This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
For the first image, illustrating the section on the Qur'an as a source for Muhammad's biography, my preference would be Alt 1. It conveys a sense of antiquity, which is appropriate in that context, exemplifies some of the elaborate ornamentation commonly used in Qur'an manuscripts, and contains the customary marker for the beginning of a sura. So there's good educational content. --JN466 12:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
All the images look fine to me, I have no objections. If possible, we might try to find some better close-up images of the calligraphy as well, rather than just the entire book. For example, a sample of the actual handwriting from Muhammad's time, as his followers were recording his early visions. --Elonka 14:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think manuscripts survive that are much older than this Kufic example, which also works better at small size than any of the existing or suggested examples (and which I suggested last time we had this discussion. The Qu'ran would have been first written in Kufic apparently, though doubtless not such a fancy (or clear) version as here. I see the argument for a printed version, but I'm not sure how relevant it is for a biography, and another manuscript would probably have more visual impact. There are dozens of strong images on Commons. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The alternative ones look like an improvement, I don't care which ones you pick. As far as I'm concerned be WP:BOLD. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I've dropped the Kufic one in for now. --JN466 16:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Quran manuscript from the 7th century CE, written on vellum in the Hijazi script.
Actually I see there are earlier manuscripts, like this one. I still think the Kufic one is strong at a small size though. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I have to admit one Quran image seems about right given there is only one section on the Quran in terms of overall weight. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
We actually have two sections on the Qur'an -- the brief one where I inserted the Kufic image, and "Beginnings of the Quran" (where the other image is located). Given that, by any measure, the Qur'an is why Muhammad continues to have an impact on the world today, I don't think two images are excessive. --JN466 17:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, clearly I missed the second section :o. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Image poll
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There continues to be a disagreement on how best to present images (especially image of Muhammad) in this article. In order to try and re-assess, could everyone interested in the topic please offer a single statement here (hopefully no more than one or two sentences), with how you would like to see the images handled? Specifically:
What kind of image should go in the infobox, if any.
Approximately how many figurative images of Muhammad should be used in the article
How should those images be presented
THIS IS NOT A VOTE. It is just an attempt to gather information. Also, it is understood that just because someone posts an opinion here, doesn't mean that they're going to stick to that opinion no matter what -- compromise and consensus-building are still possible. But it would be nice to know everyone's preference.
Thanks, --Elonka 22:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Most of the images in this article are fine, but as for figurative depictions of Muhammand, my own preference would be an image of calligraphy in the infobox, or of the Green Dome showing Muhammad's tomb. Then put 1 or 2 images further down in the "Depictions of Muhammad" section, such as the Ottoman image of Muhammad veiled in the Isra and Mi'raj article, and maybe something from the Jami al-Tawarikh, such as the drawing of Muhammad as a baby. --Elonka 22:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
A poll like this is premature until the arbitration case is resolved. Therefore I will not express any opinion at this time. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Fine as it is, and this is way premature. Franamax (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
My preference would be the existing calligraphy in the infobox, and one or two figurative images in the Depictions section. One of these should be File:Miraj by Sultan Muhammad.jpg. --JN466 23:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Status quo - Don't really see the point of this being started right now as the arbcom case marches on, but if there's calls for beans to be counted, there we go. The article as it exists now is the product of much previous discussion and compromise. I would not oppose the reduction of calligraphy, as some have stated it is getting a little clutter-ish. Tarc (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Unless compelling evidence is presented to the contrary as per my comments on the evidence talk page an image in the Infobox with a single further image in the depictions section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose this poll and therefore all changes to the status quo until the arbcom case is closed. There is no point changing anything now when it is quite possible that the arbcom closure will be game changing, for example if one or more people who have expressed opinions here are topic banned (and this has been requested by and of people on both 'sides') then there will be arguments about how much weight their arguments should or should not carry. It is equally possible that arbcom will mandate some specific process that would render this a waste of effort (and there's been far too much of that over these images already). Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Probably premature, but I might as well clarify my view. I am happy with the current infobox image, number and broad type of Muhammad images, and their placement (low down the article fairly near the incidents illustrated). The selection of individual images is different, & can be improved - yes we should should have a Mi'raj, very possibly the one Jayen names, & I'm happy to drop another for this to happen. One of the Qu'ran images is still sub-optimal, and so on. And no hostile Western images. There is at least enough calligraphy/writing already, what with all the templates. Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Most certainly premature and also very difficult to answer, because there are so many possible permutations to how images might be arranged in the article. At the present time, I would suggest that File:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg is a touchstone. There is a considerable body of community opinion in favour of this image in its current location. In my view, this is already too low down in the article for the first image of the subject of an article, given that images are available. It would not be acceptable to move it lower down, replace it with a veiled image or with (for Christ's sake!) calligraphy. --FormerIP (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
My view:
The infobox should contain a calligraphic image of Muhammad's name, as the most common and recognizable symbol of Muhammad.
The actual number of images used in the article is not important, so long as figurative images of the prophet are only used where they are clearly necessary to support some element of text.
Used in the section about the islamic depictions of Muhammad, where they would be needed to show that figurative images exist, and to exemplify different trends
Used in the European Views section, where figurative images are likely to be more common and representative
Excluded from sections on Muhammad's history or life, where they are potentially misleading and an unnecessary affront to Muslim tenets.--Ludwigs2 05:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that the infobox should at least have a picture of Muhammad, if there is to be one anywhere. The image for the page on Muhammad should be a depiction of Muhammad. Having calligraphy or symbolism replace an actual picture would not be in the spirit of wikipedia. Regrettably, it will offend some people, but that is not, nor should be, the impetus behind any decision. A picture of Muhammad would be more encyclopedic and offer more knowledge, therefore, it is the only real option if this is to remain a truly neutral place to obtain knowledge. Also, I feel like there is an overabundance of images in this article. Lots of images of redundant or mildly irrelevant things, as if people are unconsciously putting in different images because they feel bad about putting in an image of Muhammad. Vincekd (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Infobox: Nobody knows what he looked like and there is no established iconography of Muhammad other than that of representing him non-figuratively or at least without showing his face. Faceless depictions are used for other people as well, so the only iconography we can work with is his written name in calligraphy. That's what we currently have in the infobox, and it's the most logical thing even without factoring in offence. Presentation of images: The most important factor is proper contextualisation. Figurative images generally have an appropriate context in a section discussing how Muhammad is/was depicted and in a Western reception section. They are less appropriate in a discussion of Muhammad's life and totally inappropriate in the infobox. Number of images: The proper contextualisation of every single image is much more important than the number. Some readers will be shocked by the images, and they must see that we do that for a good reason. This reason exists wherever the existence of such images is relevant. IMO the maximum reasonable number based on the article's current state would be 3: One example of Western reception, and one example each of Muhammad with veiled face and as a flame. Anything beyond that would be to bring the article in line with Western viewing habits rather than to convey information. So, just in terms of number: 0-3. Ideally we could have one collage each of typical Muslim and Western images. (And yes: I do consider 0 figurative images a very reasonable option, as the way he is depicted is a relatively minor, almost off-topic point in his biography and just not worth causing offence over.) HansAdler 13:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
The point of the poll is not to implement changes (which I agree would be unwise considering that the ArbCom case is ongoing), but simply to try and see where everyone stands. ArbCom is not going to make a ruling on content, they are mainly going to focus on user conduct. I don't believe it would cause a problem to simply gather opinions at this time. --Elonka 00:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
ArbCom may choose to indicate a path for the community to arrive at a resolution, so holding an "advance poll" is probably not a good idea. And given the level of strife over this, it's probably not a good idea for you to formulate a quedtion, then provide your own response as the first order of buainess, This is an important enough question that it should probably be framed by a totally uninvolved and neutral "best and brightest"-type Wikipedian. Not that I'm saying you're not one of those people or particularly involved here, just sayin'. :) Franamax (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
My guess is that ArbCom is going to order a community-wide RfC, which is fine, but again, that's not related to this poll at all. This poll is not binding, it's not a vote, it's just an attempt to find out where people stand. --Elonka 01:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Sooo... what is the purpose then? I've been watching this for a depressingly long time and I'm pretty sure I can tick the preference-boxes of almost everyone likely to comment here. What plan do you have for the derivatve result? Franamax (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm coming in with fresh eyes. I'm familiar with the topic area, but haven't been heavily involved in this discussion, am not a party to the case, and am still having trouble figuring out who is who, and what everyone's position is. There's definitely a lot of discussion going on at the workshop page, but so much of it is not directly related to the article. Accusations fly about censorship, Islamophobia, freedom of speech, which sources to use, which sources to ignore, etc. etc. But when it comes down to what people want for the article, I'm still a bit lost. My guess is that other observers may be equally confused, so that's why the poll. It's a pretty simple question to everyone: If you were the one editing the article, which images would you use, and where? --Elonka 03:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
If you'd like, I can summarize the basic positions that have been offered. Despite all of the ridiculous back-and-forthness of it it's really not that complicated. or are you looking for new opinions? --Ludwigs2 03:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Ideally everyone can post their own opinion, in their own words? --Elonka 04:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Ideally yes; but politically? Speaking in all fairness, there is cohort on this page that doesn't think discussion is appropriate (as you may have noticed from the responses you've gotten): they believe the issue is already settled as a matter of strict policy, and are simply waiting for the arbitration to close so that (hopefully) they can go back to maintaining the status quo. From their perspective your question is unreasonable: it asks them to express a positive rationale for image placement when their argument all along has always been that no positive rationale is needed. The images are there, NOTCENSORED prevents them from being removed for reasons of religious offense; end of discussion. They could fabricate a positive rationale out of that respect for the status quo to post, yes, but I don't think they will; doing so would undercut the purity of the strict policy position they are trying to hold. Nor are they going to be quite as willing as I am to present this strict policy position as a "position," because they see it as an absolute 'fact' and don't want to make the mistake of relativizing it. --Ludwigs2 04:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, let's let everyone speak for themselves? --Elonka 04:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
As you like. I don't think anyone will disagree with what I said, mind you (or if they do, my apologies; it wasn't my intention to misrepresent), I'm just noting why your question may not get the results you wish. But I'll add my view; maybe that will get the ball rolling. --Ludwigs2 05:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I would very much disagree with any participant attempting to summarize the points of view of the other participants; I do not have good faith that such a thing would or could be done fairly. Let people speak for themselves in this thing and leave it at that. Tarc (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
That's a bad faith assumption. I'm perfectly capable of summing up an opponent's position fairly and accurately. Or do you think I misrepresented it in what I said above. --Ludwigs2 15:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
It would be nice to know if you think Ludwigs has misrepresented your position. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
So by that I presume you are saying that he is entirely correct this time? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Facepalm I'm going to put this very clearly and succinctly for you. Elonka solicited us to provide a summary of our positions. I did so. Ludwigs stated "I can summarize the basic positions that have been offered". Elonka replied "Well, let's let everyone speak for themselves?" I am affirming my support for that opinion of Elonka's. Does that explain the matter to your satisfaction? Tarc (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
It would have been nice to get there a little quicker as Kww has done below... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I got there from the first post when I indicated that I did not want Ludwigs to act as a clerk for Elonka's straw poll. Tarc (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
He generally misrepresents mine. I can't speak for others. It's certainly OK to discuss the correct number and type of images in the article, so long as the discussion doesn't deal with religious offense as a selection factor, isn't motivated by an attempt to avoid it, and doesn't apply any standards that are different than those we would apply to any other image.—Kww(talk) 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Kww, Tarc. Very simple question. did the post I made right here misrepresent your position? I'll point out that continuing to try to paint me as an evil person isn't going to do you any good; there are too many editors involved now for me to matter much. So it's your choice: avoid the question in favor of more nasty comments about me, or engage a real discussion that might get us somewhere. which is it going to be? --Ludwigs2 21:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Ludwigs2, you misrepresented my position. There's nothing "unreasonable" about Elonka's question, because nothing about her question involved evaluating the images from the perspective of a religious objection, and she hasn't proposed doing so. My position is not that the status quo in the article is somehow perfect, but only that it needs to be evaluated in the same fashion as we evaluate imagery in all articles, without regard to religious offense, and without trying to apply some more rigid standard of necessity than we would for any other image. To date, every attempt you have made to summarize my position has substantially misrepresented it: I leave it for others to determine the motivation behind that.—Kww(talk) 22:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, that happens to be exactly what I said, just rephrased, but it's not worth arguing over. As for rest - you just couldn't resist the personal attack, could you? pfft. --Ludwigs2 22:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Ludwigs2, it's substantially different than what you said, and that you are either unable to see or unwilling to admit the difference is the precise reason that people said it would not be a good idea for anyone to attempt to summarize all positions in the debate.—Kww(talk) 22:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
If you think it's substantially different explain how, and we'll adjust; that's how these discussions are supposed to go, Kww. You seem to want to refuse to allow that anything I would ever say might be useful; you make this intractably personal, by constantly asserting that everything I say is wrong and offensive and avoiding anything I say that might might lead to rational discussion. it's a political game; quit it. --Ludwigs2 01:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
You'll just twist it again. I'm not sure if it's a comprehension issue or intentionally deceptive debating tactics. One way or the other, while it seems to be worthwhile pointing out when you are misrepresenting things, it certainly doesn't seem worth the effort to engage you directly in debate. Most readers will be able to read my statement and yours and see the differences.—Kww(talk) 01:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
And that is exactly why this discussion has degraded to the mess that it has. You (and Tarc, and several others I could mention) have decided that you will not under any circumstances assume good faith about anything I say or do. I don't deserve this crap, and I'm not going to take the blame because you guys have decided to focus exclusively on ripping me to the expense of all productive discussion. --Ludwigs2 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps this can serve as a life...or at least a wiki...lesson that when you call other editors a bunch of racists that they will probably not feel too charitable when you do things like offer to summarize their statements. Take a lesson from Hogwarts; "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus". Tarc (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Bull, Tarc - this has nothing to do with that. It's politics, pure and simple. You all have just gotten so used to getting your way through bad faith assertions about other editors that you've lost the knack for good faith discussion. I keep hoping you'll wake up and smell the coffee, silly me. maybe it's time you stopped trying to play the angry dragon, hunh? --Ludwigs2 05:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Ludwigs, above, wants to see figurative images "Used in the European Views section, where figurative images are likely to be more common and representative" - Let's knock this on the head (again). Of course all European images of M are figurative, they're not going to be calligraphic, are they? But in art they are extremely rare, far rarer than Islamic ones. There are of course illustrations to printed books of various kinds, but they are really pretty rare there too. Anthony Cole wanted to use the Washington full-length statue, but are there any other full-length near life-size statues of M anywhere else, or have there ever been? I doubt it - that is I think the only one; plus of course it is especially objectionable to Muslims, as monumental sculpture is exactly the kind of art they most object to, with reason, as it is the classic form of idols, and idolatry is what all their objections are designed to prevent. Commons only have 7 Western images of M that are not printed or from Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, vs well over 100 Islamic ones, and the real imbalance is probably much higher, as we have so few Islamic images generally. Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually Depictions of Muhammad mentions a 2nd statue in New York, also the subject of specific protests. But is there a 3rd? Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
John, you don't need to rebut. I noted those sections mostly as examples of places where we have a credible justification for using figurative images. I do believe there are places where these images may be useful and informative enough to justify using them over objections; my objection all along has been against uncritical use of such images, where NOTCENSORED is applied without any consideration of why the images should be there in the first place.--Ludwigs2 05:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The "classic form of idols" wasn't just sculptures. Buildings, trees, rocks, and live animals were also commonly treated as gods or containing gods (see Ibn al-Kalbi's Book of Idols). Also the claim that "idolatry is what all their objections are designed to prevent" is not true. An important factor for prohibiting depictions of prophets is that they are bound to contain misinformation. In this respect, I would say that the SCOTUS image would be less objectionable than the Russian painting. Wiqi(55) 12:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, but 3-dimensional, as all these examples are, rather than 2-dimensional. Why would SCOTUS contain less misinformation? Note that it and another staue in New York have already been the subject of specific protests. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
No, there were 2-dimensional examples as well. According to a Hadith, during the conquest of Mecca the Prophet also destroyed 2-dimensional depictions showing Abraham and Ishmael performing pagan rites. Those depictions were created for propaganda purposes (similar to some of the images we have here) and did not convey true information. Thus when it comes to depicting prophets (even in 2D) the content of the depictions (not just the form) is also a determinant factor. Now, I'm partial to the SCOTUS image because I think that a) it has already been included in an RS, and b) unlike the Russian painting, it does not make any assumptions about the Prophet's surroundings. Wiqi(55) 22:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
You're being over-literal. I meant "classic" as in standard, characteristic, typical, usual etc. Your comments re Scotus are interesting but I'm not sure how typical such views are. Johnbod (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Wiqi55. Is it okay if we move your comment up into the "poll" section? Or would you like to comment there separately? --Elonka 20:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't realize that this discussion was part of a poll. I think I'll make a separate comment later. Thanks. Wiqi(55) 22:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Unconsciously? Maybe. --FormerIP (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blasphamous pictures of Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)
After a year i am again agitating in front of you people for blasphamous figuers of Holy Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon).Please remove these figures.
I want to thank you and i'll salute to u people that u have removed one blasphamous image.Come to Islam as Islam is the Last and true religion.It's the fastest growing religion in the world.Respect our noble prophet and believe in one true God , i.e Allah.Even you guys are having blasphamous images of Prophet Esa(Jesus) (peace be upon him) on his page in Wikipedia.So we muslims respects all true prophets.Esa(pbuh) is also a great prophet among the prophets.In the end i would say the Last Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the most revered prophet among all prophets.
I hope u ppl will include my comments without any prejuidice on ur page.
Regards,
Sorry, but the Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We cater to a global audience, thus we do not defer to any religion's precepts or restrictions. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Farooq, thank you for your comments. Presently, we are reviewing the way we use images that may offend some readers. Striking the right balance between openness on the one hand and respect for the sensibilities of our readers on the other is a difficult thing. Please be sure, though, that your concerns are being taken very seriously in those deliberations, at the highest level of the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Changing the box at the top of the page
I think we should change the box at the top of the talk page so that its more in line with other such boxes elsewhere on the project and so that it complies with WP:POLICY - as currently it implies a guideline about disclaimers is more important than any of our policies. Additionally there are significant free speech issues as it is clearly attempting to discourage people from participating in discussion, which seems very strange as we haven't yet reached a consensus about what to include. Even in cases such as Talk:Evolution where there has been controversy in the past the disclaimer is far more in line with the one I came up with here.
Here is a link to my changed version. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
To me, that's an acceptable change. I would suggest, however, that unless it gets an easy consensus, we should just wait for the impending discretionary sanctions, which will require a new notice anyway. --FormerIP (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I noted IIRC in that AN/I discussion on Ludwigs a few months back that the template does not seek to discourage discussion, what it seeks to do is separate the wheat form the chaff; invite intelligent and reasoned discussion, i.e. not stuff like "I am offended remove images of the prophet now". I'm not too convinced by the linkage to cases like evolution, either. This page has seen so much vandalism and so much focused tarhgeting from non-editors that IMO something a bit stricter than what one would find elsewhere in the project may be justified. Tarc (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Given its 2-1 in favour of the change and I have backed up my points with policy and guidelines I suggest we implement it. Its not as if we currently get a lot of intelligent discussion here - for example basically every Muslim who posts wants the depictions removed entirely - we aren't getting moderate muslims posting here who might hold a more subtle viewpoint (or who might be in favour of the current illustrations - we literally don't know). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
For clarity if after we have reached a consensus the only way to get people to stop complaining is to have a big red box (or semi-protect the page) then I am in favour of taking that step - but we aren't currently at that point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Seeing how editors other than myself reverted you, I think delcaring victory at 2-1 is a bit...presumptive. There is nothing wrong with the current wording, it simpkly speaks the facts of what will happen regarding attempts at image deletion. Tarc (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Seeing as the other editor who reverted me, Mathsci, hasn't commented in this discussion over the past week and his original objection was that the Arbcom case hadn't finished I think his objection is moot.
While you might think the current wording is OK, that isn't a strong argument unless you have some concrete objections with my version. Additionally I think the current box is very long, especially with the entirely necessary warning about discretionary sanctions, it is red, aka the danger colour along with all the other issues I have bought up before. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
How about folding into mediation? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Frankly I'd rather keep that focused on the RFC, but if we can't agree on this then I think that would be the next best option. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I have asked AlexandrDmitri to add Muhammad to the list of topics there. Many affected areas have special templates which summarise the principles stated in the final decision and that might be appropriate here. Mathsci (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Upcoming RFC - propositions to agree on
To try to avoid this going over old ground (well, some of the old ground), I've drafted a set of propositions concentrating on the Islamic art history. The idea is that we get these refined so that as many regulars here as possible, from both "sides" of the argument, can sign up to a final version, which is then introduced in the RFC. I've already had some comments on the talk page there - please add to them & start indicating which numbers you would feel able to sign up to. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
On a slightly different angle, I've made a copy of my brief source summary I presented to ArbCom: User:ASCIIn2Bme/Mill2. I invite everyone interested to participate in expanding that. However, I'd like to keep it focused on biographies of Muhammad rather than more general works about Islam or narrower issues, e.g. veneration or depiction of Muhammad in particular contexts. I don't mind adding a few sources like that, as long as they are clearly described and don't overwhelm the main category. Also, I'd like to keep low the number the sources that have little or no English-language academic citations. Thanks, ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
What's an "illustration"? Does calligraphy count? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I think most academic, English-language works worth considering are printed, so if you're suggesting that calligraphy in Arabic manuscripts is illustration in addition to text, you should probably make your own survey of that area. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
So what about printing? Its pretty obvious that calligraphy can be included as an illustration in a book. We include calligraphy as an image in our article on Muhammad. For example this Book and this book seem to have calligraphy on their front covers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 3 (with updates)) As a figure, yes. I am considering that kind of illustrations even when they are calligraphy. There is some cover art of that kind in the material I summarized. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I've never heard of Barnaby Rogerson until today. I'll consider his works, thanks for bringing them up, Eraserhead1. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about the conflicts. Thanks for the explanation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems like an excellent starting point - good work John.
Personally I particularly don't like the wording of 4 mentioning only the Arabs - however I don't feel that unless evidence is presented about how the Chinese/Indians/South East Asians show Muhammad that anything else would be any better. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Can we have all comments on the talk page there please, so they don't get spread out. These copied. Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I think there are some rough edges, but not a bad job overall.
However, I'm not sure that a list of various things we can or can't agree on will be the most productive way forward. Some of the points listed may be relevant to the imminent RfC, but others are probably quite arcane and unlikely to shed much light on it. Would it not be better to start by considering - in broad terms - what sort of RfC we hope or expect to see, then think about whether there are underlying questions of philosophy or art history that should be addressed? For example, the general issue of what types of images were most prevalent in various places at various times in history is interesting, but also extremely involved and possibly not very germane. Or maybe it is, but it's hard to say when we don't know where we are headed in terms of an RfC (or RfCs) question (or questions). --FormerIP (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Those things need doing, but are different issues. The sort of questions I address have run through all the debates here, & turned up again in AGK's draft "background" Arbcom finding, thankfully withdrawn. I'd be very surprised indeed if we don't see them in the RFC, but I want to minimise this, as yes it is highly involved, & an Rfc is the worst sort of way to go into them. The idea was to try to leave the RFC clear for discussion of more suitable aspects of the matter - but I'm not proposing to start drafting the RFC, which will be incredibly difficult. Happy to comment though. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
They probably should have appointed a skilled third party mediator or special master-like to organize this. I probably should have thought of that earlier. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I think John and Jayen drafting the RFC together should work well. Possibly a third party mediator would be helpful as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Umm, I think you should re-read John - he's not really interested in drafting the RFC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping to persuade him to do it ;). If he won't I think we should ask for the mediation cabal to help draft it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
That might be best, since we've all been asked to limit ourselves, if we can. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Apart from the art history/usage side, where I'm still hoping a set of statements with broad "cross-party" support can emerge, things will probably splinter off, since there are by no means just two groups with two views that are consistent within the group - as the Arbcom case showed. Maybe the initial RFC just will ask a simple question - "What images of M should be in the article", and then let a range of positions be set out, for people to !vote on. But I think that will be chaotic. Or it can be divided into a number of questions - but then how do they fit together? Johnbod (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
(EC with FormerIP, below)Perhaps a long series of propositions where you can vote or not vote at will, like the Arbcom decision? Eg. Should all images be removed [link to each image] Should all images be retained [link to images]; Should this image be removed [link to image]; Should this image be removed [link to image]; Should this image be retained but moved [link to image] etc. I don't really know. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't a process that goes "draft RfC-discussion-amend RfC per discussion" suit your purpose just as well, whilst cutting out the need to get bogged down discussing things that are not properly contextualised or turn out to be immaterial?
My impression is that we will probably need multiple RfC's (although I keep an open mind). A single RfC that tries to address the whole thing can probably be closed as "no consensus" before it even begins. Can you imagine a clear answer to a question such as "what images should be in the article? Fitting the questions together would be a matter of working out a logical order.
I agree that approaching the Mediation Cabal would be a good move forwards. --FormerIP (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Xavexgoem. I have been a mediator on Wikipedia for over 4 years, for both the Mediation Cabal and the Mediation Committee. I have posted a suggestion on the case page. First, I'd like to ask if my being here is acceptable to you all. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
To be frank, there's nothing on your user page, your last 150 edits take you back to August 11, & you don't archive your talk page. Are you sure you're up to this? Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I am. I was out of the country for a while and took an extended wiki-break. It'd be nice to hop back into things. I can put the case back into the new pile, though, if you have serious doubts. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Never been big on user pages, it used to redirect to talk. Which I've archived.
Mediation for anyone interested in helping out (go to the link below)
There is a full discussion right now at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/11_February_2012/Muhammad-images. Does anyone object to having the conversation there? I realize most of you just came out of ArbCom, and another (semi) formalized discussion area might be exhausting. Xavexgoem (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
General question about the purpose of the infobox image
Is it intended to be treated as cover art for this article, by analogy with books? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that seems like a sensible comparison. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I think of it as informing the reader, as to the subject, as well as interesting them. I suppose like cover art but less promotional in intent. Of what we have on commons, (assuming we use an infobox image, at all - and not one of those images we have not yet considered) I like this. It is closely tied to the subject of the biography (first built by him during his life and where his tomb is located) and it has some drama. Al-Masjid al-Nabawi mosque begun by Muhammad and containing his tombAlanscottwalker (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
MoS guidance on this is that it should "allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page". "Editors should avoid using images that readers would not have expected to see when navigating to the page". "...natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic". My take would be that the infobox should contain a picture of Mohammed or else nothing - probably the latter. --FormerIP (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not sure if this is the right place for this comment, but looking at the current state of the article at a glance the first three or four images are all calligraphy. To the casual reader skimming the article, this gives the impression that calligraphy is the main subject of the article (although the current infobox image is a bit better in this respect than File:Mohammad SAV.svg that was there a few days ago). I'm not say that there should or should not be any particular type of image in the first few screens, just that the first three/four images shouldn't all be calligraphic/textual. Thryduulf (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree. It should also be noted that, not only are the first four images all of words in Arabic script, but the first three of them are all user-created. There's no real justification for that. --FormerIP (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Al-Masjid al-Nabawi / Green dome
I'm not sure who proposed that image, but I hope you realize that the Green Dome itself is extremely contentious [1]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's an argument against the picture or an argument against obscurantism but it's been generally established that allot of people don't like allot of things. However, whenever and if ever they flatten the dome itself or the tomb, the pedia should have a picture of that too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The dispute over the dome is that Wahhabis assert it's not okay by their standards of Islamic tradition (having been built the Mamluks and Ottomans), so they want to get rid of it, as they have done with all other funerary domes from the city. So again the dispute over what is the "mainstream" Islam kicks in. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Calligraphy?
I think we could do with a reduction in calligraphy, IMO. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of that, File:Pbuh.png is a slight improvement over the plain rendering of File:Mohammad SAV.svg. Still, I'm uncertain if computer art counts as calligraphy. If we go that route, I prefer something more traditional like File:Hilye-i serif 5.jpg. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Definitely agreed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Reach Some Decision And Stop The War?
Neutral POV
Okay, first of all, I am a Muslim BUT I am I Shia', so for all Muslims I am not trying to insult you all, and for all other people, no I am not biased, as my sect does not condemn the images as much as others do. So, as you can see, I think I am pretty neutral about all this.
Any Feasible Solution?
What I am trying to ask here is that instead of doing various polls etc. can't we just reach some practical decision? Now, from what I understand, Wikipedia editors do not want to censor their site, as it would impair freedom of speech. The other party, does not want portraits of the Prophet Muhammad on the page Muhammad. So, what I suggest is, just display some kind of template warning, like we do on top of Orphans and Uncited Articles. "This Article may contain images considered offensive in some cultures. Discretion is recommended" or something like that, similar to what Youtube does when we open Videos on Hitler and the Nazis. Of course, this is just a suggestion, there may be many other ways to resolve this issue, the goal here, is to give a slight warning to people who consider the images offensive so that they can choose to not view the page BEFORE getting offended by looking at the images themselves. But then again, this may also bother some editors because it would mean we are giving special treatment to the article in question, but at least it can't be considered censorship , and it's just a templated warning.
Software?
Wikipedia or even some third party Muslim software developers should create some software or browser plugin that automatically stops the images or something. Earlier I asked about this and an editor was kind enough to tell me how I can modify the preferences in my wikipedia account to stop all images from displaying in the article. Something similar to that but which can be done by non-registered users (like the browser plugin) would be good.
Stop The War.
Seriously, what good would sections like "REMOVE THE BLASPHEMOUS IMAGES" and replies like "NO WE CAN'T , NO CENSORSHIP!!!" do? They won't solve the problem, they're just needlessly filling up this talk page. Both the people that find the images offensive AND the people who hate censoring them should reach some good solution that satisfies everyone. There are already wars and terrorism bugging the real word, I don't want a war to start here on Wikipedia too. :) VVV (:
Thanks. I'll take a look at the draft. Hope we can all reach an agreement and resolve this issue soon. :) Intermediate-Hacker (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
SACRILEGIOUS BLASPHEMY
WHY IS THERE IMAGES OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD (PBUH), WHEN CLEARLY 1.5 BILLION MUSLIMS OPPOSE THE PRACTICE OF IT. SAHIH BUKHARI'PARAHPHRASED'HE (PBUH) SAID "PEOPLE WHO CREATE IMAGES OF THINGS WITH SOULS WILL RECEIVE A SEVERE TORMENT IN THE HELL FIRE". THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS AND DOWN RIGHT DESPICABLE. WIKIPEDIA HAS TO START IMPLEMENTING LOGICAL ANALYSIS OR THIS WEBSITE WILL BE USED AS A WEAPON TO UNDERMINE RELIGIOUS VALUES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nematullah.n (talk • contribs) 07:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Also people take individuals more seriously when they don't use caps lock. Tivanir2 (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
You realize how ironic that last quip is? We expect him to take us seriously when we include these images, but you turn your nose up at capital letters? Some of us grew up fiddling with the Apple ][. Wnt (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
As did I (those were the days...). Nevertheless, Tivanir2 is correct. Barging into a room shouting at the top of your lungs may get you noticed, but it isn't likely to win anyone over to your point of view. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Please Remove Painting of MUHAMMAD (P.b.u.h)
Wikipedia is good source of knowledge whereas to maintain peace among humans its mandatory to respect the religions . As in ISLAM is prohibited to illustrate picture of MUHAMMAD (P.b.u.h) . On behalf of Muslims i request the editor to remove the images of Prophet as its kind of hurting to believers.
I consulted Islamic Scholars they request the editor to make changes.
Removal of pictures based upon religious edicts is not possible under WP:NOTCENSORED, though images can be removed from the article if this will improve it. Please keep in mind we will be holding a RfC in the near future to discuss usage of pictures within the article which you are free to comment on. Also keep in mind that thinly veiled threats are not acceptable per wikipedia's standards and are actionable offenses. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Are we going to be adding Muhammad images to the list of topics for {{uw-sanctions}}? Singularity42 (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Is this something that needs consensus? If it's just the way it is in light of the recent Arbcom, then you should go ahead an do it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think consensus is required, given the Arbcom decision. Unfortunately, I'm not the best with adding new parameters to templates (I have a tendancy to break them), so it might be best if another editor does it. Singularity42 (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know who maintains that template but perhaps you could ask over there or at AN and find out and put it to them? Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
A very gentle solution
It's essential to keep our values intact, but at the same time, let's recognize we're upsetting lots of people, and if we can try to gently avoid that, maybe we should.
Javascript can "hide all images on article" very easily.
For pages where a huge number of truly independent complaints come in from our readers, we add a template reading:
"Large numbers of readers have requested this feature be implemented on this page. If you want to hide all the images in this article, click here".
We keep our reasoning very simple:
Lots and lots of people want to be able to insta-hide images on this page.
We give the reader the choice of what their computer monitor will render.
Insta-hide would hide _all_ images on the page, not just single images.
1-click to instantly reveal any hidden image.
No one image is ever singled out as "offensive"-- all or nothing.
No justification is given beyond "Large numbers of readers have requested...".
Insta-hide is never ever set to 'hide by default".
That is, all we do is include in Javascript what really should be done at the browser level, but default browser installs don't have it. There is something just plain wrong about making an islamic reader have to learn about firefox extensions in order to just read the article on Muhammad.
We cannot budge one inch on stopping our readers from being able to see images of Muhammad. NPOV is not up for debate.
But, we do have wiggle room in allowing our readers to choose for themselves what images will be rendered on their physical displays. That is a user right-- one skilled techie users already know how to use. Unfortunately, we need to provide a reasonable accommodation to the the non-tech-saavy user to exercise that same right. "Turn off all the images on this page" isn't that big of a feature request. We already tell skilled techies precisely how to use this, but we have to make the user interface a little easier. There are 80 year old non-native-EN-speakers out there who are using the internet for the very first time-- we can't seriously expect them to actually rejigger their browser.
Who hates this idea? who likes it?
--HectorMoffet (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a technical change to the Wikipedia software that would never fly unless the community at Wikipedia:Village pump/Proposals agreed to it. There was recently a proposal similar to yours about displaying content ratings. See Wikipedia:Village pump/Proposals#Content rating (again). It was almost unanimously rejected by the community. I daresay that this proposal would meet the same fate; however, I encourage you to take this proposal there, because this talk page isn't the place where such things would be decided.
We already allow readers to choose for themselves what images will be shown to them. One doesn't need to be a skilled techie to follow the directions given in the FAQ, one just needs to comprehend English — and if a reader doesn't, well, this is the English Wikipedia. There are plenty of other Wikipedias around in other languages. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The instructions are followable, but they are definitely a techie solution. We should come up with something better.
With regards to content rating, that's an impossible problem (e.g. how do you rate a picture of a topless woman, in the US it would be only for over 18's, in the UK it gets included in family newspapers) and any "solution" will inconvenience users by making them provide their age or something.
None of these objections apply to a disclaimer with a link here with some JavaScript. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
How does anyone know there are "large numbers" who hate it? Campaigns can be mobilized very quickly. Even hinting that people are "supposed to be upset" introduces a POV; better to say "if". Neotarf (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Western depictions
Instead of the painting of Muhammad on the mountain, how about swapping that image to the SCOTUS (Supreme Court) carving? Would anyone object to that? --Elonka 20:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Using Scotus has been discussed before. There are objections, being: a) it is a small crappy image, b) the statue is highly unrepresentative, possibly the only other one is in New York, c) Statues are extra-idolatrous compared to small figures in miniatures with groups, and d) it has been the specific object of Muslim protest - see Depictions of Muhammad. Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. I'm just not crazy about the painting, because it seems to be kind of tacked on, and isn't really discussed anywhere. Is there another Western depiction that might be more suitable? --Elonka 07:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe not so much a "Western" depiction as a "secular" one that did not favor one religious viewpoint? I thought of the Supreme Court image as well. Neotarf (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Edit request: picture of Muhammed
Wikipedia should be free of censorship and influence of lobbygroups and religious groups and such, and therefore there should be a picture of Muhammed at the top of this article. It seems that some people claim that there is consensus on not showing a picture on Muhammed (see undo-edit of 21 February 2012, 23:42) and thereby justifying undoing edits that put the picture up. There is no consensus whether or not a picture should be shown (and there probably never will be), and since Wikipedia is neutral and free of censorship there should be a picture because this article is about a man of whom pictures exist. M48b (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I want to add to this my main point of discontent: the attitude of "well there is a big war about whether or not to show a pic of Muhammad, so until the edit war is over we should not put his picture up". This is a very strange argument, you might as well turn it around: "until the war is over/decided we do put a picture of Muhammed up"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by M48b (talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
There is currently a consensus that 1) Wikipedia is not censored, and should include images of Muhammad, and 2) the Infobox should include the most common pictoral representation of Muhammad, which is currently a stylized caligraphy of his name. This consensus is subject to change given the recent Arbitration Committee involvement. There is a planned request for comment, and there is a currently a mediation between parties to determine how best to proceed, which can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 February 2012/Muhammad-images. Therefore, it is not a good idea to just start changing the images while this is all being discussed. In fact, you should be aware that discretionary sanctions are in place for editors that do not abide by current discussion and consensus policies when editing regarding images of Muhammand. Singularity42 (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay thanks, you are correct that I was a little too inconsiderate with putting the picture up. I was not aware of the mediation and discussion. However, I still fully stand behind my opinion that WP should be free of censorship and Muhammed should be depicted. But I will rest this case now. M48b (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I personally would much rather you get involved, we need more people to be involved here - not less. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand, but I have a strong sense that this debate will never be over as long as there are about 1 billion people who get irrationally frustrated when you put a picture of this man up. Also I don't want people to blow me up or put a knife in me because I have insulted their crazy beliefs.M48b (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Speaking as a person raised in a mixed Muslim/Jewish/Catholic family, I can say that relatively few Muslims want to blow up or put a knife into anyone. True that the Quran says people are not supposed to make graven images of living things, and although it it has over a billion readers, most of them are not as outspoken on this issue as those who are more fervent here. An image of Muhammed is offensive to many Muslims, just as some Jews prefer not to have any the names for God (oops!) fully written out. When understanding how people can get offended by something, I like to take a step back and say, "What offends me? What do I not want to see pictures of on Wikipedia?" and then approach the issue from that lens. Right now I think the article does an okay job by putting the Prophet's picture near the bottom. Giving people a warning to not scroll down to that section, as well as offering instructions about adjusting one's browser, are both good ideas, but there will always be people who take offense at something—even the very nature of free speech and free thought. Morganfitzp (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images
This is a community-wide discussion. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
It Should Be Removed Kindly
Respectfully,
I am having an issue with an article "MUHAMMAD" at WIKIPEDIA.I am a Muslim and representative of Islam.I am having problem with the images of our beloved Prophet uploaded in the article.The images of the Holy Prophet are not used any where in Islam,even the movies which are subjected to the Islamic history have not figured The Holy Prophet.These images are pinching for Muslims.
The Muslim community is not satisfied about those images.I request you on the behalf of whole Islamic nation to remove these images kindly.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.188.105 (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
This is blasphemous and not accordance with Islamic teachings that paintings of Prophet Muhammad PBUH be drawn or whatsoever; so please an action should be taken to delete those paintings depicting Prophet Muhammad PBUH images. Thank you please! Indusengineer (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
It is undeniable that this artwork was initiated as an idea concerning the depicted (Postulated as the bearer of this article - Prophet of Islam Muhammad), but these bear not hold any explicit reference to their trustworthiness as it obviously didn’t have into its consideration the pertinence (by any true relevance), to actual abiding citations of conformity as most of the other references accepted in constructing this article.
This therefore implies that the “depicted” might never have been truthfully or merely reliably pictured (or reliably depicted) thru such work of art, making this one too therefore vulnerable to being a mere fake in prescribing the actions of its presumed implied events and its artificially presented “truths”!
Therefore this raises an undeniable fact that this work of art cannot stand alone a trustworthy content; according to enactments of most of the other cited dependable references / sources held or worked upon in this article.
This also implies that including this depiction in the article can/would be misleading information about the article’s bearer, since it includes presenting thus far unreliable imaging/(depiction based arts) about that particular mentioned event including himself in the presented content.
This therefore serves as both a notification and an urge to the Wikimedia foundation to act upon this threat to the reliability of the content of its articles and relaying upon the prosthetics cited references in validity proving. It is clear now that such art-work in such an article is in explicit violation.Fs50313 (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm guessing that you are thinking about WP:VERIFY, but these are works of art and thus don't fall under that policy, anymore than the painting of anyone done before the age of photography or of someone for whom there were no contemporary portraits. Dougweller (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
If you mean that they should not be regarded as historically accurate images then you are correct. Johnbod (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, Fs50313, the images tell the reader nothing reliable about the man Muhammad. That doesn't matter though, because they say something about art history. Not sure what exactly. But that's enough, mate, that they say some nonspecific thing about art history, that's enough to make them necessary to the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Redacted ironic impersonation: 14:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Anthony, I'm not even sure hat to make of that response. The bitterness felt over an RfC that didn't go your way is quite apparent, as is the sarcasm and the...I dunno, whatever the "You got a problem with that" line was supposed to convey. Is this really productive? Tarc (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
... editors should remember that calligraphic representations are the most common, and should not add images, especially figurative ones, without a clear encyclopedic reason to do so ...
In view of this, would it be a good idea to suggest that rationales for images be posted and required to gain consensus here, in a similar way that rationales are required across the project for non-free content, to confirm that non-free content "is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" (WP:NFCC #8), and for non-free content "multiple items ... are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information". (WP:NFCC #3a)
For non-free content, the reasoning as to why the image passes these requirements must be pre-declared in a written rationale statement. If something similar is intended here, would similar accessible statements of rationale similarly be useful? Jheald (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
That's not going to happen, no; the article as it presently stands was overwhelmingly affirmed by the RfC ("we have concluded that the status quo of the Muhammad article should largely be retained."), and no further justification for the images therein is necessary. The "...should not add images, especially figurative ones..." is in regards to adding more. Tarc (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, this is a bad idea. We ended up with both an arbitration case and an RFCmultiple RFC's because some people insisted on special rules for this article. In both cases, the result was that special rules were rejected. More to the point, your proposal fails to solve a problem. All it does is offer up a new venue for those who can't accept that Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia to bicker, argue and waste everyone's time. Resolute 00:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, bad idea. The existing images have been exhaustively discussed in the past, although there was in fact a lot of agreement that some of them were not the best of their types & no doubt we shall return to this after a long rest from arguing about this issue. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
We all wish. Some people are still trying to re-hash the same arguments that have gotten them nowhere since this latest debate began last October. Resolute 23:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
That is a good idea, Jheald. And it should be applied, as the RfC closing statement suggests, to any images added to the article. It can't be applied to any existing images, though, because the community concluded narrative illustrations containing figurative depictions of Muhammad are necessary to the article.
Johnbod is wrong when he says the existing images have been exhaustively discussed, though. They haven't. Most of the exhaustive discussion here has been him, Tarc and others yelling at, ridiculing and abusing editors who ask what information an image adds to the reader's understanding of the life of Muhammad.
Their abuse drove me and many others away from this page. I invite you to continue pressing this point, if you'd like to get a sense of what I'm talking about. Or maybe just check this out. I was described as disingenuous and sly, and petulant for objecting to being called disingenuous and sly. I had encountered this kind of rudeness and refusal to discuss soon after joining in the conversation, [2] so at that point I pretty much gave up editing this page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Not true; most of the discussions were before your time, though not all. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The old discussions also involved not-censored activists with little knowledge or interest in the subject. Because of this, and perhaps other reasons too, the old discussions were not fruitful and left many questions unanswered. For example, like whether a image is illustrative of the event as described in the earliest biographies of Muhammad (which we rely on for our textual content). Wiqi(55) 16:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes. They were really shallow and cursory. Are you going to apologise to me for the way you treated me in that diff, Johnbod? Do you see anything disreputable in the way you behaved there? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Query
I'm not here challenging the authority of the RfC. Of course we will all abide by its excellent findings. I'd like to again congratulate the closers for their job very well done. Nevertheless, I'd like to continue to discuss the curation of controversial images on Muhammad.
Fgurative narrative illustrations:
aid visualisation and memory; they aid cognition.
Most are beautiful, from a Western point of view.
The reader sees how Muhammad was depicted in different cultures, later times and foreign regions.
If there are other benefits, please add them to the list.
Addressing these benefits, though: if I could bring an image to you that is an equal aid to visualisation and memory and is beautiful, but does not teach the reader anything about the depiction of Muhammad, all else being equal, would you agree to replacing a narrative figurative depiction of Muhammad with that image? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
So there's no way you'll just drop this and move on with your Wiki career? SÆdontalk 10:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
If you don't want to join the conversation, don't. I'm not making you. You may ignore me. I won't think any less of you for ignoring me. Do you mind if I continue the discussion with any others who might join in? Is this kind of conversation banned here? Is that in the ArbCom result somewhere? If so, I apologise, I didn't realise. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll take that as a no. *sigh* SÆdontalk 11:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Why are you telling me to shut up? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Not only is the horse dead, but you've beaten it so unmercifully that other horses have committed suicide in hopes of avoiding the same fate; others have had to be institutionalized for PTSD. PETA, in response to all the horse suicide, has sponsored legislation that would define all equines as endangered species and it is expected to pass both the US House and Senate unanimously. On top of all this, the Yodarians, a culture of horse enslaving aliens, were so moved by the plight of horses on Earth that they have vowed never to abduct another horse again (and these are aliens who literally exist to enslave horses). Think of the horses, won't you :( SÆdontalk 01:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, discussion about the current images is over. This issue has been simmering here for years, it finally boiled hot enough to attract Arbcom's attention, who then mandated a high-visible RfC for the whole community to decide the issue. Which they did, and not in your (Anthony's) favor unfortunately. I think the other aim of the RfC was to put a lid on this for awhile and just let the status quo be for a bit.. Really, it is time to walk away from this for a bit. Not to be too pessimistic, but I think we'll be back here again in..oh, 8 months or so anyways. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Tarc, just FYI, while L2 is banned from WP for a year, he is indefinitely banned from any discussion involving Muhammad and I doubt we'll be seeing a lifting of that sanction. SÆdontalk 09:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Ahh I forgot about the indef topic ban part. That is reassuring. Tarc (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Saedon and Tarc; even though people may not be happy with the result, the point is that the general discussions should be over. Now, if there was a single, specific image, and you felt that there were a single, specific, clear rational for replacing it, then I think that would still fall within the bounds of both the Arbcom decision and the RfC. A general, vague discussion about how we might theoretically act in the future in the face of unknown alternative images is not. In fact, I would go so far as to say that trying to start such a discussion could be grounds for action by an admin under the discretionary sanctions authorized by the decision. I'm not an uninvolved admin (though I didn't participate in the RfC, I have discussed the issue on this talk page before), but I think that it really is time to let this go. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm not uninvolved either, but I would view efforts to stir this up again as warranting a topic ban at the very least.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I understand how you feel. You guys don't want to talk to me about this, and I'm OK with that. Is there a problem with me discussing it with others, though? I didn't take that meaning from the ArbCom results, but I may have misread. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I am saying that yes, you discussing it with others would be exactly the type of discussion that the RfC was designed to finish. What would be the point of such a discussion, anyway, since you by definition can't gain consensus (key parties would not be involved), you can't override the RfC, and any edits to change the article pictures without a solid consensus would definitely be disruptive? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
If you can't see any point to discussing the curation of images at Muhammad, that's fine by me. Don't engage in it. I said at the outset of this thread I would respect the RfC; if you find me overriding the RfC, or changing the article pictures without a solid consensus, which I agree would be disruptive, sanction me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
From WP:CONSENSUS: "...if a subject has been discussed recently, it can be disruptive to bring it up again." Singularity42 (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I doubt if I'll be disruptive but if you see me doing something disruptive, sanction me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
What you are attempting to do is suggest some other image to replace one or more of the ones currently in the article, yes? Presumably replace one of the depictions of Muhammad himself? Tarc (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, no. I'm not suggesting another image, I don't know one. I want to discuss the educational merit of the narrative illustrations in this article (something I was prevented from doing in the past by your and Johnbod's offensive behaviour) and the curation of images in general at this article. You don't have to join in, though I hope you choose to at some point. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
You've made your point several times, including at the recent very widely publicized RFC. To a striking and unusual degree, hardly anyone agreed with it except for a couple of people already engaged in the debate here. You should give it a rest now. Your contributions here consist entirely, as far as I can see, of arguing on talk pages. If you want to do something useful I suggest you consider adding to articles yourself, rather than just distracting those who do. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm just trying to have a conversation, John. Here's my contributions to this article, and here's my contributions history. What about that disqualifies me from participating here? I take it you're not going to apologise for being abusive to me? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so the purpose is to discuss the merit (or lack thereof in your opinion), of the present images. Well, regardless of who does or does not participate in such a discussion, the outcome of those talks will not result in any actual changes to this article at all. The RfC stands as an endorsement of the present images in the article, and that will not be changed by another discussion of the matter at this time. Tarc (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
From the RfC: "With regards to the placement of other figurative images, we found that the current status quo -- of using figurative images of the highest encyclopedic value to illustrate important events in the subject’s life -- had the most support" (emphasis mine). Consensus has been reached. Disengaging from Anthonyhcole would probably be the best course of action as if there's no response to him, there's no need for him to rehash his arguments. He knows that if he tries to remove the current images, sanctions would probably be brought against him. --NeilNtalk to me 17:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
So, just to be clear, I won't be proposing that an edit actually be made to the article. That is, I understand the RfC rejected my view on the value of narrative figurative images, so won't argue for the implementation of an edit in that area. What I will do, provided the community allows me to, is argue that we can do better. I just want to argue the merits of the case. I wasn't allowed to before, but now there is sufficient scrutiny on this page that I may just be able to interrogate my opponents on this point. Community scrutiny may force Tarc and Johnbod to allow me to discuss the question, which, hitherto, they have steadfastly refused to do.
You're safe. It won't do any harm to let me discuss this question now. The article is locked in your version for three years, so I'd appreciate you indulging me here.
I believe I'm owed an apology from those two. I believe the community's owed an apology from those two. They've been making out that the value of narrative figurative depictions of Muhammad has already been discussed at length here. It hasn't. The couple of discussions that occurred before I arrived were cursory, shallow and short. When I arrived asking to discuss the question, well, see the above link. I left the page. What am I supposed to do? Hang around this page chatting "collegially" with those guys about image curation? Fuck that. Seriously. I've got some pride. That behaviour was shown to numerous administrators and plainly in my evidence at ArbCom. Nothing was done. So I've avoided this page until now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Given this edit I'd say an apology is not waranted or deserved. --NeilNtalk to me 14:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I redacted that. [3] It was thoughtless of me. I apoligise to the community and thank you Tarc and Neil for pointing it out. I appreciate that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything from Anthony in this section that constitutes discussion intended to figure out how to improve the article. We're well into WP:NOTFORUM territory, and I suggest that this thread be closed. Apologies and the like can go to individual users' talk pages. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
My opening comment was an invitation to discuss. Since then I've been dealing with the question of whether I should be permitted to discuss what here. I couldn't ignore that question and no one had responded to my opening question. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
In response to the earlier bit above, you are not owed any apology. Everything I had to say on that entire "disingenuous" angle was said here. I will not repeat it. Tarc (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I strongly recommend following Tarc's link, including the small collapsed section. And if you can spare a few more minutes, the Hans Adler discussion immediately below that is worth a look. Tarc's behaviour described in that discussion, and ArbCom's response to it, is the reason Hans isn't editing today. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Um, no. The reason Hans isn't editing is because Hans decided to no longer edit. Adults are responsible for their own actions. What one will find in the discussions at that link is a lot (a lot) of complaining that resulted in a strong caution from Arbcom regarding things I may have said in the course of the old image debates, a caution which IMO I have heeded since that time. If an editor decided to retire because they did not get the decision they were expecting or desiring, that is hardly my fault. Tarc (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
So, Wikipedia, we get to keep Tarc and we lose Hans Adler. There's something wrong here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
That's a seriously unhelpful comment. You're really pushing your luck on this. I strongly suggest you move on and concentrate on something else.—Chowbok☠ 17:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Such is the irony of Anthony. He will argue to his death that offending people is bad...unless of course it's him saying the offensive things. SÆdontalk 19:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Touché. Sorry Tarc. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Image removal
Further discussion of this issue is very unlikely to contribute to improvement of the article. Sure, I'm probably not the best person to archive, so revert if you must -- but even so... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An image of Muhammad was removed from the article a couple of days ago, without discussion. The header to this page states that when images are removed without discussion, the edit will be reverted. So I have reverted it (though put it in a section where it is more relevant). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
In fact Anthonyhcole attempted to remove two images of Muhammad. Mathsci (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Did I? That wasn't my intention. Oh, you mean where I accidentally deleted the wrong image and immediately, 3 minutes later, corrected my mistake. [4] Mmm. Would you mind correcting the record there, or striking your misleading comment?
Here's the timeline:
15:14, 15 June 2012Dzlinker (talk·contribs) added an anonymous figurative depiction of Muhammad to the Islamic depictions of Muhammad section asserting it is a "Christian" depiction in the caption.
Mahatma Gandhi stated: I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.
09:02, 17 June 2012 Nomoskedasitcity restored the anonymous depiction of Muhammad and deleted the image of Gandhi.
Nomoskedasticity seems to think an editor who, to the best of my knowledge, has never edited this article or engaged in discussion can plonk an anonymous figurative depiction of Muhammad into this article and it must stand, and a photograph of Gandhi, accompanying a large block of text quoting Gandhi should be summarily deleted. Thoughts? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
You made these edits with no prior discussion, while being aware, more than almost any other wikipedia editor, of the guidelines on Muhammad images. The inclusion of an image of Mahatma Ghandi is completely WP:UNDUE. My expectation is that you will be reported at WP:AE and if that happens that you could be topic banned from this article and its talk pages for a period of six months or more. Mathsci (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Hang on, someone added a new M. image on 15th June that wasn't there before. There was no discussion about the new image. Isn't that right or have I got something badly wrong? (Not for the first time) If so, how can it be wrong to revert it? It's still there - shouldn't it come out? DeCausa (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Dzlinker added the image without discussion. Reverting it is policy, but Anthonyhcole's edit summary did not state that. The correct thing would be to have written "rv per Muhammad image policy - see Talk:Muhammad/Images". The image of Ghandi should also have been discussed before being included. Mathsci (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The photograph of Gandhi is encyclopedic, it is directly related to the text. So, I should be reported to AE because my edit summary wasn't clear enough? I'm being harassed here. Pure and simple. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
That seems like a minor infraction compared to Nomoskedasticity's revert. I'll take the image out now with the edit summary you suggest. DeCausa (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The original image appeared in the "Other views" section. (That's what happens if the image thumb is placed immediately above the title.) Both of Anthonyhcole's edit summaries said, "Not relevant to this section, Islamic depictions of Muhammad." As I've written, he was justified in reverting the addition, but not for the reasons he stated. If he made an error, that could easily have been mentioned in the edit summary for the second edit, but he did not do so. I personally am not sure about the image added by Dzlinker (he states incidentally that he is a Berber editor, not that that is relevant). The image was added by him to Commons from a reduced quality image in LIFE magazine. The large image on that site has the LIFE watermark. He uploaded the image with no detail about the artist or the dating, although it is evidently late nineteenth century. It is very similar but superior to the lede image in Moses. Mathsci (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Mathsci, I reverted a useless piece of anonymous decorative fluff that also happens to be a naff figurative depiction of Muhammad, inserted without any prior discussion. Are you seriously arguing that I did something wrong there? The RfC close said editors should not add images, especially figurative ones, without a clear encyclopedic reason to do so. As for the relevance of an image of Gandhi accompanying a large quote from Gandhi, I was guided by the findings of the RfC: let the text of the article dictate the images used. Let's discuss this in a civil manner. To begin with, perhaps you'd consider correcting or striking that misleading statement you made about me "attempting" to remove two images of Muhammad? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Anthony, you could have saved all this trouble simply by noting here what you were doing. I did look for discussion before I reverted the removal -- but finding none I came to a conclusion that seemed entirely in line with your attitude displayed on this page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, I assumed it was such an obviously inappropriate insertion, given the sensitivities here, that removal was uncontroversial. I definitely should have made it clearer in my edit summary though. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Anthyhcole made a mistake in not providing a clear edit summary. Nomoskedacity made a mistake in jumpng to conclusions. I've removed the image. If soemone wants to restore it they should open a discussion. I think there's nothing more for here and this thread should be closed. DeCausa (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I've also edited the header here to make it clear that additions of images without discussion will also be reverted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image of Mahatma Gandhi
So, what does everybody think about an image of Mahatma Gandhi alongside that large quote from him? [5] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The image is WP:UNDUE: the wikilink to Mahatma Gandhi is sufficient. This article is not about Gandhi. Mathsci (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I count at least four or five other luminaries with large quotes. We're not adding an image for each of them. --NeilNtalk to me 11:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, one of the other large quotes comes from the Reverend Benjamin Bosworth Smith, and we do have a lovely drawing of him; done during his lifetime I believe. With regard to Mohandas, it seemed appropriate to me. We have a large English-speaking audience on the subcontinent, and I felt highlighting that particular bit of text would be edifying for both Indian and Pakistani/Bangladeshi readers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
As mentioned a long time ago, it's that long section of quotes in the "Western section" and the fact that Ghandi is the sum total of the "Eastern" section, as well as the bad general categorizations that is a problem. I am with those who hold, the article is not improved by adding another image (and this to illustrate a quote of a source?) to those sections. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see what a photo gallery of "people who said stuff about Muhammad" would add to the article. Tarc (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. We have many relevant images of the article subject. If you want to add another image, Anthony. Look there rather than at irrelevant images of other people who aren't the subject of this article. Resolute 15:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I bow to the wisdom of the crowd. I thought it would point subcontinentals—Muslim, Hindus and others—to a pretty relevant statement. But the majority rules. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I am surprised this generated any controversy, myself. I thought the image neither harmed nor helped the article. I didn't mind it being there, but nothing is lost if it's gone. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be about who suggested it rather than the suggestion itself. DeCausa (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Most unhelpful. If anyone cares to discuss the arguments please do. But personalization, such as this preceding comment, is what should be avoided. A User asked for opinion, people gave opinion.Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to answer that. Amatulic expressed surprise why this is controversial. He's right, there is no reason that this should be controversial. The elephant in the room is clearly the relationship between those that responded to the suggestion and the user who suggested it - as anyone who followed the RFC would have no doubt. Pretending anything else is disengenuous. The point is that any discussion of any proposal made by this user (good or bad) appears to become warped by previous history, and this is what has happened in this case. It's not me that personalised it. DeCausa (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
No. The discussion has shown the decision about the proposal is non controversial. One user thought it a good idea, multiple users disagreed and a few others thought the best they could say in support for it is, it does not matter or make any difference. Whether it would get more traction, if it were proposed by anyone else is highly doubtful, but such speculation about others is still most unhelpful. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
As far as the historical reception of Muhammad goes, the title page of the book of Sir Walter Raleigh (1637) with Raleigh's portrait would seem to be more relevant.[6]Mathsci (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the image does not "Need" to be there, but on the other hand, it does not detract from the article one iota either. Of all the people who are quoted in the section, Gandhi is by far the most notable and well known of them.--JOJHutton 19:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Is much known about what Mohammed liked to eat, because the article would definitely benefit from pictures of food. Formerip (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Encyclopedic/educational value of each image of Muhammad
Since encyclopediac/educational value is a key reason cited for keeping the images, can you guys please explain the encyclopediac/educational value of EACH image? Just like providing a fair use rationale for each use of a non-free image. That would help allay concerns of Islamophobia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.35 (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
(I swear on a stack of Bibles, Korans and Origins of Species that is not me.) That's not going to happen, IP. They don't have to do that, thanks to a decision of the arbitration committee, and, moreover, if I've correctly understood this advice offered by members of the committee, if you continue to press this point on this talk page, you may be sanctioned, after a warning, for disrupting the project. We are, I think, forbidden from questioning the educational merit of any of the figurative depictions of Muhammad in this article on Talk:Muhammad/images. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, please don't misrepresent the views and statements of others, which is part of what gets you into trouble, not asking innocent questions like the ISP. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I haven't been in any "trouble," and I'm not aware that I've misrepresented anything. Could you be specific please John? Are you saying that others, but not I, are permitted to raise this question? If that is the case, are you and I both permitted to respond to the IP? Or am I, because I adhere to the minority view, not permitted to join in this discussion? Your clarification would be much appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Having arbcom members suggest that a topic ban for you might be in order constitutes "trouble" in my book. You have already asked arbcom for clarification & received it, but you don't seem to be paying attention. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
That's not trouble. That's a couple of editors offering their opinions, unsupported by the majority of their colleagues. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
To the ISP - if you had asked this question a year ago, you could have joined in the many tens of thousands of words of discussion on this and related points, which are where you have been pointed to. We are all to exhausted by it to dig out the most relevant bits for you I'm afraid. If you are so familiar with WP policy, why are you an ISP? Just asking. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
IP, there was this discussion back in March 2011, initiated by DeCausa, whose criticism was largely ignored, and at the end of this discussion, in October 2011, I suggested we discuss the educational value of the black stone image but was ignored. When I brought it up again in December 2011, here I was abused and insulted by Johnbod. I think that's the extent to which the question, "What does each image add to the reader's understanding of the life of Muhammad?" has been addressed, at least recently. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
In the discussion you link above, there appeared to be a consensus to keep the black stone image. In particular one regular Muslim editor, Wiqi55, also thought it was a keeper, stating later of this image "it's more notable compared to some of the images we have here, and sometimes thought to be the earliest extant depiction." ~Amatulić (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
No. What Wiqi55 actually said was, "Just to clarify, the image is not notable for a major article on Muhammad, as none of them are, but it's more notable compared to some of the images we have here." There was no consensus in either discussion to include that image. The point, though, is that the question of what it adds to the reader's understanding of the life of Muhammad was not addressed (because, of course, it adds nothing relevant). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Notable pictures should perhaps be prominent in the Depictions article, but not here, necessarily. It's certainly not the oldest attested image (the oldest ones are from the mid-13th century, as far as I recall). --JN466 17:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
To my mind, the educational value of these images is limited to their being educational about miniature painting. I would have preferred to have them restricted to the "Depictions" section (and reduce their number accordingly). Unfortunately though, the community RfC decided otherwise. JN466 17:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Editors may argue however that the images have a mnemonic function. For example, the one with the stone may help some readers remember that there is a story about such a stone, the one depicting Gabriel may help them remember Gabriel, the one about the destruction of idols may help them remember that idols were destroyed, etc. I guess that argument is not entirely without merit. But if we entertain it, then perhaps we should ensure that the episodes shown are key milestones of Muhammad's life, rather than marginal episodes. For example, the episode with the stone is not a major one. An image of the mi'raj would make much more sense, especially as mi'raj images are perhaps the most notable form of miniature paintings depicting Muhammad. --JN466 17:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "major" but as I discussed in the RfC, the black stone image is an almost a perfect illustration of the major themes of Muhammad's life, and of his significance. He was born in a warring tribal society; he was chosen by providence or history to end them, under the rubric of a religious settlement. Just as he was chosen in that story and image to end the dispute among the disputatious clansmen in the pre-Islamic holy site that became the holiest site of Islam. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
A year ago I asked the same question as the IP but got no satisfying answer. It was determined back then that the only educational merit of most of these images was related to the history of (rare and non-influential) art. Their value as "narrative" imagery used to illustrate an event was never discussed or justified. I would also argue that some of them actually mislead the reader about the events they supposedly illustrate. For example, here is how the Britannica "Muhammad" article describes the looks of Gabriel on the first revelation based on the written tradition:
Muhammad ran down the mountain. Gazing upward, he saw the man who had spoken to him in his real form, an angel so immense that in whatever direction the Prophet looked the celestial figure covered the sky, which had turned green, ...
And here is how we illustrate this same information: [7]. It is rather obvious that our use of "narrative" imagery, in most cases at least, is neither educational nor illustrative. Wiqi(55) 17:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The "neither educational nor illustrative" opinion was found to be in the minority following the recent rfC, unfortunately. Tarc (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia is not a democracy. What you are saying is a textbook example of how polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. Besides, no where in the RFC the educational and illustrative merits of each image was discussed (which is the topic of this discussion). Wiqi(55) 20:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure you're linking what you think you're linking to; notdemocracy is about straw polls, not Requests for Comment. As to the last part, this is what Anthonycole tried last week but got shot down. In general there's nothing technically preventing you from discussing what you wish to regarding images, but no outcome from those discussions will have any editorial effect on the article itself. The # and layout of depictions is a settled issue for the foreseeable future. Tarc (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The RFC closing statement left the status of the article more open, namely let the text of the article dictate the images used. What I mentioned above is a case where the text of the article contradicts the image used to illustrate that same text. You're also misinterpreting the RFC results in terms of "majority vs. minority", as opposed to examining what points were raised about the illustrative value of each image (which was not raised in the RFC). Wiqi(55) 20:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The RfC left nothing of the sort open. We will not be holding another discussion regarding the possible removal of images. THAT is what the RfC ultimately found; an overwhelming endorsement of the status quo. Tarc (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
We've discussed. And discussed. And discussed. At this point, attempting to re-open the images debate, yet again, should be viewed as disruption. Resolute 20:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree. My reading of the RfC close and the Arbcom remedy is that the status quo on the current images remains in effect for three years. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
But the RFC also states that there was a clear consensus ... to let the text of the article dictate the images used. My reading is that the "status quo" statement was only concerned with the placement of figurative images (i.e., arguments like the use of a figurative image in the lede; confined to a depiction section; no figurative images at all, etc). It does not entail the choice of images as used within different narrative sections (for better or worse). Wiqi(55) 22:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes. It does. The narrative figurative images currently illustrate the text and that is and has been the status quo. If the contention is that they don't do so, as well as some other narrative figurative image, I'm not seeing that argument being made. I think most everyone has combed the Commons, but are you saying some new narrative figurative image is now available? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Not new, but more informative and more relevant placement for some of the images we currently have. I was also pointing out to the IP that the current status quo was not discussed properly (in terms of being educational and illustrative). Even the most general information that can be gleaned from some of these narrative images is misleading. Also, the RFC clearly allows some change per the quote above. Wiqi(55) 00:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, it was discussed at the RfC (including lots of discussion about how the images are not photorealistic), so whether it was done "properly" or not, reopening the status quo is still not "proper." The status quo images illustrate the early life, the revelations, the battles, the pilgrimage/proclaiming, and western views. These topics will undoubtedly be covered in the article, as they have in the past. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree that photorealism was indeed discussed in the RFC. But currently we have two images from the same book, using the same style (both are not photorealistic). But one image accurately reflects the written tradition (the black stone one), and the other misleads the reader about it (the first revelation). So obviously my argument has nothing to do with images being photorealistic or not. I'm more concerned about iamges that create misconceptions about the events they are meant to illustrate and contradict the text next to them. This was nowhere discussed in the RFC. Wiqi(55) 02:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the black stone image gets Muhammad's hair length wrong, according to Ali's contemporary report. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Photorealism was not discussed in the RFC, nor should it have been! Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I think I am responsible for this misunderstanding, for which I am sorry. I used the term "photorealistic" merely to condense reference to the prior RfC discussions about whether it matters how these images exactly (or not) represent things like a photo would. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
What I meant was obvious. I tend to think that images that contradict the text next to them, the same text they are meant to illustrate, are generally not useful as narrative images. But I'm not surprised by you misrepresenting what I say, as you did it multiple times in the RFC. It doesn't bother me though, per Wilde's quote:[8]. Wiqi(55) 03:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The "contradiction," if any, as with the other similar arguments made about how this or that image does not get it exactly right is what the RfC settled. In my reading on these things the first image is in the Mesopotamian/Syrian motif tradition and the second is in the Chinese motif tradition. The clear and concise composition of the second image (for an image that has to appear in thumb size) of an angel standing over a listening man and exclaiming to him, illustrates the major textual theme of Revelation in compliance with MOS:Images. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the event this image illustrates does not involve "an angel standing over a listening man". The angel only appeared in the sky, and was enormous in size. So even the simplest most general description of this image contains a major misconception about the first revelation. I also didn't understand your point about the "Mesopotamian/Syrian motif". The two images I was referring to were both part of the same artistic tradition, and both reflected contemporary settings of 14th-century Ilkhanid Mongols. Wiqi(55) 19:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
It still illustrates the textual theme of Revelation and, as was discussed, the fact that it does not do so, like someone taking a photograph of the event is of no moment. As for the art, it was an international project. The Master of the life of Muhammad, painted in the Syrian - Mesopotamian tradition, but he also had assistants, and the second image with its use of curvaceous lines for natural elements suggests Chinese motif. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
My reading is that editors are still free to discuss swapping one image for another, say. What we don't have a brief for is deciding there shouldn't be narrative images in the life section, for example. JN466 10:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Do you think it would be permissible to propose replacing a narrative image (an artist's impression of an event) containing a figurative depiction of Muhammad with an artist's impression of the same event that does not contain a figurative depiction of Muhammad? If that's the case, I'll look for such an image, but I don't want to waste my or anybody else's time searching if proposing such a swap is forbidden. This is a serious question. If anybody else reading this thinks that would breach the ArbCom result or the findings of the RfC, tell me, citing the relevant language in either or both. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I would take that discussion as a sign that you didn't understand any of the comments from the recent clarification request, and would enter an Arbcom enforcement request.—Kww(talk) 12:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the RfC absolutely leaves open the possibility of future discussions opened in good faith which are aimed at improving the article. But article improvement and good faith are both inconsistent with probing for loopholes in a binding RfC. I think the bottom line is that you don't get a second bite of the cherry until the three years is up. If you are genuinely unsure what is and isn't OK, you should enquire at ArbCom, who have taken ownership of the RfC decision, not here. Formerip (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The wording of the RfC closers is here:
After closely examining the arguments put forth in each section, we have concluded that the status quo of the Muhammad article should largely be retained. For proposal 1, we found there to be no consensus to put any type of hatnote in the article. In the discussion of question 2, we found that there was the strongest consensus to put a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox. With regards to the placement of other figurative images, we found that the current status quo -- of using figurative images of the highest encyclopedic value to illustrate important events in the subject’s life -- had the most support. This was accompanied by a general sentiment that figurative images were not necessary before the “Life” section, but would certainly be necessary after that point. However, editors should remember that calligraphic representations are the most common, and should not add images, especially figurative ones, without a clear encyclopedic reason to do so. Furthermore, there was a clear consensus to avoid any quota of figurative or calligraphic image, and to let the text of the article dictate the images used. There was no consensus for how the principle of least astonishment should apply to Muhammad.
So the article will definitely contain some figurative images in the Life section, although the number is not fixed. Obviously any swap diminishing the number of figurative images would be subject to editor consensus, and achieving that in the present climate would require a particularly compelling case. JN466 20:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
(Apologise about my spelling and grammar) I have been a great fan of wikipedia but I have seen a couple of problems like the Prophet mohamed images. I have read some of the faq about censorship. Just because (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored) that doesn't mean it to offend it's users. As wikipedia needs new users from a variety of background to keep it a neutral.
My suggestion is it possibe to hide some of this images by using ( (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Summer_Olympics) The sponsors table ). Therefore if you want to see it you will be able to press the show button.
There are two meanings of the word offending that are actually quite different. On the one hand I can offend you in the meaning I say something that is intended to hurt you. This kind of behavior should have no place in wiki. On the other hand you can be offended by something that I am saying. It is sad but this can not always be avoided.
First please realize that the pictures itself are not offensive at all. If i would say to you this pictures are showing Tom, you would not get the idea that the aim of the pictures is to insult Tom. If the aim would have been to insult muslims one could have done much much worse. Furthermore you can configure your browser to hide the pictures so you do no have to see them when you read the article and the Faq tells you how. Nobody forces you to see this.
You are only offended because islamic laws as you understand them forbid to make pictures of Mohamed. But you can not expect non-muslims all over the world to follow islamic law.
Finally this wiki is written from NPOV . And this implies that the Mohamed article does not get any kind of special treatment. So if the pictures in this article would be hidden they would need to be hidden in all articles about historical persons. Do you thing this would improve wiki?
194.95.184.58 (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What if God is just testing believers? 1. inventing some rules for mankind 2. find out who will follow which of them and 3. watch and judge how people try to overcome their arguments and misunderstandings....
If they get aggressive about some pictures NOT picturing the prophet, only showing the imperfect "impression" of the painters, and otherwise forget the wisdom of qu'ran in their life?
Some pixels in the web never uncover the truth about a prophet...
it could be more nice of wikipedia to develope different sites:
Life and work of Muhammad according to qu'ran, Sunna, historical research... and only a LINK where nobody sensitive feeling person MUST click on: "art and historical paintings about the prophet" including a warning, that it is NOT the prophet, only "reenacted" scenes made by artists who interpreted qu'ran in their own way.
BTW: If it is true that nobody shall use pictures to describe what he thinks and what he feels nobody shall interprete words of the qu'ran with his own words, nobody shall judge other people in his own law or due to his power or follow any contemporary person - only follow and recite words in his mind only with God's help to find out their meaning without any external influence or force - neither by parents nor teachers nor relegious masters- without the picture of anybody else. Because words and interpretations are also kind of "pictures" which influence peoples mind and give Muslims a "nice" view of the prophet an some "Anti-Muslims" a very bad view. Would it change, if nobody tries to rule other people in his name or in the name of others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.2.81.181 (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 1 September 2012
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I Want to remove the depiction of Prophet Muhammmed. Please don't post any depiction of Prophet Muhammed. It's definitely against to Islam.
Abdulcader83 (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Not done Wikipedia understands that images of Muhammad may offend Muslims. However, Wikipedia is not censored, and does not change its content to benefit any one single group. The community has decided that images of historical figures is encyclopedic, which is the main and only purpose of this project. For more information, please readTalk:Muhammad/FAQ. Singularity42 (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 9 September 2012
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please remove all pictures depicting Muhammand.
59.97.240.187 (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is not censored to suit any particular religious or political view. For more information, please readTalk:Muhammad/FAQJeppiz (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Not done: Sorry, no. Consensus is clear not to remove all pictures depicting Muhammad. Rivertorch (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Pictures of Muhammad
As I was reading the article, I was troubled to notice that there are six images of Muhammad. I am a very visual person who usually has an easier time digesting information when displayed in graphical form, and for me and others like me, it would be very helpful if the authors could add several more images of Muhammad to assist me in visualizing his life and historical importance. Particularly, I noticed that Muhammad's veiled appearance in one of the pictures completely deprives the reader of the facial cues that are so important to communication in our species. I would appreciate more images where Muhammad's unobstructed face is fully visible, preferably with front, profile, and three-quarter poses, so that readers who learn as I do are better able to build a mental visual construct. Thanks.173.166.110.9 (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I find it hard to take this request seriously, but.... unfortunately, recent discussions have determined that six...the present six...are just right. None should be deleted, and right now no more should be added. Tarc (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Nicely put, 173.166.110.9. That summarises the only benefit images of Muhammad bring to this article. In my opinion, that merit is outweighed by the disaffection such images cause in a large part of our readership. As soon as Wikipedia has a functional image filter for people who want to avoid images of Muhammad, I'll be advocating strongly for the inclusion of more images, though. I think two images in particular would improve the article significantly by illustrating the shift in Western attitudes over time:
an insulting medieval European cartoon of Muhammad (of which there are numerous)
Muhammad on the frieze around the Supreme Court of the United States building.
I imagine you can appreciate the value of such images in conveying that important information in a way that words alone can't. The present situation, with no personal image filter, where we expressly exclude those images from the article so as not to offend Muslims, is resulting in a poorer article. Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
There are a pretty tiny (but much photographed) number of medieval European images (none AFAIK accurately described as cartoons in either the older or modern senses), while the Supreme Court figure, extra offensive to Muslims because it is a large statue, is all but unique in Western art, and therefore hard to describe as representative of anything much. We have been through all this before. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
To be clear, I meant "caricature". I won't address the rest of your comment because you bullied and insulted me a while back and haven't apologised. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Johnbod: "extra offensive to Muslims because it is a large statue" -- Do you have a source for this? I tend to think that the SCOTUS figure is more notable given the importance of the building and also used in a reliable source (The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad). The "caricature" talk also reminds me of Siyer-i-Nebi, which all information I have suggests that it was a children book. A recent study[9] in Turkish also listed this book in a section that roughly translates to "The development of illustrated children books". The use of borderline children books to illustrate short sections about important historical figures/events is rather unencyclopedic. This should explain some of the "cartoons" comments found recently in the "reader feedback". Wiqi(55) 21:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Remove the Picture of Muhammad (Sallaho Waslam)
Pls remove the picture of Muhammad (Sallaho Waslam)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zattari26 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Not done Wikipedia understands that images of Muhammad may offend Muslims. However, Wikipedia is not censored, and does not change its content to benefit any one single group. The community has decided that images of historical figures is encyclopedic, which is the main and only purpose of this project. For more information, please readTalk:Muhammad/FAQ. And yes I shamelessly copied Singular's eloquent post from above. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Remove depictions of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him from wikipedia
Images cannot be removed per WP:CENSOR policy, but we will not engage with editors who call other editors "terrorists" regardless of that, sorry. Tarc (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have read requests for removing the depictions of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and their answers as well.
there was written that Wikipedia is not for the particular group therefore for the particular group the depictions of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him can not be removed. so the answer is that we, Muslims, are not a particular group. Islam is one the greatest religion of the world and the followers of Islam are in great numbers and its' followers are increasing day by day. therefore by using these depictions of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him Wikipedia is hurting all the Muslims. And I think to hurt any one is morally and legally the wrong thing to do.
Secondly, It is the common thought of generally non-Muslims that Muslims are terrorists. I think that people who do these types of things (i.e. depiction of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him images and burning of the Holy Qur'an) are real terrorists). Since if you throw the stone even on dog it will bark on you. Same as they are hurting the Muslims and obviously Muslim will react.
Thirdly, if I or any one else, belongs to the Muslim society, may say any thing bad regarding any other religion (i.e. Christianity or Hinduism). It will be the bad act. And Christians or Hindus may hurt by it as well. Also, Islam prohibits to say any thing bad about any others' religion. Therefore, any one should not talk about any one's religion.
So, please plz plz plz plz, it is humble request to remove depictions of our beloved Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farman09876 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
A picture hurts you? Disobeying the rules of your religion is not an attack on your religion. If a non-Muslim drinks alcohol, is that an attack on Islam? thx1138 (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
There are people who follow the Muslim religion, a subset of those are offended by the images, and you self-identify as a member of that particular group. I'm offended by ... it does not matter. Wikipedia puts up images of those things too, sometimes. It is not that your complaint is not heard or not understood; it is that not offending people is not what we are trying to do. htom (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
It is against the faith of Muslim to make and show pictures about Holy Prophet Muhammad Peace Be upon him. in article these pics should be cut. Regards: Abdul Razzaq Qadri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.166.165.70 (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
No one cares what your faith says. Last time I checked this is an informational source, not something to cow tow to a specific religious group. Deal with it or don't go on Wikipedia anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SChaos1701 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Read the FAQ; just because you believe something doesn't mean we have to or should cater to it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
This comes up roughly every week give or take. I think these threads should be removed to the Image talk page, and a message left directing them there or something. (Seriously, Muslims display such outrage over these images, and recently one particularly crappy "film" - yet whenever some 4-year-old girl is shot to death or a Buddhist couple are ambushed and murdered in the name of Allah, we never hear a peep out of these outraged Muslims...maybe we should add that to the top of the page as a little shock-tactic!? :P) --Τασουλα (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I am guessing that was just a bit of sarcasm but we don't use wikipedia to make a point either. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Those incidents actually happened. So no, it was not. And it's absolutely true about what they say. --Τασουλα (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Remove picture of Muhammad (Sallaho Wasalm)
You Ediots Remove the Picture of Muhammad (Sallaho Wasalam)--Zattari26 (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is strong consensus to retain the images currently in the article. For more information, please follow the links in the information boxes at the top of this page. Rivertorch (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Zattari26. If depictions of Muhammad offend you, you should set your browser to not display them. You can read how to do it here. You can also block the article so that you cannot view the page about Muhammad from your browser. There are many actions that you can perform in order to prevent from seeing something that can offend you. I for instance am offended by seeing pictures like a photo depicting Polish civilians murdered by German SS troops, however what I do is I try to not visit articles or websites where this photo could be displayed - I recommend that you try to do the same. BeŻet (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
So Muslims, most of whom are offended by images of Muhammad, and insulted by their gratuitous display, should just avoid the article, Muhammad? Perfect. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
In a word, yes.
If you were insulted by images of pornography, but had an interested in the intellectual discussions of the subject, would you think it is reasonable to expect you could click on an article with that title and not see an image? That would be an unbelievably naive assumption. I think the principle of least astonishment applies here. If you were a Muslim, in a Muslim country, visiting a mosque where you know that prohibition is honored, and saw a book on a table with the title Mohammed, you would be astonished to find an image of Mohammed in the book. Understandably. But if you go onto the internet, to look at a site not controlled by Muslims, you shouldn't be surprised that there might be an image. If you truly cannot abide to see such images, you should avoid places they might exist.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm just making the point that the vast majority of Muslims will be offended by the images here, and insulted too by the pure gratuitousness of most of them, so our present policy means most Muslims won't read the article. Regardless of the ideological correctness of this article's images, they tell the reader nothing about the life of Muhammad, and alienate a lot of readers. They're a political/ideological/bigoted statement. I object to Wikipedia being used in this way. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
You have been whining about it for a year now. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by whining all the more. Resolute 19:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Do you plan to scratch this particular itch every 3-4 months or so? IIRC, you skated into the ballpark (or rink, to be analogy-consistent) of a topic ban following an Arb Clarification discussion this past summer. Tarc (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Any organization has the right to impose rules on its own membership. This is different, as an organization seeks to impose rules on non-members. Are you unable to imagine the slippery slope problem?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
No plans Tarc. They came nowhere near topic banning me. And it was mid-winter. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Can I just say I really like the term "ediots"? I may have to use that at some point.—Chowbok☠ 17:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I really really hope it was intentional.... DeCausa (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Megadittos. 'Ediots' needs to become common parlance. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
What's it mean, though? A portmanteau of "editor idiots" is my best guess. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The Islamic Ban on Depictions of Muhammad
I feel a new section should be created explain the ban on depictions of Muhammad. Citing sources in the Koran that forbid it and how depictions have been protested in by some Muslims recently and in the past. I think such a section would be warranted. Any thoughts on this?SarnXero (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
The Koran doesn't forbid such depictions, although it is a common myth.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually the Qur'an does prohibit spreading misinformation about the Prophets. FWIW, I've seen editors repeat misconceptions about events in early Islam based on looking at these images. In any case, misinformation is not just an Islamic concern, but also a secular one, especially in the context of writing an encyclopedia. Wiqi(55) 19:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
An artist's conception about what someone might have looked like is not misinformation. If an editor repeats a misconception, the problem is with the editor not the image.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the point may be that as all images of M. are by necessity not based on his actual appearance but the artists imagination they are inevitably "misinformation" and therefore forbidden by the Qu'ran. DeCausa (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
It might have been the point, but if so, it's rather strained. There are artist's conceptions of all kinds of fictional creatures, such as mermaids and Zorro. There are artist's conceptions of all kinds of things which were never photographed or painted contemporaneously, such as God, Jesus, neanderthals, Adam, cro-magnon man, and many others. There are artist's conceptions gracing the covers of works of fiction. There are paintings by impressionists and other schools of art that do not purport to be faithful representations of the subject. We don't tag these as misinformation. Yet all of this misses the point. Even if any of this is misinformation according tot he Koran, the rules of the Koran are binding on adherents, not others. Suppose I formed a group whose by-laws prohibited the use of the 17th letter of the alphabet, and I insisted that these rules are not just binding on us, but on you as well. How would you feel if I pointed out you violated our rules and you must suffer the punishment?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
That's a different issue. Wiqi55's & my post was responding to your statement "The Koran doesn't forbid such depictions, although it is a common myth." DeCausa (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
To which I pointed out, inter alia, that calling an artist's depiction of Mohammed "misinformation" is not valid. If your argument were valid, there would be riots everyday over any artist's rendition of any object that is not a faithful reproduction. That isn't happening, therefore your strained theory isn't holding water.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a cultural difference here; Western culture has long got used to the idea of the idealized or stylised "artist's impression" in the general culture (since several centuries BC), and when some Christians have objected to images of Christ and other religious figures, the argument that the images aren't "accurate" has only been a subsidiary one thrown in, not the main thrust of the objections. Not so in Islam, or Sunni Islam anyway, where this is still regarded as an important argument. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The accuracy argument is still regarded as important in Shia Islam as well. Last year, AyatullahAli al-Sistani issued a fatwa banning the Arab TV series Hasan and Husayn (grandsons of Prophet Muhammad).[10] According to the fatwa, some of the historical information shown were not inline with Shi'a theology or beliefs. Wiqi(55) 17:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick, you've completely missed the point. I'm not claiming this as any sort of grounds for not showing the images. "If your argument were valid" and "your strained theory" are entirely redundant phrases. Wiqi55 was pointing out the Qu'ranic interpretation that Muslims might use to justify banning images of Muhammad. This was simply in response to your assertion that it was a myth that the Qu'ran "forbid[s] such depictions". And now you seem to have gone off on one as though I was arguing that we must obey this interpretation of the Qu'ran. Bizarre. Have a cup of tea and relax. DeCausa (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
It is a myth that the Koran bans depictions of Mohammed. Do you disagree? I don't see how the opening sentence could be interpreted any other way than implying that there is such a ban. Unless you make the extremely tortured argument that the first sentence reference to " ban on depictions of Muhammad" is entirely unrelated to the second sentence "Citing sources in the Koran that forbid it". If you think I missed the point, what do you think IS the point of the opening sentences?
Question 1: Do you think it is accurate to state that the Koran forbids depictions of Muhammad" If so, would you be so kind as to cite the verse?
Question 2: Do you think the proscriptions in the Hadith against depictions of any living beings, human or animal are honored by all Muslims? If so, can you explain why Islamic sources include images of humans?
Question 3: Do you think any proscriptions in the Koran or Hadith apply to non-Muslims?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Q1: If you mean in the literal text, the answer is 'no'. If you mean as Muslim Qu'ranic Scholars interpret it by Fiqh, Qiyas and other methods of interpretation etc etc, then I don't know, but Wiqi55 puts forward a plausible explanation that that may be the case.
Q3: No - as the existence of the images created by Muslims in the article illustrate.
Q3: No.
Anything else? Oh, and as for "If you think I missed the point, what do you think IS the point of the opening sentences?" I don't know - you'll have to ask the editor who posted it. It's got nothing to do with what I posted. DeCausa (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the explanation by Wiqi55 as plausible, for reasons I've stated. It looked to me like you bought into it, so I disagreed. If I misunderstood you, I apologize, but the notion that Wikipedia must not have images comes up almost every day, usually based upon misinformation. Given that people die as a result of this misinformation, I think it is helpful to quash the misinformation.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think what you've done is failed to AGF, jumped to conclusions and generally failed to think about and properly read what actually was posted. I'm thoroughly bored with this thread and won't be posting in it again. DeCausa (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, try to think of it in more general terms. If most primary/secondary sources state A and you have an image that conveys B, then the right thing to do is to give more weight and space to A. Instead, if you give more space to B that would "misinform" the reader (i.e., she will be thinking B instead of A). Also, a work of art is not created in a vacuum. These artists were not neutral but they were "situated" within certain ideologies and beliefs. According to a number of reliable sources, some of these illustrations carry polemical themes or were intended for propaganda purposes. I hope this explains my usage of "misinformation". Wiqi(55) 17:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe anything I have said can be construed to be supportive of the use of images to further polemical themes (with the obvious exception of an article about such themes). If you are simply trying to argue that an image can be misinformation, well, of course. As can photos, videos, speech and words. If you simply wanted to oppose misinformation, count me in, but we don't need the Koran to support that position. Are you opposed to all images, or just those which spread misinformation? User:DeCausa speculates you mean "all images of M. are ... 'misinformation' ". Is that your position, or was that an unfair summarization?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Disinfoboxes are prohibited by Wikipedia
As was stated by User:Wetman
A box aggressively attracts the marginally literate
eye with apparent promises to contain a reductive
summary of information; not all information can be
so neatly contained. Like a bulleted list, or a time-
line that substitutes for genuine history, it offers
a competitive counter-article, stripped of nuance.
As a substitute for accuracy and complexity, a box
trumps all discourse.
—courtesy of User:Wetman
The use of calligraphy to represent Muhammad in the infobox trumps the balance of the article. If the calligraphic symbols have any informational value it should be placed, ir at all, outside the infobox. QuintBy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Please do us all the courtesy of reviewing the prior extensive discussions we have had on this topic. You are also welcome to present an argument grounded in policy, rather than making bare assertions and quoting random other user opinions. If you have anything new to add to past discussions, by all means present your arguments.
The gist of past discussion was: An infobox image should be a common representation of the topic, and the most common representation of Muhammad is calligraphic. If you can demonstrate otherwise, please do so. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you exercise courtesy yourself by familiarizing yourself with the rules which bar disinfoboxes. The consensus was reached regarding the image not its propriety for inclusion within the infobox. Consequently it was not decided upon by ArbCom. Next time come prepared before you do a revert. The quote was not "random" - it is the centerpiece of WP policy regarding disinfoboxes. Or have you even heard of disinfoboxes, amaatulic? And spare me the "uh, no" disrespect, which is not in good faith. QuintBy (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
No, QuintBy, it is you who should familiarize yourself with the various discussions. The RfC mentioned in the above discussion thread (from four months ago, involving the entire community) specifically asked at Question 2: Question 2: What image should appear in the infobox?. The consensus was a caligriphic representation of Muhummad's name as the most widely used image to represent Muhummad. Singularity42 (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
(ec} Also, there is no policy regarding Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes, only somebody's essay. And it doesn't seem to apply to the infobox here, anyway. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention that the argument that the use of this image makes this is a so-called "disinfobox" simply because QuintBy says so is unconvincing, to say the least. Resolute 13:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
And speaking of "coming prepared", QuintBy. I have been here for over seven years, and I never heard of the term "disinfobox" used until you brought it up. However, I am conversant in the difference between an essay and policy. I trust you are also? Additionally, despite your edit summary, yes, consensus can change policy. Policy itself is formed via consensus. So please, do present your case, but do not presume to lecture anyone else on what policy is or how it works. Resolute 13:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The current image of Muhammad is stylized...
As Rivertorch has advised me on his Talk page, I fumbled my effort to comply with the consensus that while Muhammad's image cannot be censored, no depiction of Muhammed can be added without discussion of the addition. The current image in place is the image which appeared when I logged onto the Muhammad article. In my view it was plainly an attempt to circumvent both the spirit and the letter of our editors' consensus regarding censorship. Plainly, it is not a picture of Muhammed at all but simply a bit of stylized Arabic writing. Considering that there was no discussion of this image as consensus requires, I would have reverted that image but for the fact that it would leave behind no depiction of Muhammad's visage thus making me complicit in the ongoing censorship. Consequently I located a depiction of Muhammad in Wiki Commons, deleted what was at best an undiscussed stand-in for an actual image of Muhammad, and replaced it with the image of the visage of Muhammed which I located.
Subsequently, my edit was vandalized, leaving no image of Muhammad nor even any indication that there had been one on this discussion page. That vandalism was noted by Rivertorch, but instead of reverting the vandalism back to my edit, Rivertorch reverted both the vandalism as well as my edit. The explanation I was provided by Rivertorch was that I had acted in violation of consensus, although exactly how I was not advised. Although my edit to include an image of Muhammad was not accompanied by discussion, neither was the image which Rivertorch reverted my edit back to. I oppose continued use of the current image of Muhammad which appears on the first page because it was and is an attempt to subvert consensus that images of the visage of Muhammad are not to be censored. It is in essence, a sham image of Muhammad, and as such is not in good faith. QuintBy (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
That's been my feeling for quite a while as well JOJHutton 19:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that you do not appear to understand what "vandalism" is, the "bit of stylized Arabic writing" was discussed and agreed by consensus some time ago. Why don't you try reviewing the archive before launching into this. Calligraphic representation is the main visual representation of Muhammad. To remove it would mean that the predominant form of visual representation is not present in the article. DeCausa (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
DeCausa, if indeed calligraphy is the "main visual representation of Muhammad", it is obviously because those who refer to Muhammad most often are those whose religion prohibits them from showing his visage. As such it is POV, one that is specifically rejected by a consensus of editors who determined that to omit a visual depiction of Muhammad's visage solely because it is a visual depiction of Muhammad's visage is censorship, pure and simple. I do not accept your assertion, without reference, that there has been a consensus that calligraphy is the equivalent of a a facial image and, presumably, also a consensus that calligraphy is the ONLY acceptable way to depict Muhammad. I invite you to refer me to a statement of that consensus as I am unable to locate one. But if there is such consensus then I would propose that Wikipedia revisit its consensus barring censorship of Muhammad's image because, as a practical matter, censorship is indeed the current practice of Wikipedia and it would not be in good faith for all concerned to make any further representations to the contrary. By the way, the designation of what occurred to my edit as vandalism was not mine it was Rivertorch's. QuintBy (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Despite the fact that you are completely correct, QuintBy, there's no use fighting it. Too many people felt that being polite was more important than being reasonable, and the images we have are a result of that. There's nothing you can do to change that, and trying to do so will undoubtedly blow up in your face.—Kww(talk) 20:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
@QuintBy, you've said nothing new or original. The archive is packed full of it - ad nauseam. If you can't be bothered to look, I can't be bothered to do it for you. I;m certainly not going to get involved further in it. DeCausa (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Same here. QuintBy, I linked to the RfC in my reply to you on my talk page. I'll make a further response there, but I have no wish to get involved in a prolonged discussion about a historically contentious issue on which consensus has been sought and attained. The discussion in the RfC was vigorous and ultimately productive. Was the result 100 percent to anyone's liking? Probably not. It's called compromise, and it keeps the world from falling into utter chaos. Rivertorch (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Quintby. It's a done deal for about three years more (actually, I am not sorry that it's done, but I am sorry if you have difficulty abiding it). Others who feel completely opposite from you, do too, no doubt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with at least taking a new straw poll on the issue. If it comes out that we continue the status quo, that's fine, but perhaps we can form a new consensus on the issue. JOJHutton 00:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
No, this is a settled issue. Just as we're not removing any images jsut because someone is offended by them, we're not adding images to pointedly spite those who are offended. Tarc (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
It is settled and it is part of an Arbcom remedy, so it cannot be undone here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Please humor me and link that Arbcom decision. I would think that it would have been linked somewhere on the two talk pages already. JOJHutton 00:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
More accurately, it is settled by the RFC that Rivertorch mentioned. And speaking as another person caught up in that mess, I agree with my peers. We've hashed the hell out of the images on this article. Leave it be. Resolute 00:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Read through the RFC. Looked very long. Although I wouldn't say that it was as clear and supportive for the calligraphy as the arbcom made it sound. Looked to me that the two main choices were, "unveiled image" or the calligraphy. I would like to see, rather than asking a "support" or "oppose" for each separately, but a straight up vote for which ever one is most preferred.--JOJHutton 01:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)--JOJHutton 01:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
So, based upon what has been stated above, is it that 3 years is too short of a time to even consider reversing an Arbcom (the jargon used on this website seems to know no bounds) r is it that Arbcom settles the question for all time once it has spoken, Mighty Oz-style? Because if it is the latter then it makes for some interesting scenarios had Wikipedia existed under such autocratic rules over the last few centuries. For example had Arbcom in the early 19th century taken up the issue of what causes infection in hospitals and determined what had been the prevailing view at the time - that it was caused by "bad air" - I suppose it would still read that today as well. Had Phrenology been dealt with by Arbcom in the 19th century and that group had determined that it was not POV to state that the shape and dimensions of human heads determined the personality and propensities of humans, Wikipedia would continue to so state today. It is amusing t read f people who say that they've 'been through this" once before and do not have the urge to go through it all over again. It is when those people who shaped the viewpoint of Arbcom on a subject are too weary to go thrugh an issue again that it is time for the issue to to be revisited by people, different people, operating from the perspective of 2012 not the perspective f the ancient history of 2009.QuintBy (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Where are you seeing 2009? All of this came about following Arbitration and a community-wide Request for Comment this past Winter/Spring 2012. Tarc (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why the opinions of admins are particularly relevant.71.203.186.4 (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
They aren't particularly more relevant than non-admin comments when the RfC has participation from similarly experienced Wikipedians. Generally admins are admins because they have been recognized by the community as having significant experience and knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Other than that, admins are regular editors with a few extra tools available to them. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Not really. I can't see this section has brought anything to the argiument except ignorance of what has gone before, and lack of awareness of the issues, both in terms of real-life history and attitudes and also WP policies, that were gone into exhaustively over a long period in the pages linked and mentioned above. That's no basis for re-opening the matter. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Main Info Box
Hi, shouldn't the main info box have a picture of him? Every biography that I've ever visited on Wikipedia has a photo/painting/illustration/what-have-you of the subject in the info box. I've never seen a bio whose info box had a "common calligraphic representation" of the subject's name. That's just silly!--74.195.62.27 (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
It does have a picture of him. This has been discussed to death; please check the talk page archives. We use the most common representation of the subject, and that happens to be a calligraphic representation. ~Amatulić (talk)23:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
In place of present calligraphic representation if we have a photo of his mausoleum in the place, will represent Muhammad in better way and will have some value addition in content as well as look. Hope we will have consent on this change.
Md iet, could you please explain why you think a picture of a building is a better representation than a picture of the calligraphy? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Qwyrxian for the interest shown. Calligraphy is a piece of art just repeating the name really not giving any value addition to the topic. The picture suggested is not a just building but depicting real history an event of Mohammed life can definitely represent him and give some value addition to the topic and info box. --Md iet (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Any further suggestions are welcome to go ahead please.--Md iet (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
No, don't go ahead. The exterior of the building, as in the picture, is much, much later. The matter has been endlessly discussed & I don't think the building (not much discussed before) will replace the calligraphy. Johnbod (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
What Johnbod said. There are definitely different opinions on what type of image should go into the infobox, and, as linked at the top of this talkpage, the issue was put to a massive community discussion recently (See Question 2). The decision's been made that calligraphy is the proper image for the infobox, so there's no use in bringing it up again, at least not for a year or two. --Elonka 06:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree, although I must say that's a good picture of the mausoleum. I believe it belongs somewhere in the article, but not the infobox. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Do you like it better than the panorama currently in the Muhammad#Death and tomb section? Personally, I like the smaller picture better, but that's really a personal thing since I don't generally like panoramas and I don't like the way this one breaks up the page. But the panorama does contain more information. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, agreed for no inclusion this time in info box. Suggestion to include this picture else is wirth appreciating. I also feel that present panorama picture at Muhammad#Death and tomb is a general picture, more information is not require here, this picture already present in Al-Masjid al-Nabawi and it suits better there. If we all agree, the new picture can be used here in the place to represent the section better.--Md iet (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
"Do I like it better?" I have mixed feelings. On one hand, the section is called "Death and tomb". The tomb in the panorama is an insignificant feature, whereas the picture above shows it in better detail. And I also don't like the way the panorama splits the article apart. On the other hand, the panorama shows the expanse of the plaza around the tomb, which is useful for the reader to get a sense of perspective about the general area. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Your first hand is very important here, as it is most related with subject topic and for panorama view reader can always move to Al-Masjid al-Nabawi if they really want to have a sense of perspective about the general area.--Md iet (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Just a heads up here, while I like both the panoramic photo and the "new" photo of the building that you're discussing here, the way in which they've been inserted into the article itself does not create a visually-pleasing graphical layout and I'm wondering if you might not wish to spend some more time working on this? There's a lot of unused white space now, both under the Mausoleum shot and to the right of the panoramic... joepaT 17:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the present arrangement is less than good. Both photos are lovely. If it's not possible to host both images without making the page look bad, we should host only one (not bothered which). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Why is there no picture in the infobox?
Why is there no image of Muhammad in the infobox, but instead a depiction of his NAME?Seriously? There should be a clear image of Muhammad in the infobox, not a depiction of his name which adds no value to Wikipedia - anyone using basic translation software will be able to get Muhammad's name in Arabic. There really must be an image of Muhammad in the infobox. Whoop whoop pull upBitching Betty | Averted crashes 19:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Did you read the thread earlier on this page entitled The current image of Muhammad is stylized...? DeCausa (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Why do people have the saddening desire to censor Wikipedia just because such-and-such minority complains? Wikipedia should be run by consensus, but here, it isn't - a small group of editors seem to have possessed the rest of the community, turning them into pro-censorship zombies. Whoop whoop pull upBitching Betty | Averted crashes 20:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding "the consensus" of three years ago, as with every consensus any group reaches, its validity depends wholly upon whether those involved in hammering out the consensus are representative of the group as a whole. Pardon me for interjecting some common sense into this discussion, but I seriously doubt that if all editors of the English-speaking Wikipedia were polled that their votes would have been in support of the consensus reached - that stylized Arabic characters constitute an image of the visage of Muhammad. QuintBy (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The consensus governing the status quo was reached not three years but four months ago. Rivertorch (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
As Rivertorch says above. In addition, the RfC, being one sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee, was heavily advertised, with mentions on the Watchlist notices, on various admin noticeboards, and in the Signpost. Given both that, and the fact that it was only four months ago, makes it clear that it is very representative of the consensus reached by the entire Wikipedia community. Singularity42 (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
"Why do people have the saddening desire to censor Wikipedia just because such-and-such minority complains?"
Anti-censorship atheist here. I quite like the calligraphy in the infobox, because it illustrates the most common means of representing the subject. Visual illustrations also exist, and excluding them from Wikipedia for the sake of a religious injunction would be unacceptable, but the calligraphic representation immediately grounds the subject in his own context, which is what the infobox illustration should seek to do. We have to resist censorship of images that some groups would like to suppress, but that doesn't mean we're required to put those images in every place they could possibly go. I think the calligraphy is the superior choice for this place.Elmo iscariot (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I personally think one of the Jyllands-Posten images should be the main image for muhammad. I wasn't aware that some wikipedia users were such censorship fetishists. And to quote Glenn Greenwald, "Nothing tests one's intellectual honesty and ability to apply principles consistently more than free speech controversies. It is exceedingly easy to invoke free speech values in defense of political views you like. It is exceedingly difficult to invoke them in defense of views you loathe. But the true test for determining the authenticity of one's belief in free speech is whether one does the latter, not the former." When he wrote that this past Fall, he was ironically decrying the censorship practiced AGAINST the Muslim: "Conservatives, Democrats and the convenience of denouncing free speech - Westerners love to decry censorship aimed at them by Muslims while ignoring the extreme censorship they impose on them"...
"Given both that, and the fact that it was only four months ago, makes it clear that it is very representative of the consensus reached by the entire Wikipedia community."
In response to the statement above, I personally was not invited to participate in the discussion, nor even made aware of it - four months ago - so my voice was not heard, my vote was not counted, and your "consensus" is a false, arbitrary one. joepaT 17:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Everyone was in fact invited. Your comment suggests unawareness of the depth and breadth of that discussion. For further information on Images Arbitration and Community consensus, see Arbitration remedy and appended Community discussionAlanscottwalker (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
It's very, very disappointing to see wikipedia censor itself for the whims of a particular religion. Jesus, Buddha, ect, all have visual depictions. Neutral encylopedia indeed. 71.95.66.59 (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
What censorship?? The article has a number of images of Muhammad. The policy for the actual Infobox image is the most common depection of the subject. Ultimately, an image of Muhammad is not the most common depection (which is for obvious reasons). But nothing has been censored from this article. If you still have questions about this issue, please read the very extensive RFC discussion from earlier in 2012. Singularity42 (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Existing image 1
Existing image 2
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Alt 5
.jpg)
Facepalm I'm going to put this very clearly and succinctly for you. Elonka solicited us to provide a summary of our positions. I did so. Ludwigs stated "I can summarize the basic positions that have been offered". Elonka replied "Well, let's let everyone speak for themselves?" I am affirming my support for that opinion of Elonka's. Does that explain the matter to your satisfaction? Tarc (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done Wikipedia understands that images of Muhammad may offend Muslims. However, Wikipedia is not censored, and does not change its content to benefit any one single group. The community has decided that images of historical figures is encyclopedic, which is the main and only purpose of this project. For more information, please readTalk:Muhammad/FAQ. Singularity42 (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Not done: Sorry, no. Consensus is clear not to remove all pictures depicting Muhammad. Rivertorch (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
![[6]](http://www.devon.gov.uk/print/documents-www5.jpg?url=etched/ixroot/default/db/medium/1637ral1.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mohammed_receiving_revelation_from_the_angel_Gabriel.jpg){kind=link}
