On 19/02/2008, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: And the photo on [[Clitoris]]. In the previous cases, we pretty much came to "we have the topic, we have a photo, it adds encyclopedic value, it's the right thing to have in the article." This is not a matter of anatomy and none of the pictures are actually pictures of Muhammad but artists' impressions in later centuries. The images themselves I assume are notable (or we wouldn't bother having them). So it becomes a question of their educational and explanatory value in the context of the best possible encyclopedia article on the subject. At which point this thread can die ;-p - d.

geni schreef: That one is rather similar to the Magician's Wars; see fpr example [[Talk:Out of This World (card trick)]]: people who sell magic tricks to professional magicians depend on the secrecy of the tricks, and magicians consider themselves to be bound by the Magician's Oath not to reveal them (see [[Magic (illusion)#Secrecy]]). Should Wikipedia, which has magician visitors but is not itself a magicians' organization, be held by the same rules? Formulated that way, you can perhaps see the analogy with [[Muhammad]]. But does it matter that it is not a religious prohibition, but a professional one? Does it matter that people object to text, instead of pictures? Does it make a difference that they don't want *other* people to see the tricks, while the Muhammad petitioners don't want to see the pictures *themselves*? Eugene P.S. I note that the picture in the Rorschach article is hidden by default.