Jump to content

Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Come on guys

First of all I am a muslim. These pictures were drawn by Muslims, and are not depicting our prophet in a bad way. Save your protesting to something that is really offensive. And keep this in mind, we cannot control the world, in other words "The whole world doesnt follow the Islamic Shariia". Plus, you are making the whole Islamic world look as freedom suppressors. These pictures are little things that are here to stay, and the more you fight it, the more the whole world fights for keeping it. We should not make a problem for everything, I mean pick your fights, not just go fighting everything. This doesn’t make all of us look good.
Remember the whole Denmark issue, at first there were about 12 cartoons of Muhammad that were a little offensive...but then after the people rioted, burned flags, attacked embassies, threatened to kill the cartoonists.. another bunch of really offensive cartoons were made in response to the over reaction...so probably the over reaction made everything worse, not to mention our image... So take a second to relax, and think what you are doing will probably lead to...look at the bigger picture. I hope nobody gets offended by what I said. Regards, Abdallah (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I AGREE I agree with Abdullah!! The pictures are not offensive!! So Muslims please keep Calm.
Moreover, to Non Muslims, these pictures are not important for this article , so avoid wasting time on a stupid discussion and dont make such minor things a big issue!!!
Relax every one Naeem1986 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes they are. This is an encyclopedia. Encyclopaedic biographical articles contain relevant depictions of the subject of the article in the lead. That's all these images are: relevant historical artistic depictions. Leaving them out would reduce the educational value of the article because of the removal of relevant information. It's that simple.-MasonicDevice (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You know what I am feeling is that no one wants to quit this discussion!! Biographical articles contain depiction of the subject but here we are facing a different issue !! Now this issue is not about teaching of Muhammad nor the about the dignity of encyclopaedia but unfortunately all of us have become Stubborn both the groups have made it an issue of their personal ego!! Sorry to say so but to all my fellow editors (both Muslims and Non-Muslims) you are nor helping Islam nor Wikipedia but disgracing both by prolonging this discussion!!!Naeem1986 (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps if the "removed the images" crew stopped coming to WP, then wikipedians would be able to stop explaining their refusal to remove them. This does help wikipedia as it explains WP:NOT to the newcomers. If they choose to stick around, and abide by it, they may yet become useful members of the community. - MasonicDevice (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


Mason can you please concentrate or try to understand what I am saying over here is to leave the disputes !! And lets make this place a better place to live together!! Come'on people act as a human being and serve humanity together!!! Stop blaming others why he said remove pics or why he said no censorship !! Please people stop this stupid issue!! Believe me you can do alot of creative work instead of wasting time on images or no images discussion!! Naeem1986 (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't quite know what you're saying. I'm saying the paintings and tapestries are relevant and add to the article. What are you saying? -MasonicDevice (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image in Biography

It appears (under firefox at least) that the image on the left hand side of the Biography / Beginnings of th Qu'ran is partly covering the text right above it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.206.143 (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine here with the same. Jmlk17 21:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice any problem with text and image clashing. The recent edits by Allstarecho seem to have unbalanced things. What version of Firefox were you using? What version of what operating system do you use? Frotz (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I see now how to reproduce the error: adjust the width of the browser window. I've reported this problem to the wikipedia bugzilla. I've seen this problem in several other places, which I now forget. Frotz (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability in the context of Muhammad article

Having read the FAQ, and incidentally not being a Moslem, it seems to me that there is a real question whether the images are very notable in this particular context. If you were to go through all of the notable articles on Mohammad in the world, how many of them would include these kinds of images? Really rather few in percentage terms.

While I'm certainly not suggesting and would never agree that these images be removed from the wikipedia, I would suggest that they needn't necessarily be in this particular article, and that linking to the particular article where they would be would be likely to be rather acceptable, both in terms of encyclopedic scope of the wikipedia, notability as well as, usefully, not being offensive to some significant fraction of the world, and without any sense that we are censoring anything, since clearly the images would still be easily accessible, just a click away.

To bring this into a Christian context, some people believe that Jesus Christ may be illegitimate and not a son of God in the physical sense. I note that this point of view is 'strangely' absent from that particular article. I would suggest that the people at that page don't consider it notable enough to be placed there, even though a lot of people and many notable sources express this view, and similarly, it seems likely that these images are not truly notable enough, in this context, to be in this particular article.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is very late here in Sweden. So I'll respond to only your first line and leave the rest for the others. So, regarding that not many other articles about Muhammad in this world show pictures like the ones Wikipedia show... have it ever occur to you that this might be so ONLY because of the very reason that this talk page exists? Because they are afraid of "upsetting a fraction" of the world, so afraid that they even don't dear to stand up for their policies and what they believe in? This subject has brought newspapers down to their knees, deciding to "respect" this "fraction" of the world. As far as I count Wikipedia is the only great entity that has stood up and simply said "we have written our policies in good faith, and we have promised to follow our policies, unless you can present a good argument for why they should be changed..."
I think we need to follow the wiki policies completely accurately. If this was the case I would be shrugging. But it's not.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You are pointing at others and saying "they are not doing it, so it must be wrong to do it! we are the only ones doing it, so we must be doing something wrong!".
This is in my opinion a very, very, very flawed argument.
Doubtless, but we're not supposed to make an argument here. The policy is that you don't. We're not limited by anything except our own policies, but the policy says no, we don't get to make a new argument. That's exactly your point isn't it, that you want to step outside what is normally done and make a new argument?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Go and see the article about David. He died more than 3000 years ago. Yet I count eight paintings of the man, and a sculpture, all made by artists who have never seen him in their lives, and all their works are based on stories and pure guesswork.
Right, but if you go to EB or one of the other encyclopedias or sources, there's a picture of 'him' in the article right? I bet that's not true with Mohammad. Unless you can show a general trend that certain types of information are notable, then it's not.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
False, the current Britannica article has a picture of him at the very top (albeit a veiled one), and anyway it is a lot shorter than this article - in other words, there is a lot of information in this article which is not in EB (or in many other encyclopedias). Regards, High on a tree (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm completely happy with that if that's the trend, but we need more than one data point to form a trend; and as you point out, that's veiled example, so that supports the first image, but not necessarily the others (more data!); the wikipedia should follow what others do. More data!- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 05:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
How are these relevant to the subject? Because they are the oldest, most viewed, most known and most discussed depictions of the man that we have. They are relevant.
No, they're notable because notable sources make them so as a set or individually in that context. Which is different from Mohammad being notable in the context of the images. That's not the same, in a lot of cases you can get away with it, but if people start to complain, then you have to ask whether you're really following the rules, and no, you're not here.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
--PureRumble (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Wolfkeeper, this point has already been discussed at length about one week ago (and also, I assume, before). Please have a look at Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, where, exactly? I had a quick look, but the arguments didn't seem to be the same.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 05:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Within the "A more concrete proposal" and "Too many portraits?" sections, for example, and in some other answers to User:Armanaziz's arguments. - I only see now that he has opened a whole new discussions at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Muhammad_image_controversy.2C_a_proposal_to_revisit, I have rehashed and expanded some general arguments regarding notability there. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Before you begin posting comments I seriously suggest that you read the important notice in the red box at the top of the page. However if you forgot to look, here it is again. A summary of the current consensus and answers to you question regarding pictures of Muhammad can be found at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. If you want to avoid seeing the images on that page, you might want to read this: How to set your browser to not see images Janus8463 (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you're off beam. My point is asking whether we are following the other sources. If we are, great; that's what policy ssys we should do. The EB apparently has a single, veiled image. So that would support our use of veiled images, but not necessarily the unveiled ones. If there is a consistent pattern in other sources, then we need to follow it. That's all I'm saying. The FAQ doesn't source any evidence as to what others do in this situation; I've started a small section in the FAQ, which so far is more or less backing the consensus, as we collect data, that should help confirm the existing consensus, or whatever...- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 05:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I already indicated above that this is a flawed argument (you could probably delete more than half of the information in this article if you would alway demand that it must also be contained in the Britannica article and in other encyclopedias). And I didn't say that the EB article has only one image, I said it had one at the very top, so in that respect it goes even further that this Wikipedia article, which has chosen to bury the figurative images deep in the text, and allow only a calligraphy in the introduction. But why don't you look it up yourself? (Btw I was referring to the current online EB, I seem to recall someone saying that a recent printed EB had an image showing the face, too.) Regards, High on a tree (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
We need to confirm that. The point is it's a question of emphasis, if the emphasis in the EB is that there really are lots of images of Muhammad, then we need that in the FAQ because it backs us up, EB is notable to usage, even if we don't reference it in the article. NPOV is a policy we have to follow, and provided we follow our policies I have absolutely no complaint. But we need a few sources showing that our usage is not out of line with typical usage. We can't go beyond that, because that's basically a form of OR.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

I would like to raise one point about EB. EB uses one "Veiled" image of Muhammad. Using a veiled image is almost equivalent to acknowledging that there is no acceptable illustration of the person. Compared with use of 15+ images on Jesus and 10+ on Buddha one can easily conclude, EB is respecting the tradition of not using "unveiled" image on an article about Muhammad.
Saying so, there are other sources which have indeed used unveiled images of Muhammad, but they are relatively few in number and clearly outnumbered by other scholarly sources which don't use such images.
Please don't bring in any example of kids book or primary school text book here. A kid's book has a differrent type of appetite for images. In some kid's book it is not unususal to have images of "germs" looking like "small monsters", but such images are clearly not encyclopedic. If, without an image of a person, a kid finds it difficult to remember whether Muhammad is the "person" or the "book", then there may be a different motivation to add an image while talking about Muhammad, which does not exist in an encyclopedia. On an encyclopedia the consideration of adding image is whether addition of that image is helpful for a "matured" reader to understand the topic.
Yes, the "unveiled" images on Muhammad article do help a matured reader to understand how a small segment of Muslims in the middle age used to view Muhammad. Unfortunately, that view is contradictory to the view held by majority of modern Muslims. And an over-emphasis on the minority POV, unfortunately spoils the majority POV (and probably the only POV that matters).
To understand why it is so, it is important to understand how majority of Muslims view and understand Muhammad today. You probably know Muhammad recognized Jesus as a prophet just like him, and he also recognized there were many more prophets throughout history, most of whom he didn't name. If that is the case, then what was "unique" in Muhammad's message that attracted his followers? The new thing in Muhammad's teaching was devotion towards absolute "monotheism". "Allah", as taught by Muhammad, is one and only - and cannot be represented by any form or figure what so ever. And Muhammad strictly prohibited to confuse himself with Allah in every possible way and made it totally clear that he (Muhammad) was only a human being, not an extension / son / image of Allah. However, he maintained that all other "true" prophets before him (including Jesus and Moses) also prophessed the same teaching, but over thousands of years people gradually started to create and respect imaginary pictures and statues of their prophets and once there is a "form" in front of them, it is only human to start to love the "form" over the "spirit". This is the reason why creating any imaginary painting of Muhammad is a strict taboo among Muslims. YES, throughout history there has been attempts to draw Muhammad by a significant number of painters, but to Muslims, in general, until now these images are nothing but "Attempts to depict Muhammad". These images have no "wide acceptance" as a reasonable representation of Muhammad (read my posts above for more details).
To understand the key essence of the teaching of Muhammad - the differentiating factor between him and almost all other Prophets - it is essential to realize, appreciate and fully comprehend the fact that because of the unique teachings of Muhammad, there is no accepted image or statue of Allah and Muhammad. The perseverance of the integrity of this teaching in an article on Muhammad is far more important for the quality of the article (and understanding of Muhammad as a Prophet) than having a few paintings that prove or show nothing more than some historical "attempts" to draw Muhammad. If we destroy that integrity, it will be like putting a racially insulting word in an article on Martin Luther King, or presenting Gandhi in a way that he appears to be promoting violence. Yes, those historical images are true and they have their due place in history of Art or in articles like Depiction of Muhammad where they are key historical evidences. But, on the article of Muhammad, insertion of these images dilutes the single most important teaching of the person; the single most important "image" of the person; and in the process significantly misrepresents the topic.
This is the reason why most scholars, including non-Muslims, don't use imaginary paintings in a discussion about Muhammad as a person and prophet. This is the reason, why Encyclopedia Britannica shows no image of Muhammad, while it shows about 15+ images for Jesus and 10+ images of Buddha. An article about Muhammad without images of his face (like one maintained by EB) helps the reader to compare and contrast the majority modern Muslim view of Muhammad with that of other religious figures (Jesus for example) - where the image, insteed of being treated as an obstacle, is being used as a medium to understand the Prophet and God.
The current article on Muhammad - is it doing justice to the majority Muslim's view about him? Clearly NO. Is it giving too much emphasis on a view held by a historical minority group? Clearly YES. Is there even any effort to separate these views on the article? Unfortunately NO.
Should Wikipedia follow the majority of the scholarly sources and give upholding the integrity of the teaching of Muhammad more importance by keeping Muhammad and Depiction of Muhammad as separate articles, or should Wikipedia go its own way to establish those images as "integral" to Muhammad article based on a child-like logic that "for every article on a human being there has to be a picture showing his face" - is what we, as Wikipedia community have to decide. Arman (Talk) 07:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This is the crux of the argument in the Clash of Cultures, follow islam or the Wests (wikipedia) rules. The answer is this is wikipedia, made in Florida USA. (Hypnosadist) 12:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
There's no should here, you need to follow wiki policy, Islamic laws don't hold, neither do Christian (although real world laws hold to some degree) only wikipedia's policy definitely does. Given that EB does have a cartoon-like, veiled representation, I think that the wiki will continue to have at least one image based on NPOV/emphasis consideration. If you could find lots of notable sources that aren't like that, preferably in English, then maybe, but my gut feel is that you won't be able to if you select in an unbiased way.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 07:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


  • You make a very steep conclusion about EB. You could find tens of thousands of Britannica articles which don't have an image while their Wikipedia analogue does. I am sure that in most of these cases, you wouldn't dream to conclude that Britannica "acknowledges" that the images used on Wikipedia are inappropriate and to demand that they must be deleted from the Wikipedia article. Compared with use of 15+ images on Jesus and 10+ on Buddha - in fact, the Britannica article has more than one illustration, and on Wikipedia, too, Muhammad contains much less figurative images of its subject that Jesus and Gautama Buddha.
  • Unfortunately, that view is contradictory to the view held by majority of modern Muslims - You keep repeating yourself over and over. So once again: To demand excluding everything which is not in accord with "the view held by majority of modern Muslims" (e.g. medieval, Shiite or non-Muslim views) is a violation fo WP:NPOV, and amounts to imposing Sunni laws on Wikipedia.
  • Wikipedia's mission is not upholding the integrity of the teaching of Muhammad. Wikipedia's mission here is to present notable aspects and different views of Muhammand. This includes minority Muslim and non-Muslim views, and his impact on art. If you insist on upholding the teachings of your religion, you should consider contributing to MuslimWiki instead.
Regards, High on a tree (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The question of "Upholding the teaching of Islam" comes ONLY BECAUSE, that is the single most important POV about Muhammad and probably the only POV that practically matters. WP:NPOV does not mean "No Point of View". It means discussing all significant points of views fairly. If you have to give the POV of the majority modern Muslims in the article its "fair" treatment, you have to keep these images out. The minority view can be kept in a separate articles or AT BEST in separate subsections after the majority modern view of Muhammad has been discussed fairly. Arman (Talk) 08:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:NPOV doesn't say anything about images, just the presentation of facts and assertions of fact. In any case, to bring images into the fold of neutrality, it is more neutral to take a secular stance and include the images. Doing anything else would not only be bowing to a minority viewpoint (last I checked Muslims were not >50% of the world population), but also completely snuffing out the other, also significant viewpoint. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well last I checked, Muslims were the only group who cared about Muhammad as a Prophet and the rest of the world cared about Muhammad primarily because they wanted to understand how Muhammad as a person or prophet motivated the Muslims. This makes the "Muslim" POV about Muhammad the dominant and most important POV for any discussion on Muhammad. Non Muslim scholalrs interested about Muhammad simply as a historical person do exist, but they certainly don't number in billions. Count how many books/articles have been written about Muhammad (in all languages) till date and what percentage of them are written by Muslim writers. Then, also count what percentage of these books/articles don't use any image of Muhammad. That will help you ascertain what the majority POV is.
Secular stance is not a "neutral stance" - it is yet another POV, and just like other POVs significance of the secular POV has to be judged based on the article. For example, a supposedly "secular" view about Jesus could be that he had an illegitimate birth, which some people tried to cover with a myth that he had a mysterious virgin birth. However, that "secular" view, being an insignificant minority POV is appropriately NOT highlighted on Wikipedia article about Jesus.
Last but not least, I am not asking to "snuff out" other POVs. Those POVs, including images, can be kept in the article "at best" as a totally separate section that makes it crystal clear that these are minority POVs. Arman (Talk) 11:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are complaining that including (unveiled?) images of Mohammed in the article does not represent the majority viewpoint of those who actually care about Mohammed. I would not dispute that at all. The article as it stands now, however, quite explicitly states that Islam prohibits images of Mohammed. That being the case, that point of view is presented in the article. It seems to me, moreover, that you want the article to be presented from the Islamic no-images-of-Mohammed POV rather than to present that POV. It seems to me, then, that you are really arguing for a (strict?) Islamic POV for the article rather than for NPOV. Mike Romete (لن أستسلم) (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
He can argue whatever he likes, but the wikipedia has to balance the points of view according to the emphasis given in published sources which are on the topic. Where the heck are these published sources we are reflecting? We don't have a leg to stand on currently.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
wikipedia has to balance the points of view according to the emphasis given in published sources which are on the topic? I've used Wikipedia for a long time, but this is the first time I've considered it from an editorial context. Is that a rule written somewhere? I've looked around, but I can't find it. Please cite. Thanks. Mike Romete (لن أستسلم) (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).. Adding in extra information from one or two sources so that they take up an unrepresentative amount of the article is very definitely a form of bias.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
(1) Your assertion that I quoted above is not then, I take it, a written rule. It's only your highly idiosyncratic interpretation of NPOV. (2) In any case, I don't see what either has to do with the questions of if, how, and how many images ought to be used in any given Wikipedia article. Mike Romete (لن أستسلم) (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I would respectfully suggest you study the core policy until you understand what it says, the policy is actually clear.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
So Arman is saying that NOT having images (when say Jesus does) shows the difference between them because Jesus claimed to be god but Muhammad said that he definatly was not. So it not having images helps the article by emphasising the nature of Muhammads teaching. Is that right?
CaptinJohn (talk) 11:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
He means wp:npov, which is a policy that does not apply to images. (Hypnosadist) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Which policy is that then?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
NPOV says: To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Wolfkeeper: I don't think that you're truly considering the tradition of depiction that does exist in some areas of the Islamic world. The current discussion deals with the proportionate representation of imagery, and it is generally coming towards an agreement (or at least it has cooled down considerably. The addition of calligraphic images is one good solution that has been discussed; there should at least be one veiled and one unveiled image included, if not the two and two that currently reside.--C.Logan (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The only hard evidence I have seen gives a single veiled image. What are you basing having more than one on? Are there a lot of reliable sources on Muhammad with multiple images out there? What proportion of the current sources in the Muhammad article have them? (I just had a quick look at a handful, and none of them did that I checked.)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused by your consistent appeal to how other encyclopedias or sources do things. While we could use such things as a guideline, it would seem inappropriate to base content after the presentations of others: why even bother having Wikipedia when all it does is seek to emulate the treading of others? It would be better for the purposes of this discussion that we ignore what other encyclopedias do, if at least because it is a mis-application: we don't know why they do what they have decided to do when it comes to article content and images.
Wikipedia differs from print and online encyclopedias in several ways; the most relevant example would be the sheer amount of images included on Wikipedia, which I do believe is far more than any other encyclopedia could boast.
Strange as this may seem (given the traffic here), the Sunni school of aniconism is not universal by any means, and there are certainly unveiled depictions of Muhammad which can be found in Shi'ite regions even today (although I believe Hussein is a more common focus of depiction).
Historically, the issue has been very complex. There have been aniconic and iconoclastic movements, but these movements did not really take hold throughout the Islamic world, and Persia is one such location where there was and is still a tradition of hagiographic and illustrative depiction.
It's a little too easy to view history with a particular shade of lenses, and we need to avoid swaying to recentism- it is unfortunate that a great many of the anons and new users coming here to protest the inclusion of images are largely ignorant of the traditions that have existed and do still exist within the scope of their own religion.--C.Logan (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused by your consistent appeal to how other encyclopedias or sources do things. While we could use such things as a guideline, it would seem inappropriate to base content after the presentations of others - The wikipedia is still an encyclopedia, and other encyclopedias have faced exactly the same issue in the past, and found a way to decide what to do. It is very very valid to examine what other encyclopedias have done, and then question why they have done so, and whether this should, or should not, or to what degree it should be emulated here. We are supposed to be producing a freely available encyclopedia, that's the primary mission, and they are prior art on what an encyclopedia is.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't entirely agree with you here- unless we ask these resources ourselves, our supposition is all that remains to speak for their editorial decisions. We should not assume that the "exclusion" of an image is based on any particular decision or agenda; doing so may be an even more haphazard judgment than the assumption of many users who come here to accuse Wikipedia editors (and the "encyclopedia itself", as if it had autonomy) of intentionally attempting to spite aniconistic Muslims around the world.
Nobody should jump to conclusions in this discussion, and I think it is fair to say that the pictures chosen (or not chosen) could even have been an aesthetic choice- or perhaps a simple arbitrary one. Therefore, even if one finds it wise to look to other encyclopedias as a guide, we need to make sure that we understand the needs and limitations of those encyclopedias and we should be prepared to look further into particular presentations before assuming the cause.
Additionally, we need to keep in mind that these sources are not "golden standards" themselves, and I will be quite honest when I say that many articles found in the EB have a more informative (and well-linked) Wikipedia analogue.
We should certainly (if pressed by an issue) look to other sources to see their respective treatments of the subject, but this is more of a peripheral study that would only introduce methods worth considering- nothing binding, and nothing that we should consistently aspire towards. Keep in mind that many highly-regarded sources contain factual errors and editorial oversights as well- recall the recent study which compared Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britannica.
This doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider the methods of outside projects, but again- this is Wikipedia, and we should primarily consider what is best for this project; in my editing experience, emulation of other sources has never been an issue or a guiding force in any manner. Seeing your research into the issue from this perspective is something that I can't endorse, because I really do see fundamental differences in purpose and execution- to me, it's as if one would assume that peering at the recipes for one particular citrus fruit would offer a simple solution for another- you can't always trade lemons for limes. Hopefully, you understand my apprehension with your method of thinking.--C.Logan (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You seem utterly confused, we're comparing the recipes for two things that are supposed to be the same, they're called the same thing, and most of the details are the same. If I find multiple recipes for a 'Muhammad' cake and it says that it needs one egg, and I find another, single, recipe that has 4 eggs, the argument that I just added the extra 3 eggs because 'I'm free to add eggs for this project' isn't a good one at all; I have a right to ask the question whether the recipe is objectively better with that many eggs in it. The fact that you can only find a couple of obscure references to it, and the fact that there are a lot of people getting very angry about it, rather suggests that the answer is no.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused as to where you arrive at the conclusion that these two projects are "supposed to be the same". I don't know if you've noticed, but that's exactly the point: they aren't the same at all (and Wikipedia certainly does not endeavor to be in line with the Encyclopedia Britannica).
Accompanied with the editing system (which is, to some extent, comparatively revolutionary), Wikipedia has a much broader scope of information than other encyclopedias (print or online). There are countless pages considered encyclopedic and covered here which are not touched upon in any form by other projects such as Encyclopedia Britannica. Articles tend to have many more images here, which is something worth considering in this instance.
I'm more concerned with your treatment of the analogy, because it appears that you've stretched it in the wrong direction: the emphasis in the above provided "citrus" analogy was that recipes that work with one or the other core ingredient are not always interchangeable (though sometimes, this is the case).
You certainly have the right to question the presentation, but you need to be willing to work with editors who have already established their points and positions on the issue, rather than appealing to outside methods that very few people here will even care about. It is not about what Encyclopedia Britannica does in an example, but how established editors develop a consensus out of policy on the issue- that is what's weighty here, and although it is a burden, you might want to backtrack on the issue to familiarize yourself with more of the discussion, because (after all) it's very likely that the year or more of discussion on the issue would produce at least a dozen points in response to your own concerns. Digging for those, however, is a dreadful task, so I wouldn't blame you if you would prefer to opt out of that option.
Finally, although it make seem questionable, it's typically better to work with the recipe itself than to reduce the key ingredient based on what others in the past have done: a one-egg yellow cake and a four-egg yellow cake are both perfectly acceptable recipes that yield the cake in question. Please let me know which one of the two happens to come out better for you, because I have someone visiting in a month and I'm not sure which way to go for their welcome cake.--C.Logan (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Look we can't give in to religious POV on this encyclopedia or we will be overrun by POV warriors and wikipedia will be useless. After these pictures are deleted the war on wikipedia will move on to removing sourced information such as Muhammed having sex with a nine year old girl, behedding 600 unarmed civilians after they had surrendered or his lifelong ownership of Slaves. (Hypnosadist) 13:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
To CaptainJohn: I have to slightly reword what you said: NOT having images (when say Jesus does) shows the difference between them because Muhammad, as he wished, is generally remembered by his followers without any picture or statue, where as the followers of Jesus try to remember him through images and statues. And Wikipedia should establish this at least for the majority portion of the article simply because this POV, being the absolute majority POV about Muhammad, is supported by almost all scholarly scources including mainstream encyclopedias. Arman (Talk) 02:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
To Hypnosadist and Consumed Crustacean: Your assertion that WP:NPOV does not apply to images is a misinterpretation. WP:NPOV applies to all "encyclopedic contents", and images on article mainspace are very much "encyclopedic contents". Arman (Talk) 02:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
And to Mike: Yes, the article does mention that majority of Muslims today consider image of Muhammad as a taboo - but what the article does not do is - a "fair" treatment to this majority held view when it adds the "unveiled" images more prominantly in the article than this notification. This judgement of fairness, by policy of Wikipedia itself, has to be done by comparing with majority of reliable 3rd party sources, and that's where the argument of wolfkeeper becomes the critical one. Arman (Talk) 03:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
While some groups of people have historically not depicted Muhammad, other people in history have. That is why we have these ancient images of him. These images have been showcased in major museums and are considered historical artifacts. I cannot imagine how they could not be notable in the context of the this historical article. (1 == 2)Until 15:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Right. But how many is the neutral number to have? I'm thinking one at the most, we've got 4. Why not 44? Why 4? It seems to me a very small number of sources. Look to give you an example, I did a google search on 'Muhammad'. Ignoring articles like 'Muhammad Ali' and a blacklisted site called 'Dressup Muhammad' and I got:

...

(I checked a few more at random, found nothing, got bored, so sue!)

So my conclusions are that it's actually difficult to find any article on the web that googles for 'Muhammad' that has an image of him associated with it (apart from encyclopedias, which are not sources for us, but which seem to have one veiled one, based on a sample size of two). Obviously it's different if you do an image search, but I feel that's begging the question rather ;-)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

I didn't go through all of this discussion, but I am inclined to agree with Wolfkeeper. There is absolutely no need for those images to be in that article. Depictions of Muhammad has already many images, including these. And these images don't add anything to the Article. However, removing them from that article would resolve a lot of issues and make the article a whole lot less controversial. As far as I heard, there is an appeal going around to ban Wikipedia in all Muslim countries just because of such articles. And this ban may actually be granted as was the case with lots of other sites like eg Orkut being banned in a lot of Muslim regions.  UzEE  05:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
We don't base our scholarly content on what google says, we base it on reliable sources. Each of those images come from a reliable source. Just because other sites choose to let religious beliefs bias their content does not mean we should. (1 == 2)Until 16:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not enough that they come from a reliable source, they have to be significant enough to be in the article as well- we do not include everything in an article. One critical question is, are they as notable as they are presented to be? Google seems to say no.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
To repeat my comment from below: They demonstrate historical depictions of the subject which have been recognized by scholars as being important elements of Muslim history and exemplifications of the tradition of depiction that did exist in some parts of the world. Pictures do not need to be exclusive to one article or another- iconography can be presented as a representation of Jesus or the apostles, while an article on the specific subject can also display these images.
It is of no concern to us whether or not these countries decide to ban Wikipedia altogether. These countries can limit knowledge however they'd like to, and seeing such a ban take place would only be a demonstration of how sad and backward some governments have become. I can understand the misunderstanding of policies by an anonymous, everyday user, but the possibility that a government agency could overlook our core policies and arguments for inclusion in a similar manner is troubling to me.--C.Logan (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
We don't generally try and keep all elements on any big topic in one article in the wikipedia, so that's a poor argument. These (essentially fanciful) images are currently regarded, at best, as being of peripheral interest within Islam; and yet are being emphasised as if they were of critical importance to the article. Why is that?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That's certainly true- but again, I refer to my argument above. Images which are directly pertinent to one article in particular would find the appropriate place at that article, but there is no limitation on the inclusion of images pertinent to multiple articles. It is an editorial decision, and it is certainly something which should be taken up on a case-by-case basis- guidelines which refer to this issue (most clearly WP:SUMMARY) say nothing on the limitation of images between articles. I see certain, direct relevance here, and therefore I can't honestly agree with the argument that the images should be removed because another article includes them. Aesthetic issues are another thing- I certainly wouldn't mind varying the pictures a bit between articles if possible (if free/reliably cited versions can be found of the examples given in image harbors such as this one).
To answer your question, it is something that must be put into perspective. It is safe to say that consensus still lies towards the maintenance of images, and rightfully so- previous discussions have beaten the points home again and again. Still, however, the images themselves are not of critical importance- however, they are still important and are ultimately as relevant to the subject as any calligraphic representation (which is a field that should be represented with more variance and aesthetic consideration in this article- there is absolutely no point to including 9 versions of the name Muhammad "just because" we can, when the depictions provide a much more varied presentation- depicting both the subject and various important events in his life).
The outward vehemence on the issue is more due to the fact that the vast majority of individuals visiting this page are entirely ignorant of policies or of the prior discussion, and puff the issue up again and again from an indefensible angle. Wikipedia editors are pretty much done talking about the subject- it is the constant influx of dead-on-arrival discussion topics that leads many editors to react boldly and insistently in response, and may give the impression that the editors involved are often determined because they choose to be, and not because the other factors in the discussion demand it. A number of veterans on the topic have cooled their contribution or given up altogether, presumably because of the exasperation found in wasting countless hours in a discussion only to have a new gang of editors ignore previous discussion and solutions and revive archaic, beaten discussion points.
I still think it's a topic worth discussing (hence my continued presence), but I can understand why someone would just knock this page off the watchlist: it sometimes appears as if there is a random comment generator for this topic- there is so much homogeneity amongst incoming comments that it's a little troubling to me at times.--C.Logan (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
So, in a nutshell the majority of 3rd party sources outside wikipedia are "biased" and "wrong" and hence you and your fellow editors who have the mission to come up with the only "fair" representation of Muhammad in the world will enforce your so called consensus here. Ok, if that is the conclusion - it is acceptable to me. However, just for the record, it may not be acceptable by Wikipedia policy, because this, even if correct, violates WP:NOR. Allow me to explain with an example. Say, I am a very good scientist and I have just come up with a new interpretation/extension of Theory of Relativity. And let's assume that my interpretation is right and in a matter of next 5 years it will be widely accepted by scholarly sources. As of today, before that acceptance is established, If I add that interpretation in the Wikipedia article on Theory of Relativity, even though I may be right, and it may in fact improve the quality of the article in true sense, and even though as of now all other 3rd party sources are actually worng, and even though my new theory may be mathematically superior, I will be violating WP:NOR. This example illustrates, Wikipedia editor's judgement about what to add and what not to add in an article, must be guided by what reliable 3rd party sources say about that topic as of today, any judgemental call beyond that is indedd Original Research. Arman (Talk) 01:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Armanaziz, I see you cut and pasted the same response to my comment below, which leads me to believe you are not reading what you respond to. C logan said "They demonstrate historical depictions of the subject which have been recognized by scholars as being important elements of Muslim history", the opposite of what your nutshell implies. Just like you did with me. Please stop mis-representing you opponents arguments as it does not forward your position. (1 == 2)Until 01:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes you are right, I inadvertently posted this twice. This was meant to be a response to you, not C. Logan. Arman (Talk) 05:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Setting everything aside, I still didn't get a satisfying response to why those Images belong in that article. I don't get the point that if there is a whole article dedicated to that specific topic, why have those images there? No body is asking them to be removed from Wikipedia, just from that article. They are not adding anything useful to the topic, so it would be best if they are not used there.  UzEE  08:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
They're plenty useful. Remember the old saying "pictures are worth 1000 words"? It goes perfectly here. One is one of the earliest depictions of muhammad, hence it is included to show what he looked (or may have looked) like. They are perfect accompaniments to an article full of information, and are used to illustrate the way that some Muslims viewed him at a certain area in time and history. Jmlk17 08:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, Muslims do not like the Idea of making Depictions of their Prophets. Those images are made by non-muslims, who most probably had no idea what he looked like. Can anyone here paint their great great grandfather if they have never ever seen him? or can anyone paint someone else's great great grandfather without ever seeing his photo. One can only speculate how disorienting those images would be. And if pictures are worth a thousand words, than why not have pictures for every single article?  UzEE  08:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I wish we did have pictures for every article... it would add quite a bit to the project as a whole. Who cares if they were made by non-Muslims? The religion of those who made them is not the issue. Jmlk17 09:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The point is about the reliability of those images. They are based on pure speculation and created by someone who probably didnt even know more than the name of the person he was painting.  UzEE  09:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Just like the overwhelming majority of art and depictions throughout timeless history! Jmlk17 09:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I definitely agree with Jmlk here. This is the same argument used by countless anons (though with better grammar) and it is already covered in the FAQ. Additionally, some of the illustrations (such as al-Biruni's) were intended for instruction and, well, the illustration of concepts (there are many images which serve as visual aids to Qur'anic events).--C.Logan (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
For some reason, Im feeling that the purpose of this talk page is not to build consensus. Instead its sole task is to justify the use of those images no matter how inappropriate the justification may be. Wikipedia encourages us to take steps to resolve conflicts. Why not remove the images and try it out that way for a while. If that doesn't seem right, we can always revert back?  UzEE  10:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 3

Because there is no good reason to remove them. They offend Muslims? Our apologies. They're somehow "not relevant to the article"? That doesn't even make sense. They're not painted by a contemporary Muslim? So what? No one knew exactly how someone looked 100% until the advent of photography in the mid 19th century. As for building consensus, it has already been done. We are not censored, will never be, and do not cave in to demands for it, be it some petition, nor anything else. Jmlk17 10:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I again say that this is not censorship. Not only me but other editors are also of the view that those images do not have a good relevance to the article (Im not saying irrelevant) and the article can also do good without them. There are already several other images on the article and removing 2 would not do damage. Plus we are not asking to delete those images. They can be used on other more relevant articles like this one. So if removing them from that article solves a lot of issues, then why not just do it?  UzEE  10:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Depictions of Muhammad contains few images in comparison to the wealth of images (both veiled and unveiled) which are available (and this may be due to image use considerations). The images used here are all already used there, and I see no reason why one article must be dependent on the other when considering the images used.
The depictions displayed here are relevant on several levels, but in terms of relevance, it is quite simple and clear: they depict the subject himself, and they certainly aspire to depict events from the subject's life (along with mythological accounts). Due to this latter relevance, there is less redundancy in including these pictures than there would be in including multiple calligraphic forms (which all ultimately depict one concept).
Your argument needs some elaboration: without considering Depictions of Muhammad (because I don't feel there's an argument there, at least in terms of interdependence), what exactly is your primary argument for why some of these pictures should be removed? I may have missed your reasoning, because I haven't been following every mini-discussion.--C.Logan (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Censorship is exactly what it would be. All of the disputation about the images in the article came about merely and solely because some Moslems claim their religion prohibits them. Everything after that has been attempted rationalization of why Wikipedia ought to become an Islamist website. Mike Romete (لن أستسلم) (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Your definition of censorship is not a very useful one. The wikipedia already censors itself in that sense, by deciding that certain images shouldn't go in particular articles, or in some cases anywhere else except one article. If you don't believe me go to autofellatio; that image is controlled, and cannot be added to other articles; the wikipedia won't let you. So we already coral certain types of images into certain articles.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Applying the concept of censorship at the level of the entire wikipedia is a far more practical concept, and more or less how the wikipedia works in practice. The wikipedia makes editorial decisions all the time that moves text and images out of particular articles into other articles, what's the difference between that and censoring an article? (There is one difference, if you retain a wikilink then it's clearly not censorship). We're trying to present information in a useful way to all the readers of the wikipedia, and we're trying not to censor any information out of the wikipedia, rather than any particular article.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Fine then. It wouldn't be "censorship". The rest of what I said is still true: All of the disputation about the images in the article came about merely and solely because some Moslems claim their religion prohibits them. Everything after that has been attempted rationalization of why Wikipedia ought to become an Islamist website. So, it wouldn't be censorship: it would be, effectively, supine submission to one religion's rules. Which would be... censorship after all. If the images are moved elsewhere, then that would become the new flashpoint because agitation worked to get them removed from one place and it would then be tried on the other. Mike Romete (لن أستسلم) (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
All of the disputation about the images in the article came about merely and solely because some Moslems claim their religion prohibits them. Everything after that has been attempted rationalization of why Wikipedia ought to become an Islamist website. - yeah right, WP:AGF or what?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Wikipedia does censor in some instances. And if removing those images from this article is beneficial, then it should be done. Its not about turning Wikipeida into an Islamic encyclopedia, rather making it an encyclopedia for all. Without any disputes and racist material.  UzEE  05:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Who's being racist? Including artistic depictions of an important world figure is encyclopedic, not racist. -MasonicDevice (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Not sure how removing relevant images is somehow beneficial though. Wikipedia is already an encyclopedia for all; but the screams and demands for image removal does nothing but bad for the project as a whole. Jmlk17 05:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Removing "supposedly" relevant images in this case is beneficial for the following 3 reasons:
  1. This matches the practice of majority of reliable 3rd party scholarly sources and thus is consistent with WP:VER, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.
  2. This helps a wikipedia reader to understand and appreciate the subject in the same way as the majority of people interested in the subject (i.e. the Muslim) understand it.
  3. Removal of the images also helps contrast the subject article with comparable articles like Jesus and Buddha in light of the fact that - contrary to the practice of followers of other religious preachers, historically an absolute majority of this subject's (Muhammad) followers have tried to understand and follow him without any physical depiction.
These benefits have to be weighed against the 2 benefits of having the images on the article:
  1. Giving representation to a minority view (arguably currently over-emphasised); and
  2. Pictures reinforcing the text description. Arman (Talk) 06:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
That's good research. And I think this is per policy.  UzEE  13:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
To your first point: The art in question is verifiably of Muhammad, ergo no WP:OR or WP:VER problem. Theres no WP:NPOV violation as the pictures are not asserting anything outside of thier own existance. Heck, the article even states that visual depiction is a minority POV, but it's a signifigant enough minority to merit inclusion.
To your second point: That's an WP:NPOV violation. Muslims don't "own" Muhammad. He was an important figure in both the spiritual and secular space and must be presented free and clear of any dogmatic restrictions.
To your third point: How Muslims understand Muhammad is not relevant to this article. To do so would violate WP:NPOV by presenting a point-of-view with a particular non-vanilla flavor. -MasonicDevice (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Careful here. While we don't per se care at all about what Muslims POV is, the NPOV policy demands that we need to balance the article according to the references that there are on the subject. The sources in the vast majority of cases do not contain any images and generally, but not exclusively, actually prohibit images. And this is in great contrast with sources on Jesus, where according to my quick check about half of them have one or more representations of Jesus. Because NPOV states that we need to follow the sources on this article's subject rather than copying another, this says that we should have markedly less images here than the Jesus article. This article currently has 4, whereas the Jesus article has 9. Everything considered, we are greatly exceeding the mandate of the NPOV policy right now.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Four is markedly less than nine. Have you looked up how many images other sources have of Jesus? You can't do a comparison until you do that too.-MasonicDevice (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I told you, about 50% of the references you get for Jesus have some kind of image that is supposed to represent him. For Muhammad it's close to 0%- I couldn't find any in about 40 tries; I'm sure there are some, but they're very difficult to find (without begging the question). So how is this article neutral???- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You said that to be neutral "we should have markedly less (sic) images here than the Jesus article" and we do. That's how it's neutral. Five of twenty isn't a majority or perponderance. It's a signifgant minority and a signifigant minority tradition of depection exists. That's how it's neutral. Think naturalistic images are overrepresented? Find more caligraphy and add it. It will improve the article. -MasonicDevice (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
What 5 of 20? The only references in the article that imply that the article should have images are associated with the images themselves. The images were found by somebody deliberately searching for images and adding them to the article. That's not in any way conducive to a neutral point of view. We don't simply add every viewpoint into an article, we weight them by their notability among all the sources. I actually looked at as many sources as I could find/stand in an unbiased way, and not one of them had any images. If you are seriously claiming that 25% of sources on Muhammad have images then I will be forced to laugh at you. A lot. And then some more. We should have about 0 (zero) images in this article, because that's what the references in an overwhelming number of cases do.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Five of twenty in this article. Read more carefully and stop laughing. Also, I checked your sources above. Many of them are pages by Muslims, for Muslims or they have no pictures whatsoever on that page or any other page on their site. Adopting the former would raise POV issues galore, and the latter is probably just policy on those pages. Hell, the Jewish Virtual Library didn't have a visual depiction of Abraham. Stop laughing. It's hard to think or write critically when doing so. As for your assertion that it was added by someone delibertately searching and adding, you're right by accident. Of course that's how they got there; things don't just enter themselves into WP. What you're trying to say - that someone inserted them recently to irritate Muslims - is hogwash, however. Images have been part of this article since October 2005, when there was one naturalistic image and one caligrahic image. Images of both types have increased in quantity and size since then. The question is: Do they belong? The images were created by a minority of Muslims to teach other Muslims about the life of the Prophet. WP seeks to inform to world on the life of the Prophet, albiet through a slightly larger filter as evidenced by the large sections on millitary campaigns. A minority tradition deserves a minority mention. The solution seems simple: add more traditional images, and put them in places of prominence. -MasonicDevice (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:AGF You're just trying to put words into my mouth. The only reason that those images/references are there is because somebody deliberately sought them out. The reason that they did so is not really my concern, if we assume good faith, then perhaps they did so because they simply expect representational images to be in an article, even though that's not required by the policies. However, the fact that did so, without any other support violates NPOV. Because of that, they need to go, or be severely reduced in number. Adding a large number of traditional images isn't going to fix this, you would need maybe 10-50x as many 'traditional' images- between 40 and 200 images. It's just a non starter.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
While in principal I agree to what Wolfkeeper is saying, I have to disagree on one point - when we talk about Muhammad, by Wikipedia policy we cannot say - we don't care about Muslim POV. Almost all of Muhammad's notability comes from being a Prophet of Islam and out of all the people who talk about / care about / research about Muhammad in this world, an absolute majority are Muslims. Of all scholarly works done on Muhammad an absolute majority are by Muslim scholars who have researched the subject from a Muslim POV. So, to comply with WP:NPOV, i.e. to "represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views " on the subject, the Muslim POV must dominate in this article. This is same reason why in a discussion about Gautama Buddha the Budhdhist POV should prevail, or on a discussion about Jesus, the Christian POV should prevail. Arman (Talk) 09:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with your assetion that most people coming to this article will be Muslim. Aren't "you people" supposed to know his life already? It seems to me that most people coming here would be non-muslims who don't know about him and wish to learn more. Besides, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but aren't there plenty of Muslim POV bios of Muhammad in the Muslim world? Why does WP need to add another one? Furthermore, if "Almost all of Muhammad's notability comes from being a Prophet of Islam," then why does the article spend nearly half of its length speaking in starkly secular terms about his conquest of Mecca, Medina, and Arabia? Even if Muhammad had never gone to the mountain, he would still be a notable figure and worthy of an article in WP soley due to his secular deeds. He sowed the seeds for an empire that, within a century of his death, extended from Punjab to Portugal. He was a major world leader in every sense. While the majority of his importance is due to his role of Prophet, to discount his secular accomplishments does a disservice to his legacy. WP can't present him in a Muslim POV because he is bigger than Islam. Julius Caesar, George Bush, Ferdinand and Isabella, and Hitler aren't presented in Roman, American, Spanish, or Nazi POVs because they were important figures beyond. They don't belong to one people, but rather to all people. -MasonicDevice (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know WP:NPOV, it says that a neutral point of view should be presented which is accepted by the majority. In this case, the Majority is Muslim, and their POV is the dominant POV which should also be taken as the benchmark for NPOV. Almost are the cited sources are Muslim and nothing has such images on them, so why here? There is no notability in this context.  UzEE  12:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The images do not assert any POV about Muhammad or his life other than the fact that he was represented visually by artists. The article notes that this is rare, thus satisfying NPOV, but includes examples of such work to add depth. This inclusion conforms to the standard of including relevant artwork (conjectual or actual as appropriate) to biographical articles. -MasonicDevice (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The POV of all of the other references say that such images are not notable; and they completely overwhelm those few references and images- in this article. In an article called Depictions of Muhammad that's not the case.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The references verify that these images are of Muhammad and their rarity and minority tradition aspects make them notable. That said, WP:NOTE deals with inclusion of articles not inclusion in articles. Note the section saying that WP:NOTE doesn't directly limit article content. Other policies such as WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT do that.-MasonicDevice (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, so they would be entirely notable in their own article, but aren't in Muhammad, according to this strict reading of WP:NPOV.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. A strict reading of NPOV would say to add more traditional images. What you're proposing violates WP:NOT.-MasonicDevice (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not you favour removal of images, you just can't practically add enough images to make it work. And if by WP:NOT you mean WP:NOTCENSORED the unit of censorship in the wikipedia is the wikipedia. Provided we ensure the images are elsewhere and link them, we're not censoring anything. There's no way the censorship rules could work at the article level, otherwise every time we split articles we would be potentially violating the censorship rules; that dog doesn't hunt, and that's not what the policy says anyway if you read it carefully.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok... What part of "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies (especially neutral point of view)," do you not understand? That dog most definitely hunts. The only policies governing inclusion into or exclusion from articles are WP:NPOV and WP:VER. You're raising WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE issues but you've yet to find and show another academic non-biased sources that leaves the images out as an editorial choice (versus a technical reason like the JVL). Plus, you still seem to be ignoring the fact that there is a significant minority tradition of depiction and that these images are art of that. We can have more images - veiled, unveiled, and abstract - than EB because WP is not a paper encyclopedia. -MasonicDevice (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
What part of "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links..." do you not understand - But which articles get the potentially objectionable material? It doesn't say, it says 'some'; I absolutely agree that objectionable material should not be removed from the wikipedia, but they should be placed in appropriate articles (appropriate judged based on REFERENCES); and I find that to be completely consistent with how this policy works. There are no significant references that were found without begging the question to support them being in this article.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't use ellipses to change the meaning of the policy. It does say which articles may contain objectionable material: Articles where the objectionable material is relevant to the subject. You can hardly say that some of these images are irrelevant to teaching about Muhammad as they were initially created to illustrate the life of Muhammad to fellow Muslims. Because they are relevant and, more importantly, because their conditions that lead to their relevance can be verified, they should be included. There might be a complaint under WP:UNDUE, but, as I've noted, if we can find more good abstract representations they can be added. Of course, as has been noted below, WP:UNDUE cuts both ways and might suggest replacing a medieval naturalistic representation with an appropriate more modern one. -MasonicDevice (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Your accusations that I 'change the meaning of policy' are simply more good evidence of bad faith on your part; I'm simply not going to respond, to feed the troll any further, and I encourage others to ignore you also.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You've an awful nerve to call me a troll and assume bad faith after your post at 20:25 on Feb 22. Specifically the laughing part. How rude. Perhaps you see bad faith because you have bad faith? Calm down, it's a WP article. That said, you did use elipses to leave out the part of policy that directly disagrees with the viewpoint for which you are arguing. You said that the policy doesn't say which articles may contain objectionable material when it, in fact, it states very clearly that objectionable material may appear in articles where the objectionable material may be relevant. No one here, not even you, unless I've badly misread you, is seriously saying that these images are irrelevant.-MasonicDevice (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
We don't follow the majority POV of the followers, so it's not about petitions in any way, we follow the majority POV of the references, under NPOV.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If you think that naturalistic images have undue weight, add more caligraphy. It will improve the article. -MasonicDevice (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
That entirely cynical comment makes it impossible for me to assume good faith.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You mistake curtness for cynicism. More images would improve the article. -MasonicDevice (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No, no it wouldn't, and no, no, I didn't.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you did. Just trust me on this one, OK?-MasonicDevice (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Roll-Over Imagery

In HTML you could have a blacked out "warning", then the image that appears when the cursor is placed over it. Can this be done in Wiki, and would it satiate the offended? --BizMgr (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No - but we'd never do it because it would be censorship. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

People, please read the important notice on the top before you start writing in this discussion. Wikipedia does not have to provide a "warning", because it's censorship. If viewers are insulted by the pictures, read the general disclaimer, and block it on your own computer. If you want to avoid seeing the images on this page, you might want to read this: How to set your browser to not see images. Just because some people with religious POV, object to the images does not mean that Wikipedia should get rid of the images, or else there would be a chain reaction until Wikipedia has no images and everyone follows the Islmaic sharia. Also, Wolfkeeper can you please read the Talk:Muhammad/FAQ more throughly. Specifically, the depictions are, thus, not meant to have any accuracy to them, and are presented here for what they are: yet another form in which Muhammad was depicted by Muslim artists. Janus8463 (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look up Apple in an illustrated encyclopedia, what do you think you will see a picture of? I think people know that an illustrated encyclopedia is likely to have a picture of the article subject. It is also not academically responsible to bowdlerize what is supposed to be a neutral work. (1 == 2)Until 15:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Putting encyclopedias to one side (because they're not sources in the wikipedia), if you look up apple in sources about apples, you typically find pictures of apples there, so encyclopedias follow that convention (and the same is true of Jesus Christ for example, Christian publications and sources are usually knee-deep in fanciful images that are supposed to be him). But if you look up Muhammad in nearly all sources about Muhammad, then you will almost invariably not find pictures there. So putting a picture in this article goes beyond the vast, vast majority on sources on Muhammad we have. In other words, their presence here is considerably biased away from our sources, and we're not neutral, but the policy is that we ought to be neutral and it defines what 'neutral' means in the wikipedia. And it's not what you state above, it's to do with sources on a subject, not comparison with other putatively similar subjects or articles.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
We don't base our content on what is "normal", we base our content on what can be verified by a reliable source and presented neutrally. Has it occurred to you that the vast majority of sources don't carry this image because they are not neutral, because they have allowed religious beliefs bias their content? That is fine if that is what a work chooses to do, but we choose not to be biased by religious beliefs.
The Christians would have use put that Christ is the only path to God on the Jesus article, we will not allow that. Fundamentalists would have use place the age of the Earth at about 6000 years, we will not allow that either. Some people think that showing historical images of a historical figure in and article about that figure is wrong, we don't allow that either.
This is not a Muslim article on Muhammad, it is a historical article on Muhammad, who was a real person whose method of description does not belong to a specific group of people. (1 == 2)Until 16:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
So, in a nutshell the majority of 3rd party sources outside wikipedia are "biased" and "wrong" and hence you and your fellow editors who have the mission to come up with the only "fair" representation of Muhammad in the world will enforce your so called consensus here. Ok, if that is the conclusion - it is acceptable to me. However, just for the record, it may not be acceptable by Wikipedia policy, because this, even if correct, violates WP:NOR. Allow me to explain with an example. Say, I am a very good scientist and I have just come up with a new interpretation/extension of Theory of Relativity. And let's assume that my interpretation is right and in a matter of next 5 years it will be widely accepted by scholarly sources. As of today, before that acceptance is established, If I add that interpretation in the Wikipedia article on Theory of Relativity, even though I may be right, and it may in fact improve the quality of the article in true sense, and even though as of now all other 3rd party sources are actually worng, and even though my new theory may be mathematically superior, I will be violating WP:NOR. This example illustrates, Wikipedia editor's judgement about what to add and what not to add in an article, must be guided by what reliable 3rd party sources say about that topic as of today, any judgemental call beyond that is indedd Original Research. Arman (Talk) 01:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't try to nutshell my words until you can do so accurately. I said the words "we base our content on what can be verified by a reliable source and presented neutrally", and your nutshell of my words is the opposite of what I said. Plenty of scholarly sources show these depictions including historical major museums and academic works dealing with cultures that did and do depict this historical figure. We don't base our content on what other encyclopedias do, we base it on scholarly works of which there are plenty depicting and dealing with the depiction of Muhammad. (1 == 2)Until 01:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Just because Museum shows something doesn't mean it is relevant to the context of a particular article. Academic works "dealing with cultures" indeed shows these images, and you are wholeheartedly welcome to post these images on related articles "dealing with cultures" (Depiction of Muhammad for example). However, when it comes to discussion of Muhammad, an absolute majority of sources do not use these images. And that is why the acceptability of these images on a discussion about Muhammad is not verifiable from 3rd party sources. Arman (Talk) 02:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
What is WP if not one giant experiment work in "dealing with cultures"? But I digress... These images should be acceptable to WP because they are verifiable artistic depictions of Muhammad and are used in the biography of said important historical figure. The pictures assert only that he has been a subject of reverant art for centuries, and give some examples of said art to pretty up the article. Anyone who wants to know more about the depiction of Muhammad over time can go look at that article for more information. Show the art. Mention the prevailing tradition. Link to the relevant article. It's really a simple formula. - MasonicDevice (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Remark

I wonder why all of the pictures you feel compellingly free to show imagine Muhammad with white colour of skin. Austerlitz -- 88.75.88.241 (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Because he was painted by Persians who painted him that way, give or take some fading of pigments over time. (Hypnosadist) 02:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
They're just depictions. :) Jmlk17 10:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Mohammad, Messenger of God wiki says on that site, for example : "In accordance with Muslim beliefs, Muhammad could not be depicted on-screen nor his voice be heard." I have not read nowhere what might be the use of this kind of belief. Shouldn't there be a motivation for that? Austerlitz -- 88.75.73.110 (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

While scrolling the discussion site I've come to notice that there is some information on the site Depictions of Muhammad. Austerlitz -- 88.75.73.110 (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup... Muhammad's depictions are on here for a good purpose and reason. Jmlk17 10:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I am at a loss as to what purpose or reason there might be. Fred Talk 02:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
They demonstrate historical depictions of the subject which have been recognized by scholars as being important elements of Muslim history and exemplifications of the tradition of depiction that did exist in some parts of the world. Pictures do not need to be exclusive to one article or another- iconography can be presented as a representation of Jesus or the apostles, while an article on the specific subject can also display these images.--C.Logan (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I have got to agree with C. Logan, who put it very well. The fact that the images have encyclopedic merit is pretty much beyond repudiation if the agreed upon standard is a demonstration of relevance and notability through reliable sources, which just happens to be our agreed upon standard. (1 == 2)Until 01:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The question isn't whether they are encyclopedic (almost certainly yes). The question is whether including them is NPOV in this particular article we are discussing (Muhammad), and if so, how many and what kinds of images are NPOV.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that these days the discussions are so noisy it's very difficult to address that question. But in principle we can try to discuss it. WilyD 15:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we will just have to disagree on this issue. But we are going to keep the images because the only reasons for removing them are in violation of NPOV. (1 == 2)Until 05:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether removing the images is NPOV or keeping the images is NPOV must be determined based on reliable and verifiable 3rd party sources on this subject. It is not a matter of whims of handful of editors. Consensus can not overrule core policies of Wikipedia. Arman (Talk) 06:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

If anyone is going to put images of The Prophet (P.B.U.H.) I'd just like to make it clear that the "bomb" picture the Danish drew is not going to be in it? IF it did then wouldn't that just lead everyone into thinking that Islam was nothing more than terrorism? LOTRrules (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I consider it really unlikely that provocative images (like most of the Danish cartoons), or images that are unquestionably in bad taste will ever be included in this general Muhammad article. If they are, I will remove them myself. (and I say that as an ardent pro-picture advocate) Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
The danish cartoons (which are and should be on wikipedia) should not and will not be on THIS page as they are recent, drawn by a non-muslim who is not a famous person. As compared to the Persian Muslim 300 year old works of art which are used. (Hypnosadist) 14:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It has been long since decided that the controversial Danish pictures are off topic for this article, if someone does put them in they will be removed. (1 == 2)Until 16:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy would be the correct article. Fnagaton 00:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, that image is far too historically insignificant at this time, and any such suggestion would reek of recentism. A far more plausible painting from Dante's Inferno has been discussed and rejected on several occasions as well. WilyD 13:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it the same as discussing the holocaust?

If people cannot discuss the holocause or evidence and research that shows that the number of jews killed was nothing close to five or six million... why can't we understand that the picture issue is just as offensive, if not more to the muslims! I am for free speech and all, but that doesn't mean we need to offend religions for it. The pictures of Muhammad serve no valuable purpose, and they do offend all muslims, so why not just remove them?

You mean like here: Holocaust denial? --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 06:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. You really can't compare the potential censorship of an image to the discussion of the denial of a tragic event that most definately did occur. They don't equate.
Why should wikipedia censor images that are contained within US servers, and aren't actually in Islamic nations. If it is offensive to you, then you shouldn't view it. Just like pornography. If you don't wish to view it then don't. There should be no need for removal or a disclaimer. I think that idea is absolutely absurd. BalazsH (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Even if that comparison was apt you may be missing the point. Do we remove the image solely because it offends? No. Do we remove the image because they "serve no valuable purpose"? Yes. The issue is consensus is that they do serve a valuable purpose. Feel free to argue with that... within policy guidelines. gren グレン 16:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The debate is allowed to go on.. Just as these paintings exist Holocaust denial Pnd (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive_8&oldid=1079706855"