, regardless of whether or not it could be deemed offensive by certain groups of people. This is what we call the "Not Censored rule", which is a blanket rule that states that "offensiveness" is not a ground for removal. Keep in mind that "offensiveness" is inherently an opinion, and that an opinion is inherently not compliant to NPOV; And do note that this rule covers every subject on the, not only the images of Muhammad. We equally keep propaganda, political satire, nudity / sexual content and controversial images for every (non)religious belief (Adding non because atheism cannot be deemed a religion) - in other words, we remain neutral because we treat every subject equally, and without bias.
Finally i would mention that the inclusion of these images is not equal to the endorsement of their content. We merely document, describe and show viewpoints of other people. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 09:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

From Fred Bauder[edit]

I think the template was good as a way of focusing attention on a serious issue which has not been resolved satisfactorily. Sustained use of it or an actual boycott is inappropriate however. It is wrong to offend millions of people by displaying images which bear little if any relationship to their subject. There is no excuse, let alone a principle which supports continuing to exhibit a tin ear. THERE IS NO RELIABLE SOURCE FOR ANY IMAGE OF MUHAMMAD. Fred Bauder 03:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

By which I mean any photograph or contemporary drawing. Fred Bauder 19:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
To my knowledge, all Muhammad imagery appearing in Wikipedia illustrates the manner in which he has been depicted within various cultures and time periods or the recent controversy (not Muhammad himself). —David Levy 04:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Not million. But BILLION muslims. -- Si Gam Acèh 04:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The number of Muslims involved does not matter. If it were only a million, would it be okay to insult them? What if it were only ten? Nobody advocates the suppression of the rights of a group, even if they were a tiny minority, to pander to the whims of a tyrrany majority. Please take no offense, but if you're not going to try to discuss things rationally, it'd be better to move aside and let others from your project do so. Kylu 17:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
If it wouldn't be okay to insult Islam, Prophet Muhammad pbuh and > 1.5 billion muslims, why you let the images???
Take no offense??? How could it be??? You put pig image, head with bomb etc that insult every muslims very much!!! We always discuss rationally not like you by using irrational reasons to insult Islam.
Who others from our project??? All of us has one voice.
-- Si Gam Acèh 10:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Because we aren't insulted by images. Because it makes no sense to most of us why you would choose to take offense at Wikipedia storing copies of historical images for their historical value only. Because we can't imagine any images that Wikipedia could host of a similar nature that would offend us.--Prosfilaes 03:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Fred, you are completely wrong. There are a lot of reliable academic sources covering the depictions of Muhammad. vvvt 05:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
CAN WE PLEASE DROP THE ALLCAPS SHOUTING, KTHX. It is already annoying enough coming from inexperienced users, but you don't even have that excuse. If you're not able to make your point with regular typography, then something's wrong with your point. guillom 07:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The claim that there are no relliable sources for any image of Muhammad is simply ridiculous. If you look for example at the English Wikipedia's Depictions of Muhammad article one sees 38 sources given that are all reliable sources, discussing depictions going back to the Middle Ages by both Muslims and non-Muslims. Please do not ruin the signal to noise ratio with this sort of nonsense. JoshuaZ 16:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I imagine that he means "There are no images or depictions that are reliable in the sense that they were intended to look as Muhammad actually looked." Kylu 17:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
And by that logic, we need to remove this unreliable depiction of Adam, this unreliable depiction of David, this unreliable depiction of Jesus, and countless other visual depictions of these and other figures whose appearances cannot be verified. —David Levy 17:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, but did Adam, David, and Jesus tell people to not represent them in art for fear that they would be worshipped? I'm under the impression that this was Muhammad's point. I may well be wrong...likely, in fact. Kylu 17:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The images' offensiveness to many Muslims is unrelated to their unverifiable historical accuracy. I don't know why Fred has continually conflated these issues, the latter of which is not even a legitimate concern in this context.
Regarding the former, it's been noted that Wikimedia sites contain a great deal of material that is highly offensive to various groups (such as information about evolution, illustrations of sexuality-related subjects, and this depiction of Jesus). Our content stems from a mission to provide academic resources in a neutral, dispassionate manner. —David Levy 18:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, an image of Adam is nonsense as is an image of David. They should clearly be identified as artistic productions. I suppose, in light of its origins, Wikipedia necessarily embodies Christian culture which accept images of not only the prophets, but of God himself, however unknowable such information is. Fred Bauder 19:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm rather curious how people would react were you to depict God using Morgan Freeman and George Burns? I almost consider that a rough parallel to this situation. Kylu 19:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
What situation? Where are we using imagery to directly illustrate Muhammad (as opposed to specific depictions thereof)? —David Levy 20:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
English Wikipedia already does that, Kylu. en:File:Oh god.jpg. As far as I know, no one has complained. LtPowers 15:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Where are we using any such image (be it a depiction of Adam, David, Muhammad, or another figure whose visual representations are inherently speculative) without properly identifying its origin? —David Levy 20:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the argument relating to en:File:Oh god.jpg is would you use that to represent God? The answer is no, you would not use extremely marginal items from a small time period to represent a broader concept/entity of God. The same goes in the Muhammad article. It's not that we offend 1.5 billion Muslims (and I can assure you, not all are offended). It's why do we represent Muhammad (and our primary representation at that) in a way that is incomprehensible and historically inconsistent with how he has been identified. Yes, it is relevant to have some of the Ottoman and Shia depictions but it seems that we have a strong bias towards 1) fetishizing pictures 2) reacting to the fact that Muslims reacted to images of Muhammad and 3) a definite fringe who want to offend. Having an infobox (edit: on this contested revision) with an unsourced "medieval" depiction of Muhammad from this site is incredibly laughable for the credibility of the English Wikipedia. It's making the statement than an image is more important than thinking about the importance of that image in history and the extent to which people will identify it as Muhammad. The image we use on Jesus works because there is a widespread reaction of people looking at it and understanding "oh, that's Jesus". There is no analogue in the Muhammad situation and using it in the infobox wreaks of children writing an encyclopedia. Context is important. There is more to this issue than free-speech and "is it okay to insult Muslims?" It is okay if our articles make some Muslims feel bad as long as they are good representative historical work. gren 15:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
If our sites contain specific images whose historical significance is questionable, that's a legitimate concern that should be addressed. (This is true regardless of the images' subjects.)
No one asserting that every visual depiction of Muhammad qualifies for inclusion (and that none can be challenged). The issue is whether to include any visual depictions of Muhammad. You acknowledge that "it is relevant to have some of the Ottoman and Shia depictions," and I strongly agree that such photographs must strictly illustrate the depictions themselves, not Muhammad (as that inappropriate infobox edit did). —David Levy 16:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Relating this to ace.wikipedia. This is their own debate to have. They can decide what is important because there is no "right" way to do this. But one thing is clear, we don't need soapboxes on the main page and your religious/political views are not a justification for how to write an article. gren 15:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree 100%. —David Levy 16:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
You're all missing the point. It doesn't matter whether the depictions are historically accurate. It's just like everything else we do on Wikipedia - we're not saying "Muhammed looks like this", we're saying "X person depicted Muhammed as looking like this". The fact that we are doing so through an image file rather than text makes no difference. That nobody currently exists alive that has seen Muhammed is irrelevant, and a red herring. Swatjester 18:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
In case it wasn't clear, this was the point in my 04:10 (UTC) reply to Fred. —David Levy 18:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

From WereSpielChequers[edit]

The place to advocate policy change is in userspace and project space, not mainspace, and vandalising EN wiki is never a good tactic. Its easy to dismiss this incident as someone is SHOUTING so they are bound to be in the wrong. But we do have a broader problem in getting full acceptance in the Islamic world. I talked this over with several wikimedians from Islamic countries who I met at Wikimania, and I think there are things we could do that would not conflict with the five pillars. Having an option in user preferences to display PBUH in places appropriate to moslems, and having options in user preferences to screen out certain levels of human imagery would I hope go a long way towards reassuring our fellow editors of the Islamic faith that we don't have an anti-islamic POV. WereSpielChequers 08:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's unacceptable. -- Si Gam Acèh 09:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Which bits of that do you find unacceptable, and do you think they are unacceptable to Moslems as not going far enough or to wikimedians as conflicting in some way with our mission? WereSpielChequers 11:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
There's no sense in dialogue with someone blind to reasoning. -- OlEnglish 08:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
This image and then this, this, this and these are unacceptable whatever the reasons. -- Si Gam Acèh 20:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
If you want them to be deleted you must justify why they're redudant. Most of them are there only giving information what was happened. I told the points that you must use in this case and linking to images without justifying doesn't help. See the comment request about images and section npov-policy. --Juhko 20:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Si Gam Aceh, Are you saying that they are unacceptable to you and people of your faith, and you wish to be able to set a preference not to have them displayed when you use Wikimedia? If so I would be happy for you to have that option, I would also be happy for communities where the language is overwhelming spoken by moslems to either ban certain images or to set new users accounts to default to an Islamic filter preference. WereSpielChequers 13:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

From Adambro[edit]

I have no involvement here other than having seen this request for comment and then researched this situation as necessary. I would consider the use of any WMF project in this way absolutely unacceptable and a gross violation of the principle of NPOV which must be respected on all projects. I support the removal of admin rights from any ace.wikipedia admins which have been involved and the use of blocks as appropriate. I agree with David Levy's statement above. The ace.wikipedia community can choose not to include images as they wish or not contribute and create a fork of the project independent of the WMF, but they most certainly can't use a WMF project to protest about some images they don't like. Adambro 10:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

From Excirial[edit]

Par Kylu's suggestion above i'm writing a separate section that focuses mainly on the points of conflict, with an emphasis on what i see as a compromise between both parties.

The first thing that we should all keep in mind is that Wikipedia is a global project which harbors users from all around the globe. Our users represent different cultures, religions, countries and morales, and due to these differences we may disagree vehemently on some subjects. The core method required to work together in harmony is that we all make allowances for others differences, or that we at least accept that other people may have views different from our own. This working together is what we call "Achieving NPOV".

Still, there are differences between the various Wiki's, as people write different rules and form conclusions regarding certain topics. We don't necessarily segregate between people, but the language of a Wiki is often a barrier that leaves people unable to cooperate on that Wiki. The result of this is that certain geographic area's are more prevelant on certain Wiki's, which in turn leads to different conclusions. There is no problem with this, so long as these conclusions don't violate the five pillars, and so long as these conclusions equally respect that others have the right to form different conclusions. Based upon this mini-essay i would argue the following things:

Positive things[edit]

  • has every right in the world to determine their own, local consensus as to whether or not they want to include images of Muhammad. Shipmaster mentioned above that forbids these images, which means that there is at least a precedent to do so. I do not believe that not including them violates any of the pillars, and i would equally mention that i can't remember that anyone has spoken out against this right so far.
  • Arc.Wiki users may keep the discussed template in its current form, as long as it is only kept and used in the userspace. The template reflects a personal opinion, and i believe that users should be free to state this opinion as long as it is clear that this opinion is personal. (See also: Bad actions).
  • Arc.Wiki users may, if so desired, use the mainpage to point out a current debate, so long as this is done in a neutral, unbiased way.

Negative things[edit]

  • users should not place the mentioned template outside the userspace. The mainpage, or any other article and project pages are not meant for campaigning ones personal views, nor are they intended to call for boycotts and other sanction calls. The template is, by its nature, a personal opinion combined with a call for action and a claim that it would represent 1.5 billion people - a claim that is no more valid then a claim that 3.5 billion people would oppose this template. As a result the template violates the NPOV pillar of the five pillars. I would equally note that if i would have placed such a template on the English main page i would have certainly lost my sysop status, likely combined with a (temporal) block.
Do note that this desysop and block would be due to the biased message and its placement, and not due to the content. Had i placed a template stating "We urge all Wikimedia projects to put this template on their main pages. All Wiki's must protest the ban of images of Muhammad on the AR.Wiki, as this is censorship and a violation of free speech" on the main page the response would be the same (and for good reason i might add).
  • Arc.Wiki users (or any users for that matter) may not vandalize other Wiki's where consensus exists to include these images, nor may canvassing/campaigning be used to sway a discussion (The opposite is also true - there should be no image-adding vandalism on Wiki's that don't allow them). Other Wiki's equally have the right to form their own consensus on the inclusion of the mentioned images, and if one expects the right to form their own consensus, the same courtesy should be extended to others as well. I would again note that (And likely the other wiki's as well) had a broad and long discussion that determined the current consensus, so these images are certainly not added on a whim.

Further issues[edit]

  • As a final note i would point to the role of a sysop within a project. A Sysop should be as open and unbiased as possible, and should have a virtually clean track record without blocks, vandalism or other activities that are not tolerated. Seeing Si Gam Acèh vandalism and subsequent blocks on several projects, as well as the apparant unwillingness to negotiate at all, i would oppose the retention of his sysop bit - cross wiki vandalism and point pushing is simply something that cannot be excused, especially not if the person is to be a sysop.
I'm not as negative about the other sysops. As i mentioned before: This issue wasn't handled in the most optimal way by either side. I frown upon Fadli Idris unprotection of the mainpage and upon his block of two stewards and a global sysop, but i'd say that the discussion had been substantially soured by the continuous reverts and by the desysopping of Si Gam Acèh. As for Juhko: I said it before and i say it again, his drive to find a solution or compromise, and his willingness to at least discuss the issue have positively impressed me. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree regarding Juhko, completely. Fadli Idris however I would give the benefit of doubt: If you see strange people coming in and making widespread changes to your main page and revert-warring with one of your local sysops, you're going to be concerned at the least. I encourage our discussion with him completely. I would go so far as to suggest we reinstate his sysop if he can agree to not re-add the template to mainspace pages while the situation is under consideration. Unfortunately, Si Gam Acèh has not yet responded in any way other than rhetoric, which does not bode well. I can only hope he changes his mind regarding discussing the matter, as refusal to discuss does little other than invalidate one's opinion on Wikimedia projects. Kylu 13:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I should have been more clear regarding Fadli Idris i guess - Yes, i agree that his reaction was quite normal to be honest. Jimbo's deletion spree on Commons caused similar outrage and responses from the commons admins, so i can imagine that Fadli felt exactly the same way. I would equally support the return of his sysop bit under the condition you named above. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

From Adam Cuerden[edit]

Wikipedia seeks to display the world's knowledge, that includes things that are offensive to some people, but which are used in an educational form.

The prohibition against depictions of the prophet Muhammad is a relatively recent development; the vast majority of the images of Muhammad we have were made by Muslims, in a time when such was acceptable. These have historic and often artistic significance.

This rule is not merely limited to depictions of Muhammad. Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia, was recently forced to give up all his sysop rights due to attempting to delete any images he thought might offend people (on a certain news channel who he's dated people from) due to sexual content. The Muhammad issue was brought up in this content. Had he succeeded, then the Muhammad images would have had to go as well. He did not, however, and Wikipedia remains uncensored due to possibility of offense. Material outside of our educational scope is deleted, but historical imagery, meant to illustrate discussions on the historical aspects of the rule on the depiction of Muhammad, is within that educational scope.

There are methods in place to allow depictions of Muhammad to be hidden. They are described at en:Talk:Muhammad.

Note that this is not the only religious controversy on Wikipedia: Evolution has been a very hot topic in some Christian churches, and constant attempts have been made to censor discussion of it. Scientology has been the subject of multiple Arbcom cases, due to the church editing Wikipedia.

Quite simply, if we let Wikipedia's content be deleted should it cause offense, we may as well delete the entire encyclopedia.° Adam Cuerden 12:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

From Fr33kman[edit]

It is important for us all to recognize that for most of the adherents of Islam these images are a big problem. It must be horrible to see images of a person you admire so much being depicted like in some of these images. I think we should all remember that they are seen as hurtful by many Muslims and we should sympathize with that no matter what out own views and beliefs are, or are not. I think, however, that as an encyclopedia we are not only required to be neutral in our coverage, but dispassionate about it also. The Wikipedias are meant to hold "the sum total of all human knowledge". This means everything, including things we find horrible or even evil. Just because WMF hosts all this knowledge does not mean that it holds any one view or any view whatsoever. My sympathies to those who find these images as evil, but we have to remain neutral. If an editor finds him/herself to be unable to support or contribute to WMF projects because of this then they should evaluate whether or not they wish to remain. I can also understand the chain of events and actions that led us to this point. I will only say that an open dialogue early on would have been ideal but that the chain of events is understandable. fr33kman t - c 13:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition, can someone please alter the template on the Main Page? It currently says "...and do NOT ruin our noble free encyclopedia project anymore." This is not a very neutral statement. fr33kman t - c 13:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I assumed (I know, I know...) that he's referring to the revert-warring, blocks, and desysopping. It's fairly ambiguous, brings attention to this RFC, and frankly I can't bring myself to further pester the most cooperative sysop from that project about it. Perhaps suggest some alternative wording to him instead, or (better yet) design a template to do the same job that both looks good and contains desirable and more eloquent wording to similar effect? Kylu 13:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, okay I'll buy that. fr33kman t - c 13:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

From gren[edit]

  1. Re: Banner on the main page -- this should be removed. There is no reason to have a persistent message on your main page in regards to a particular issue on a particular article. Especially not in such a sanctimonious style. This and the behavior of some of the sysops seem inappropriate and that is the most important thing to avoid.
  2. Re: Images in articles -- I think all actions regarding the usage or not should be done based on community consensus. There is a false opposition being set up that because users don't want the images that it is necessarily censorship and detracts from the encyclopedia. I have always advocated for minimal amounts of Muhammad pictures not because they cause offense but because they do a poor job of representing traditional understandings of Muhammad and instead satisfy a particular POV which demands visual imagery for every figure. That being said, each encyclopedia needs to come to a consensus and respect that consensus to avoid edit warring. This should be applied across all-Wikis and I see nothing problematical about some having images and others not (just like some great books about Muhammad have them and some don't).
--gren 18:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

From Mathias Schindler[edit]

  • I recommend removing the template, it has no relevancy to the project Wikipedia. If there is a community of contributors in the ace.wikipedia, they are free to form a consensus if and how to illustrate the encyclopedic articles in their language edition, as defined by the neutral point of view. Advocacy for or against a certain interpretation of religious concepts (and any activity rooted in that) should remain outside of Wikipedia's article namespace. -- Mathias Schindler 19:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

From Jiyuukaminari[edit]

It was so weird that all of you (who agreed with the displaying of picture of our beloved Muhammad SAW) do not agree with us, Acehnese Wikipedians. It is not about freedom of everything. Everyone already knew that all of us can do whatever we want, unless it attacked others' religion and privacy. Displaying pictures that try to portray our beloved prophet is offenced our view of believe, in this case i meant Islam. We love Islam above all, so that we must do our duties as Muslim and GOD's slave include protecting our prophet's sake if someone trying to display pictures that try to portray our beloved prophet. Actually, this protest is not only Si Gam Aceh or Fadli Idris view of opinion, it also my point of view, and all of Acehnese especially Acehnese Wikipedians.

If someone trying to say that not all of Acehnese people is Muslim, that is correctly wrong. We have never accept that someone who call himself Acehnese but his religion is not Muslim (I myself have not seen any of Acehnese people who convert to another religion since i was born). In our culture, Acehnese must be a muslim. If someone who called himself Acehnese convert to another religion, Acehnese people must have expelled him and did not ever accept him as Acehnese again of course. Like Si Gam Aceh said before, We are not Arabs that maybe 10% of them are not Muslim. We are just Acehnese, a small tribe who lived in a small land in northern portion of Sumatra and numbered maybe just 4,000,000 (it have been reduced by 2004 tsunami i think). We act like this just because of we are devout Muslim. In our land, there are Chinese or Indian that aren't Muslim, but we have never annoyed their view of religion, we respect each other. So please all of you who rejected to delete the pictures (that try to portray) of our beloved Prophet to think our feelings (and another 196,000,000 Muslim's) if you all still displaying the pictures. If you do not change your mind about this, there is no uncertainty that all of you had hurt our feelings (and another 196,000,000 Muslim's). So sad about that. Jiyuukaminari 18:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's ok for you to disagree, is ok to every muslim to disagree, is NOT ok to use the main page for proselitism --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 19:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It's NOT ok to insult Islam, Prophet Muhammad pbuh and 1.500.000.000 muslims. -- Si Gam Acèh 20:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
1. As previously noted, Wikimedia sites contain a great deal of material (both graphical and textual) that is offensive and upsetting to large groups of people. If we were to remove all of it, we would no longer be able to sustain our encyclopedias and other academic resources.
2. You seem to believe that the Acehnese Wikipedia is a Wikipedia for Acehnese people. This is incorrect. It's a Wikipedia written in the Acehnese language. It is likely that most editors/readers will be Acehnese, but anyone is welcome to read and edit the site (with significant revisions to prose obviously requiring a reasonable degree of understanding of the Acehnese language or the ability to translate it), regardless of his/her religious beliefs or lack thereof.
3. There is no expectation that the editors of the Acehnese Wikipedia will agree with or refrain from criticising other Wikimedia sites' editorial decisions. But no one is entitled to utilize Wikimedia resources (particularly a main page) for the purpose of waging a campaign against other Wikimedia sites (or any activism of this nature).
If the Wikimedia Foundation's core principles are so incompatible with your culture's that you cannot participate in Wikimedia projects in good conscience, the Acehnese Wikipedia community is free to take its contributions elsewhere. I'm not aware of anyone who desires such an outcome, but if it cannot be avoided, a non-Wikimedia online encyclopedia written in Acehnese would be preferable to no online encyclopedia written in Acehnese. —David Levy 19:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Jiyuukaminari, there's not a thing we can do to change those images on English Wikipedia, but... we can do things on the Acehnese Wikipedia. We can set up a "blacklist" so that those images can't be used on your project. I've offered some templates on my user page there, and we'd really like to give you a resource that the Acehnese can use. If you have anything that we can do on your project, please let us know... but the things that go on at English Wikipedia are out of our hands. Kylu 20:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
(Bahasa Indonesia) Salam, Jiyuukaminari. Proyek Wikipedia itu adalah per bahasa, bukan per kelompok etnis/suku bangsa. Bahkan jikalau apa yang kamu katakan benar, bahwa seorang yang lahir dari orang tua Aceh yang kemudian beralih agama maka ia tidak dianggap sebagai orang Aceh lagi, tetapi faktanya tidak dapat diubah bahwa orang tersebut berbicara bahasa Aceh. Tidak ada orang yang dapat "mengubah" bahasa ibunya. Walaupun ia berganti agama dan secara budaya (menurut Anda) ia bukan orang Aceh lagi, ia masih tetap adalah bagian dari Wikipedia Aceh (yang punya hak yang sama dsb), dan tidak ada yang bisa dilakukan untuk mengubah hal tersebut. Sama halnya dengan orang yang belajar bahasa Aceh, meskipun tidak dilahirkan di keluarga orang Aceh, tidak ada yang bisa menahannya untuk mendapatkan hak yang sama dengan Wikipediawan penutur asli bahasa Aceh. Semoga setiap Wikipediawan Aceh yang membaca pesan saya dapat memahami perbedaan mendasar ini. Wikipedia Aceh bukan untuk orang Aceh. Wikipedia Aceh adalah untuk orang yang berbahasa Aceh.. Analoginya adalah Wikipedia Indonesia juga bukan hanya untuk orang Indonesia, tapi orang Arab yang bisa bahasa Indonesia pun juga boleh. Wikipedia Melayu juga bukan untuk orang Melayu Muslim saja, tetapi Melayu Hindu, Katolik, Buddha, orang Tionghoa-Malaysia, India-Malaysia, Indonesia-Malaysia, dan yang lain-lain pun boleh. Bennylin 08:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
(English) Salam, Jiyuukaminari. Wikipedia is per language (language based), not per tribe. Even if what you say is true (a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Catholic convert who was born from an Acehnese parent is expelled from your tribe) you cannot change the fact that he/she speaks Acehnese. No one can "change" the language that one grows up with. Even if his/her religion change and he/she is no longer accepted, at least culturally, according to you, in Aceh community, he/she still could be part of Wikipedia Aceh, and nothing anybody can do to change that (unless an admin blocks him/her of course, which doesn't make sense at the first place). The same with people who learn Acehnese as second or third language, for example, who didn't born from Acehnese parent nor have the same religion as the majority of Acehnese, if he/she is fluent in Acehnese, there's nothing to prevent him/her to edit Wikipedia Aceh too. I hope everyone in Wikipedia Aceh who read my message would understand this basic knowledge. Wikipedia Aceh is not for Acehnese people. Wikipedia Aceh is for people who speaks Acehnese. Bennylin 08:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Let's forget the issue of religion and who is using See this issue of NPOV, NPOV justifying whether an insult to a person by conducting human vusualisasi like a pig. Fadli Idris 02:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Images which give information what happened shouldn't be removed but images lapped arbitrarily around Wikipedias should. Can we reduce this case to them? --Juhko 14:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a record of a historical event; it would not be worth keeping on Wikipedia if it had not been widely reproduced by Muslims. I'm sure that Jacques Barrot would be much happier if it were widely understood that he was dressing up for Pig-Squealing contest for that picture, and any religious spin was put on later by person or persons unknown.--Prosfilaes 02:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Correct. From the file's page itself: This picture, a photocopy of an Associated Press color photograph of a French pig-squealing contestant[1], was included in the Akkari dossier and later diffused in the media, incorrectly identified as one of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons.[2] In the dossier it had a typewritten caption in Danish: "Her er det rigtige billede af Muhammed" [Here is the real image of Muhammad], as well as a handwritten Arabic translation.[3] - In short, the implication that the image was created to depict Muhammad is a lie. If you want to be upset, find who put the caption there and be upset, but don't be upset at the person in the picture nor at whoever uploaded the image and noted that the image was dishonestly captioned. Thanks, Prosfilaes! Kylu 14:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see Jiyuukaminari thinks that Acehnese Wikipedia is only for Acehnese people. -- Si Gam Acèh 20:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

From FT2[edit]

While individual projects (wikis) have their own styles and cultures, they do and must have in common the broader goals and philosophy of Wikimedia. These include:

  • No wiki may be used as a platform for one group's advocacy and beliefs;
  • No wiki may become a place where content censorship and non-neutrality is officially approved;
  • Users are invited to edit for the purposes of building a free encyclopedia of worldwide knowledge suitable for all users - our different users may well have varied needs, views, interests, values, or beliefs;
  • Wikis are edited collaboratively by anyone and warring and threats are never acceptable;
  • Administrators exist to use tools responsibly for the benefit of the project and not to support their own personal beliefs or those of any other group - however widespread it is.

This (link) is what Wikimedia as a community believes in and what counts here. Outside Wikipedia any user may believe what they want. Some kinds of content may be limited in where it appears, to ensure it has genuine value, but whole categories of images are not removed merely because some people are upset by them - whether one person or millions.

Our readers are not divided into "Muslims and people against Islam". We have researchers in history, they may want to have accurate information. We have artists and cultural historians who may want to know about a painting. We may have Muslims of other countries or sects who wish to know their heritage (and not be prevented from it). To quote:

"Our readers cover almost every conceivable group - education, research, academia, media, writers of peer reviewed papers, legislators, through to the myriad of uses in everyday life by hundreds of millions of people worldwide. A diverse readership requires unbiased reference material; for every group that would prefer some material covered in a way that favors their views, there are many more who trust us precisely because they feel they can rely on our information as setting the highest value on being neutral, verifiable, comprehensive and unbiased."

Someone else said it well. The Acehnese wiki is not the property of Acehnese Muslims even if they are the main editors, any more than English Wikipedia is the property of English people or any particular religion. Acehnese wiki is a wiki of all knowledge, free for the world and for anyone (Muslim or not, Acehnese or not) who wants to read reference information in the Acehnese language. The world "owns" the Acehnese wiki. Editors on it are editing for the world, under the umbrella of Wikimedia and Wikimedia's broad editing requirements - not just for their own part of the world.

FT2 (Talk | email) 15:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Bhom Peureulak[edit]

Kamoe ureueng Aceh hana meuteurimong meunyo nabi kamoe dijak peusa ngen barangkapue pih, teumasok jijak gamba le ureueng ken Islam. -- Bhom Peureulak 05:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Bahsa Inggréh, please --Juhko 12:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

From Seb az86556[edit]

Haʼíí lá? (~wtf?) I can't believe some people are considering accommodation for someone who practices and advocates vandalizing other wikipedias. If Aceh language editors agree that depictions of XYZ shall not be included on that version of wikipedia, then fine; but don't go move onto other language-communities' turf and try to launch some sort of jihad (there, I said it). This has to stop, be killed off from the get-go, without compromise. I don't go ahead and vandalize depictions of iikááʼ just because it's against Navajo beliefs. Where the f*ck are we? Seb az86556 15:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have suggestions for handling specific users, see the "Decisions" section below please. Getting close to time to wrap this up, I think. Kylu 19:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I know. Just wanted to make clear where I stand. Still breaking my head over what actions could be suggested w/o totally crippling the autonomy of that wiki; after all, the guy was elected -- no? :) Seb az86556 03:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


If you'd like to make a statement on the matter, please do so above. For this section, please post what you think should happen regarding each of the subjects and your reasoning.

Protest template[edit]

The following discussion is closed: The protest template was removed and replaced with one regarding this RFC. The protest template should not be recreated.

The images should be discussed at Requests for comment/Prophet Muhammad images around Wikimedia projects.

  • The template should not be permitted to be on the wiki. If the community at acewiki wish to make an official stand then they can write an essay and all sign it and allow its link to be displayed on the village pump header perhaps. This would be sufficient for them to protest the images, but Main Page is just too visible and needs to be 100% NPOV. fr33kman t - c 00:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    May we assume that you mean "article space" for wiki? I don't think I'd agree to restrict user and project spaces for instance. Kylu 15:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, article space. fr33kman t - c 15:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • From the other RFC and this one, it seems to be little contesting that the template (and similar political messages) do not belong on the main page, nor on any article page, of projects. Generally, the rule-of-thumb has been that other than the main page itself, there should be no mainspace (article) pages which are not proper articles. The template on the main page of ace.wikipedia should, then, be removed. The template can be used, either as given or modified, on userpages, project pages as appropriate (that is, the project page pertains to the conflict itself), and the talkpages of these pages. Kylu 00:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Concur fully and would go further and say "not suitable anywhere on that wiki". In line with my general comment above, whatever editors may or may not believe off-wiki, calls and incitements to disruptive advocacy do not belong on-wiki. The wiki is not a battleground. A statement of "This user believes that" or "supports" (as typical in userboxes) is different from a template header that asserts as this one does (Delete images... all Muslims must protest... the entire project will boycott otherwise...). This template, and inappropriate claims to be speaking for all users, all Acehnese speakers or all Muslims, will cause the wiki to be unwelcoming to those Acehnese speakers who believe otherwise. It also attempts to cast all Muslims in a certain belief mold that many do not subscribe to. Last it contradicts our message and misinforms other potential editors on that language. Advocacy and sentiments of that kind don't have any place on WMF wikis. Off-wiki users can advocate as they wish. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The template is currently at MfD on enwiki: en:Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Si_Gam_Acèh/No_Prophet_Muhammad_Images Terrillja 20:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

And seems like almost half one to keep? So if it is acceptable on user page it's also acceptable on main page of Acehnese Wikipedia. But see no reason for difference. Still may have reason for put it back on main page...current version is the same text but less belligerent and stewards accept... --Juhko 20:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
No, the problem isn't that a template like that is okay to keep in userspace... user pages are given a lot of leniency that other pages do not have. If you put on your userpage, "This user does not like McDonalds", we won't argue about it, since that's information about you. It's not acceptable to put that on the main page of your project, however, since you do not speak for the Foundation. The main page is there as a function of the site, which is owned by the WMF, to publish useful articles, point to interesting facts, and other such things. It's not there as a political soapbox. Another example: Wikipedia is, in general, a fairly progressive site and we don't allow such things as discrimination due to ethnic background, religion, or gender and related issues. We would not, however, put a banner up on the main page inviting people to join in a political movement which promotes these views: It would not be NPOV, as it is inherently political. A "remove all insulting pictures of Muhammad" template is entirely reasonable on userpages, where people may express themselves as they wish (within the norms of the community), but absolutely not reasonable on the main page, precisely because it's pushing a point of view which is not neutral. Kylu 20:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Whole community protesting lack of NPOV-policy is neutral. NPOV-policy is about content touching outside WMF information, still this is about inside WMF dispute. We don't have a policy how belligerent content may be. "Remove all insulting pictures of Muhammad" is such a citation from this comment request. Summary; Is the template acceptable if it has link to the comment request? --Juhko 21:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
That's the problem: A whole community protesting is a protest, and a protest is biased against what they're protesting. It is, by definition then, not neutral. You're putting something on the main page to attempt to cause change, which is exactly the problem. Wikipedia, ostensibly an encyclopedia, is supposed to be (and ONLY supposed to be) a source of information. When there's a conflict, people turn to us for information and we're supposed to be neutral, not biased. The template is exactly a biased statement against the insulting images. I don't say you should ignore the problem, and I don't say you should do nothing, but I do point out that the template is certainly biased (right or wrong, does not matter) and by leaving it in place, it is violating policy. I want Acehnese Wikipedia to be independent and to control its own site and main page, but if it ignores our core policies like this, it won't happen. If we drag this problem out much more, I fear that the Foundation may get involved and order us to remove the template and start blocking people who are only trying to do right, even if they do it in the wrong way. Kylu 21:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
So would main page template like "Acehnese Wikipedia community protests neutral point of view policy forbiding template 'Remove images insulting Prophet Muhammad...'" is neutral, then, or if this template contains in addition text like this it is neutral? Still it's about inside WMF contoversy. If someone writes an essay page with title Wikipedia:Delete Prophet Muhammad images from Wikipedia is it against NPOV but other essays are not? Please do not use Wikipedia for protests everybody draw Muhammad day...--Juhko 21:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Juhko - If you want to create a project page essay "Wikipedia:Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) images" and add at the top it is an essay, that's fine.
What you can't do is use one wiki to protest a global policy. The policy on content is a policy for all wikis.
It is not likely to change, and that is not because people do not respect Muhammad whatever you may think. It is the same that we would not remove a picture of Jesus or any other person, the same that we have articles on meat when some people think meat is evil. We have all knowledge, and you need to say "I don't like it, but this is the rules for this place", that "protest" banners by one wiki against the rules for all communities are not okay. The Acehnese wiki is part of the group of all wikis here and it is sad that not all people agree on all topics, but this is not a rule special about Muhammad but about all content, all kinds of information. People can join or leave any wiki, or protest on any site, but the wiki itself must be seen to support the rules of all wikis. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
No.., I'm not going to make any more requests, NOT taking any position and at least I'm going to remove anything... I have acted as an advisor for Acehnese Wikipedians and it's difficult when they don't have idea to talk constructively. (...nominate redudant/non-informative images for deletion...) I support still keeping the template on main page but ...I dont support censoring Wikipedia.. --Juhko 15:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • May I suggest we close this section, either pending the other RFC or just with a decision? Juhko, Si Gam Acèh, it's very clear that the other projects are not going to be removing the images, so you need to decide on what you plan to do. The template, as has been noted here and elsewhere, is NPOV and needs to be removed from the main page and any article pages it's on. I'd rather not see anyone removed for "vandalism" (locally or globally) as has already happened to Si Gam Acèh on other projects. Kylu 15:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not interested what will happen with the images. Only have been advisor for Acehnese wikipedians.. Template is another thing.. just that's why there is 2 rfc:s... Still I support them in template case. I have now justified as many times as needed why keeping the template is npov. Inside-WMF case--Juhko 15:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Respectfully, we've read your justifications and don't agree with them. The discussion isn't over yet, but there's no support that explains how the template is, in fact, NPOV. You may want to consider quoting NPOV and explain how your arguments satisfy the definition there, that way we can better see how your position meets the policy? Kylu 19:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
`which states that their missions are best served not by advancing or detracting particular points of view on any given subject, but by trying to present a fair, neutral description of the facts` speaks about subject facts and I can't find there a sentence that forbids linking inside-WMF contoversies from main page/from user page. Also no any police defines where text like this or the original ace.wikipedia template can be kept. Original formulation `1. An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says. 2. An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. [...] It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view.` speaks about encyclopedia articles. -Juhko 19:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
EDIT: I modified the text of main page still more npov. --Juhko 19:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Quite true. Of course, the main page is an article. It just happens to be the first one that shows up when you visit the site. If there's no namespace ("prefix" like Talk: or User:) to a page, it's in the article space and shows up to visitors who simply want to look at the articles. It's not an article on "en:Depictions of Muhammad", so the template does not belong there. If you want to write an article on "Depictions of Muhammad in Wikipedia", that's fine, as long as they're neutral. Make sense? Kylu 19:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Mh do you mean if it has moved to name Wikipedia:Ôn Keuë it can has text like this because namespace prefix defines is it an article or not. I think main page is not encyclopedia article ; it's often a collection of links an citations from pages etc. ...--Juhko 19:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment on the content, not the contributor. --Juhko 19:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
1) No, since it would still be visible to visitors who are not editing, simply reading articles. While it's a special article, it still falls under the various rules for articles. If your project (for some reason) made User:Main Page and put the main page there, instead of getting the main page away from the rules, your project would be inviting these rules onto that page. 2) Please explain how the quoted policy is relevant and to whom it is directed? 3) The main page template is more neutral, but it still has the issue of referring to a specific and transitory discussion. As mentioned before, nobody's asking for it to be removed right now. Kylu 20:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
First link me the policy that restricts which users may see this content and who not. It's difficult to answer without --Juhko 20:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Users involved[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Si Gam Acèh was locked and his sockpuppets blocked for vandalism and disruption. Other participants in the protest are not sanctioned for being part of the protest.

What should be done, in your opinion, regarding the users involved? This can mean any involved party, including ace.wikipedia users and sysops, stewards, global sysops, etc... who have had previous involvement in the situation. Please remember that blocks and similar measures are to be used for protective uses, to prevent abuse, not as a punishment.

  • I don't feel any further formal action is needed for any particular user or groups of users. The desysoppings that occured should be kept in place but a formal RFDA on acewiki (with active Wikimedians permitted to take part in the discussion) should happen. I feel that all parties should try and talk next time, but I don't think any stewards were wrong in their actions per se. The administrative staff at acewiki (currently only Juhko) should decide along with the remaining community, and perhaps the global sysops, if they feel any action needs taking against a local user. fr33kman t - c 00:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I think not. There needs to be a formal sanction since it involves not only disruptions to ace wiki but also other wikis. (If someone wants to be a en:Shahid, let him be.) SYSS Mouse 14:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Steps should be taken to prevent further disruption, not to punish anyone. —David Levy 14:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. fr33kman t - c 15:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • A lot depends on the local community. Is there balance and understanding of Wikimedia's norms on that wiki? If there is then the community itself may well be able to decide to desysop or warn. But if not then the community should not remain under and reinforce an adminship that doesn't understand WMF norms and intervention including desysopping may be needed until a better understanding has developed as in other projects. So my question here is "will the community take sufficient action on its own, to safeguard Wikimedia norms, or must users from the wider inter-project community intervene?" FT2 (Talk | email) 01:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
    The wider inter-project community has already done so, unfortunately, and this RFC is our only avenue to try to step down the conflict. I'd rather like to see more people involved, that way we have a wider sample to gather opinions, but we're making due with what we have. We have no global arbcom as of yet, unfortunately. :) Kylu 21:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I suspect that the current ace.wikipedia sysop is going to be the only previously elected sysop on that project willing to uphold our policies if pressed. This suspicion is primarily based on Si Gam Acèh's actions both here and on that project and unwillingness (so far) to compromise, and Fadli Idris's actions on the main page and resultant inactivity on that project. I'm certainly willing to give Fadli Idris another chance if he's willing to communicate with us on the matter, myself. I would unfortunately have to urge monitoring the project for further violations if Si Gam Acèh were to be restored, however. Kylu 03:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
    What do you mean with "if pressed"--Juhko 13:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
    Resistant to consensus which ignores mandatory base policies. While consensus is the rule for normal, everyday editing, there are a certain set of rules (Founding principles) which no volunteer may set aside. Some try, and those people tend to leave the project instead of the core rules being changed. There's always an option to fork the project and start over, after all. Kylu 15:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Si Gam Acèh remains de-sysopped and any notion to re-elect him will be considered void. Future potential candidates will have to give an explicit statement that they will, if elected, not engage in similar actions. Failure to make such a statement will render any election result void. The statement should include and apply to: Threats to other wikipedias, placing this or similar templates onto the main page, deleting as well as keeping images against community consensus on Aceh wikipedia. Seb az86556 03:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
After the user leading the protest, Si Gam Acèh, promised to not protest and continued to do so and then caught himself in a catch-22 of dishonesty on Commons in attempting to have his images deleted, I brought the matter up for discussion. He was globally locked for disrupting other projects by Erwin. Kylu 16:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.
Project will not be closed due to this RFC. The protest and this RFC should not be taken into account in protest discussions. Kylu 15:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a call to close Acehnese Wikipedia, and another potential call to boycott Wikipedia in its entirety due to the images. What should be done regarding the project itself, if anything, to resolve the situation?

  • The project should be encouraged to continue and to heal from this issue. Hopefully they can get active and move on from this event. The project should elect some additional local sysops as soon as is practicable. fr33kman t - c 00:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I support that. However, I would like to stress the point made by David Levy in a comment above. The Acehnese project - like any other foundation project - is for Acehnese speakers and written by editors capable of contributing in Acehnese regardless of religious, political, or moral standpoints. Consequently, it cannot limit itself to accepting only one belief or viewpoint, no matter how convinced individual editors may be of its truth, and decisions based solely on such attitudes could very well be against our purpose/mission. Based upon some remarks that has been made here and on the ace-wiki, this seems not to have been fully understood or accepted by editors and administrators of that young wiki and needs to be emphasized. Sir48 20:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • So far, the sentiment seems to be that: 1) The project will not/should not be closed, and 2) The project and its volunteers are encouraged to remember that the project is designated as a resource for Acehnese speakers and not specifically Aceh locals nor Muslims, even if that is the vast majority of the userbase. Kylu 00:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Concur. Acehnese is a genuine language, there is and will be a genuine value in an Acehnese Wikipedia. Would not destroy the wiki or any valid content to date, for want of a balanced norm-understanding community. It would surely have to start again, having lost ground. Better to improve and educate, which is in any case one aspect of WMF's mission. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • What should be done when my adminship expires 2010-10-18 and there's no local administrator and very few active users? --Juhko 16:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
You can either ask for a renewal, if the local community approves, or if there's no renewal, the global sysops and stewards can perform local tasks. We already do this on several hundred projects which have either no admins or inactive ones. Having local sysops isn't really that critical. Kylu 17:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Close this rfc[edit]

The following discussion is closed.

Discussion is still going on, proposed result does not match consensus.

What about to close this rfc with result that the current main page template will be kept? --Juhko 17:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Easy, it won't be kept. It's clear both here and elsewhere that it violates NPOV policy, and no amount of single-project consensus is enough to override this, much less six people. Foundation pillars such as that are not something that we may debate or negotiate. I can try to help you find a design and wording that are acceptable, if you'd like, but as-is or (worse) with the prior wording isn't it. Kylu 21:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
What nonneutral is in text "Acehnese Wikipedians are invited to join this comment request regarding images of the Prophet on Wikimedia projects. Please do not change the content of this template until the discussion is finished." `? --Juhko 21:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
1. "Acehnese Wikipedians" can be interpreted to mean "Acehnese people at Wikipedia."
2. Referring to Muhammad as "the Prophet" is an endorsement of Islam. —David Levy 21:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. That template's temporary, and we're trying to close this RFC since it seems all the relevant discussion is over. You're willing to discuss things, we're willing to discuss things, but from what we can tell, the other ace.wikipedia people think that they're being generous in merely demanding that the images be deleted from completely different projects. I think it'd be safest to offer and select other templates for after this is finished, close the RFC, then you and your community select a nice neutral replacement. (to Juhko)
  2. My understanding is that it's a specific appellation used for clarity, you want to make sure you're talking about Muhammad (Prophet) rather than Muhammad Ali. Similarly, I can see referring to Jesus (Christ) versus Jesus (Hernandez). Similarly, the PBUH isn't encyclopedic, but they've been fairly restrained on the matter here, so I'm not going to push the issue terribly much. :) Kylu 23:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments on the above and at close:

  • "PBUH" is a well respected honorific in many countries - I wouldn't include it in encyclopedia articles (except in discussing honorifics for Muhammad) because it would suggest a non-neutral viewpoint, but for wikis in languages from largely Islamic cultures it may well be part of their cultural norm when editors engage in dialog, and hence quite okay in community discussion pages and page titles etc. As long as non-Muslims will feel equally welcome on Acehnese Wikipedia then the occasional "the prophet Muhammad" is also not an issue (it's understood as an honorific). But I would not say just "The Prophet" in page titles or major community pages, because that makes too much assumption about the beliefs of all editors and imposes on others, a bit like expecting Muslim editors to write (or agree with) "The Lord" instead of "Jesus".
  • Protest pages (and templates on pages) against very basic Wikimedia principles like this, probably belong off Wikimedia wikis. As part of Wikimedia's work the wiki should not be in a position of undermining Wikimedia principles, or suggesting to new editors these core principles might be negotiable or removable on the wiki.
  • Last, just to confirm, Kylu - by "[the template] violates NPOV policy" you mean the protest template, and violating Wikimedia pillars and principles on non-partisanship, non-censorship, open content, and the Wikimedia version of WP:NOT, etc (as opposed to some other template, or violating NPOV in a specific encyclopedia article)?

FT2 (Talk | email) 01:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean the protest template, yes. As far as the NPOV violation goes, it's not so much the religious point of view that I disagree with (though that's certainly not allowable), it's that the original protest template was a threat to close the project if other projects did not remove the images of Muhammad. While it's not going to be a very effective political pressure, the issue is that it's more a blatant attempt to exert that political pressure. Otherwise, I really rather prefer your more eloquent description of the NPOV issues involved. :) Kylu 03:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Final Decision[edit]

The following discussion is closed: See below for results

Please make a final decision so i can make a decision to continue contribution on or i quit. Thanks --Fadli Idris 20:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems deadlocked so far, consensus (the main building block of policy) in #Protest template above, is to remove the template as not abiding by NPOV and that it exposes internal matters to readers, but Juhko has stalled us by asking for a policy describing what is and is not allowed to be on the main page, specifically. There's not been any such policy simply because we use the tradition of "if it's not encyclopedic, it doesn't belong on encyclopedia pages."
While I'd rather not see you go, the original protest was against Wikimedia hosting any of the Muhammad pictures at all. There is clearly no intent or interest in removing them. If you do decide to leave, feel free to leave a note explaining why in your userspace, maybe even write an essay about the matter that can be reflected upon later, but please don't follow Si Gam Acèh's example. Kylu 20:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
.I dont see whats wrong with text "Acehnese Wikipedia users are invited to join this comment request regarding images of the prophet Muhammad on Wikimedia projects. Please do not change the content of this template until the discussion is finished.". --Juhko 16:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not encyclopedic. It is an internal matter with which the casual reader should not be troubled. Once the RFC is closed, the template should be removed as the discussion will be discontinued in either case. Yet another user is suggesting that the project be closed, by the way: Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Acehnese (3) Wikipedia Kylu 22:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

See also[edit]