Talk:Islamic calendar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Islam (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Time (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Islamic calendar:
  • What we should do to achieve GA status criteria :

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Verify : Please add references and verify the text.

Reason for prohibition of intercalation of months[edit]

Does anyone have a good explanation as to why this was forbidden by Mohammed? Was it to reduce the importance of the Kalammas?


Why would intercalation be necessary? There doesn't seem to be any particular reason for that.

Conversions[edit]

What is the present year number in the Islamic calendar? 1379? A sentence in the text like the year 2000 in the Gregorian calendar was 1378 (or what?) in the Islamic might be good.

Of course, when does the Islamic calendar change years? Certainly this changes in respect to the Gregorian calendar as the Islamic months process in relation to the Gregorian. So maybe a page that said 2000 in the Gregorian was 1378 in the Islamic until Sept. (or whenever) and was 5709 (or whatever) in Hebrew until .... etc. with other calendars. Anyone know what these years are?


The present year (beginning in 2001 AD) is 1422. This is larger than 1378, because the year always has just 12 lunar months and so is about 11 days shorter than the Gregorian Calendar year.


The present year is 1430 AH and began in December 2008. Lunar years are either 354 or 355 days long, which means that they are 10-12 days shorter than the solar year. Riyadhrambler (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


This article and the article July 16 both state that the first day of the first year of the Islamic calendar corresponds to July 16, 622. Is that July 16 Julian or Gregorian? (At the time, the Gregorian calendar now in general use had not been developed, and the only contemporaneous "July 16" was actually the Julian one, which would have been a week or so off from the Gregorian count, I think. --Haruo (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the difference would be only 3 days at that time. Dates before 15 October 1582 Gregorian are conventionally given in the Julian Calendar and so this can be assumed unless specified otherwise. The epoch date is thus July 19 in the proleptic Gregorian calendar. Karl (talk)


The corresponding year that would be 1387-1388 would be from the Iranian calendar. ArdClose (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Islamic Calendar[edit]

Islamic Calendar is used only for Ramzan Fasting, Haj pilgrimage and Eid festivities. For all other purposes Gregorian calendar is used. Quran regards moon and the sun merely as sign for counting time and days as follows:

002.189 They ask thee concerning the New Moons. Say: They are but signs to mark fixed periods of time in (the affairs of) men, and for Pilgrimage....

010.005 It is He Who made the sun to be a shining glory and the moon to be a light (of beauty), and measured out stages for her; that ye might know the number of years and the count (of time). Nowise did Allah create this but in truth and righteousness. (Thus) doth He explain His Signs in detail, for those who understand.

At the dawn of Islam there were no printed calendars, no watches and the concept of hours and minutes developed in some 600 years later. The dates were counted by the year of elephants by watching moon and time by the movement of sun. According to old traditions the advice of Prophet Mohammed was as follows:

(1) Narrated Ibn 'Umar: The Prophet said, "We are an illiterate nation; we neither write, nor know accounts. The month is like this and this, i.e. sometimes of 29 days and sometimes of thirty days." (2) Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet or Abu-l-Qasim said, "Start fasting on seeing the crescent (of Ramadan), and give up fasting on seeing the crescent (of Shawwal), and if the sky is overcast (and you cannot see it), complete thirty days of Sha'ban."


Around 9th centuries Muslim astronomers mapped movement of stars, sun and moon and found that the moon is about one fourth of the size of the earth and moves around Earth at an average distance of 238,857 miles, and completes one revolution around Earth in a little more than 27 days. And deep in West of Mecca the moon tends to appear a day earlier and deep in East a day or two later. As Islam had spread in different continents and the means of communications were not swift, it was difficult to determine as to when the new moon was sighted at Mecca. Therefore, Fatmid Caliphs and Imam prescribed a calendar in 10th century developed by the great astronomer Albairooni that dispensed with the need for actual moon sighting in order to maintain uniformity in Islamic world.

That calendar is still used in Egypt, Syria and most Arab world as also Bohra community in India and Pakistan and they do not see any need for sighting moon even for Ramzan. But Saudi bigots insist that the calendar should be adjusted every month based on moon sighting in Mecca. And orthodox Ulemas in India and Pakistan and North America insist that fasting and Eid must be based on moon sighting in their own country.

Bigoted Ulemas fail to realize that nowhere in Holy Quran the actual sighting of moon has been made mandatory and the Traditions (Hadiths) do not prescribe a categorical practice for all times to come and that advice was meant for Meccans of that time who used to count time and dates by movement of moon and sun and the calendars and wathces were not available to them. That is why in many Muslim communities the calendar is adjusted every month and at least two to three different sets are followed in different countries. The Muslims who do not believe in the monthly adjustment are in minority.

Shah N. Khan http://www.magway.net/paklink

The moon sighting should not be characterized as a misguided notion of "bigoted ulemas" or "saudi bigots". Numerous verses in the Qur'an (6:4, 3:32, 3:132, 4:69, 47:33, etc.) command muslims to obey the messenger (Muhammed). To muslims, the Qur'an mandates that the verbal and practical traditions of Muhammed are executable directives transmitted through Muhammed to the believers.
Muslim #2379 states "Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Observe fast on sighting it (the new moon) and break (fast) on sighting it (the new moon), but if the sky is cloudy for you, then complete the number (of thirty)." Muhammed did not qualify this statement with a time constraint, or say "unless you can calculate it's appearance".
Muslim #2391 states "Kuraib reported that Umm Fadl, daughter of Harith, sent him (Fadl, i. e. her son) to Mu'awiya in Syria. I (Fadl) arrived in Syria, and did the needful for her. It was there in Syria that the month of Ramadan commenced. I saw the new moon (of Ramadan) on Friday. I then came back to Medina at the end of the month. Abdullah b. 'Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) asked me (about the new moon of Ramadan) and said: When did you see it? I said.: We saw it on the night of Friday. He said: (Did) you see it yourself? -I said: Yes, and the people also saw it and they observed fast and Mu'awiya also observed fast, whereupon he said: But we saw it on Saturday night. So we would continue to observe fast till we complete thirty (lasts) or we see it (the new moon of Shawwal). I said: Is the sighting of the moon by Mu'awiya not valid for you? He said: No; this is how the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) has commanded us." This practice demonstrates that different localities may begin or end a month based on the actual sighting at that locality. There is no requirement that all muslim regions are uniform with respect to the calender. Or, that every nation must adapt to meccan time.
Abu Dawud #2331 states "Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar: Husayn ibn al-Harith al-Jadli from the tribe of Jadilah Qays said: The governor of Mecca delivered a speech and said: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) took a pledge from us that we should perform the rites of hajj after sighting the moon. If we do not sight it and two reliable persons bear witness (that it was sighted), we should perform the rites of hajj on the basis of their witness."
There are no known utterences from Muhammed that prescribe, or support, computational predictions of astronomical events. Nor are there any prescriptions from Muhammed that moon sightings are only for meccans or Saudis. Modern dependence on computational methodologies is not consistent with the islamic tradition that religion should be simple, even for an uneducated, illiterate believer. While many scholars do support the use of computational techniques to ease the practice of the religion, there are no mandates by anyone that requires these techniques to be used. The same scholars that support computational techniques also support moon sighting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah PBA (talkcontribs) 05:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Define AH[edit]

Somehow "AH" needs to be defined before it is used, perhaps with a reference to the section of the article where it is explained fully. I was confused when I first saw AH. I'm not sure how to do this best. Bruce 20:11, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

It clearly means "After Hijra" Dr B2 (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: the picture in Islamic calendar[edit]

Please take the picture out of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation, illustration of Al-Bīrūnī's The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries. It is blasphemy under Islamic law to put a picture of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). This picture offends all of the Muslims and needs to be taken off immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.156.153 (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

what is the importance of this image in Islamic calendar article.I think it has no relation with the islamic calendar.please remove it.--Moda yahia (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi.
Hmm, someone removed parts of the image caption at some point. The image is apparently an illustration of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation, and as such is used to illustrate the Islamic calendar#Annulling intercalation section. You're quite correct that as it was, it didn't make much sense.
Cheers, Amalthea 16:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I still think it is not important in Islamic calendar#Annulling intercalation.I think it should be removed.--Moda yahia (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You'll notice that it wasn't me who restored the image this time, so apparently I'm not alone in thinking that it is a useful illustration. Could I ask you to start a discussion about it at Talk:Islamic calendar instead of removing it again?
Thank you, Amalthea 09:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Yahia, this image don't have any importance to add in this article, and for muslims it is very offensive to show prophet Muhammad in an image or statue, so i really want it to be deleted . Dr B2 (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I also think that this image is not needed here. yasirniazkhan (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

how to dare you dont again take this image .
its so disturbing for muslims.ok be care full. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noman.king (talkcontribs) 22:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This image is blasphemous ! Please understand that it hurts billions ! Pay some respect to such a large amount of HUMANS for the sake of HUMANITY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.130.163 (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Thank you. --NeilN talk to me 12:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed the image (again),and I will do so every time it is replaced. It is offensive to Muslims, and serves no purpose other than to get a rise from us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.16.163 (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
You do that and watch the image get re-instated as per the community consensus of KEEPING the image in the article! Barts1a (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Please, I ask of you, what's the harm in removing this image? I understand that some might find the illustration useful, but I really think the article would still provide the necessary information without it. On the other hand, Muslims are forbidden to display or illustrate the face of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), any other Prophet such as Jesus or Moses (pbut) or God. This image, although may not seem much to you, will offend many Muslims around the world. I plead you to remove this image if only as a favour to all the Muslims who visit this site daily. Perhaps we would be able to find an image in its place that would respect everyone's personal belief's? 78.150.127.225 (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The picture you claim to remove is taken from 600 years old Ilkhanid manuscript. So, it's an islamic picture! If your islamic ancestors could put this picture in their books, who are you to object doing the same today? I don't understand it.Merewyn (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no respect for the Islamic faith. They can't even perform such a petty act as remove the picture of the Prophet (PBUH). Ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.198.24 (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please just remove the picture, just because it is from an arab manuscript doesnt make it ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.153.111 (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

DEPICTION OF THE BLASPHEMOUS ARTISTIC RENDERING OF THE PROPHET OF ISLAM (PBHU): Sheeraze

It is indeed, as many have emphasized in this section, a blasphemy in the extreme to depict an artistic rendering of the prophet of Islam(pbuh). As a matter of fact it is blasphemous in Islam to depict any prophet - that is to say that it is equally blasphemous to depict Moses, Jesus, Ibraham and Noah to name a few. By giving one example from of such a blasphemy from Muslim world (a few centuries ago) does not nullify one of the most important Islamic injunctions. Can you deny the fact that modern Islamic world detest any such blasphemy - in spite of the preponderance of such depictions of Jesus, Moses and other prophets, on part of non-Muslim world. By giving reference of a solitary incidence of such a depiction of prophets image you are insulting your own intelligence, displaying rather uncivilized behavior towards Muslim world. You are clearly disregarding the courtesy you owe towards Muslims. This is the intellectual-terrorism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheeraze (talkcontribs)

This isn't the Islamic Encyclopedia. No such proscription (or indeed, the notion of blasphemy) exists here. --NeilN talk to me 17:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Fictional intercalary month[edit]

What's this nonesense about abolishing a fictional intercalary month? There is no historical source that I'm aware of mentioning that Muhammad abolished an intercalary month. For all we know, arabs before Muhammad used a purely lunar calendar. The cited verse has nothing to do with intercalary months. The verse talks about switching holy months. You see, before Muhammad arabs used to switch holy months as often as they liked. So for example they would make the holy month of Muharram a normal month and make a normal month like Jumada holy for that particular year. So why is this versed cited here? I'm deleting the entire paragraph about intercalary month unless someone show me a reliable source which mention abolishing intercalary months (which is highly unlikely). Sci fi writer (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, lycos.com has a reference to it here, citing this page. Christian Churches of God has a fairly POV article on the subject here as well. A book by the US Naval Observatory refers to it here, as do several others here and here. I hope that's enough. John Carter (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    • FWIW, the wikia page is a copy of our article, in large parts at least. Amalthea 21:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • There's also a bit about it at The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries and At-Tawba, but I haven't looked at the respective sources too deeply. Amalthea 21:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Muhammad himself stated in the cited verse from his farewell sermon (Islamic calendar#Annulling intercalation) that he is abolishing the intercalary month, "O People, intercalation is an addition to unbelief ..." For a discussion of intercalated months before Islam and their prohibition by Muhammad see al-Biruni, "Intercalation of the Ancient Arabs" in The Chronology of Ancient Nations, p.73–74 (written in 1000 CE), mentioned by Amalthea under the name The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries. — Joe Kress (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Another discussion is by S. B. Burnaby, Elements of the Jewish and Muhammadan calendars (1901) in Part II: The Muhammadan Calendar, page 367. He states that Arabs originally used a purely lunar calendar, but in 412 CE they adopted a lunisolar calendar containing an intercalary month named Nasi, which Muhammad prohibited in 632 CE. Burnaby's English version of the farewell sermon actually replaces "intercalation" with "the Nasi" indicating that Muhammad used the name of the intercalary month, "Nasi". — Joe Kress (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The word "intercalation" is a mistranslation of the verse. The original arabic word in the verse is an-nasi' which means literaly delaying, not intercalation. All the quran commentaries that I'm aware of explain this word as refering to the delaying/switching of holy months, not to intercalation. Check for example the commentary of Ibn Kathir [1]. As for the Remaining Signs of the Past Centuries, I'll check the original arabic text because I don't think it mentions intercalation. Now you mentioned Sherrard Burnaby, this proves that at least one scholar believes in the existense of an intercalary month. But that still doesn't change the fact that the early arabic sources -especially the Quran commentaries- mention nothing about an intercalary month and explain the verse as refering to the switching of holy months. The problem with this article is that it presents the intercalary month as an undisputed fact, even though in reality the very existense of an intercalary month is supported by a small number of scholars. Sci fi writer (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In E.J. Brill's first encyclopaedia of Islam NASI' is defined as an "intercalary month, intercalation, or man on whose authority an intercalation is undertaken". However it is also connected to "postpone". In addition to intercalation it may mean the "transference of the sanctity of one holy month to another, in itself not holy". The equivalent article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam has almost identical wording. In The Encyclopaedia of Islam article TA'RIKH (chronology) section "Pre-Islamic and agricultural calendars of the Arabian peninsula" these dual meanings are applied to Sura 9:37. One group of Muslim scholars "maintain that nasi' was a procedure by which an official (the nasi' ) connected with the Ka'ba cult at Mecca altered the distribution of 'forbidden' and 'permitted' months within a given year (or within two successive years)". Others, notably Muslim astronomers and modern scholars, "claim that the 'postponement' of the forbidden months was the result of the fact that the pagan Arabs intercalated a thirteenth month every two years; nasi' is thus in effect the old Arabic word for 'intercalation' (kabisa), a practice wnich was abolished with the revelation of the above-cited verse." — Joe Kress (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Joe for bringing this to my attention. So according to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Muslim scholars believe that Nasi refers to the delaying of forbidden months while astronomers and western scholars believe it refers to intercalation. This could be a good basis for editing the article. Sci fi writer (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This may be worth some attention: The Quran says there are 12 months in a year Repentance: (9-36):"twelve is the number of months with God." Now, this statement is only justified if the number of months used in a year, as used by the Arabs at the time, differed from twelve. Because the Quran didn't use to present evident facts to the people, only things which were especially worth a particular mention. On this basis, I personally would think that the intercalary month did exist at the time, as mentioned by several sources, especially since the Jews living in Arabia had a calendar which used the procedure of intercalation.Aster77 (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Jahiliyya[edit]

Pease, take a look here. What do wikipedians think about this question? --Vermondo (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous editor, 93.32.59.132, just added a direct prohibition of years "before Hijra" to this article as follows:
The years preceding the Hijra are not cosidered in this calendar (Muslims regard these times simply as the Jahiliyyah, i.e. "the age of ignorance"), and calendars calculating years BH are nonsense ["Christian dates before 622 AD cannot be converted into Islamic dates as no <BEFORE-HIJRA>- chronology exists" (Computus calendar conversion program).]
I am moving this statement to this talk page for discussion because a blanket prohibition makes no sense. According to its article, Jahiliyyah means the time before the Qu'ran was revealed, which began in 610 CE, hence in 12 BH. Furthermore, Muhammad is said to have been born in 53 BH (570 CE) in [2]. www.understanding-islam.com uses both before Hijra and Jahiliyyah in [3]. An Islamic book [4] and a life of Abu Bakr [5] use before Hijra years. So some "before Hijra" years are in common use in Islamic literature. — Joe Kress (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course, some dates around hijra times are sometimes referred to as "this fact happened NN years before Hijra", but this is limited to a few decades, less than a century. In no book of history you will find, for instance, Roman Empire dates expressed like, say: "546 BH" or something alike. The problem is also linked with the fact that up to a certain time years were "full years" and not lunar years as in Islamic times, so years before hijra should be calculated in another way. I think that wikipedia calendar calculating such years in this way is quite nonsense. --93.32.52.197 (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Admitting that less than a century of years are sometimes identified as "before Hijra" was excluded by your first edit. So both of us agree that a limited number of years are identified as "before Hijra". However, "Jahiliyyah" (the age of ignorance) cannot be stated as the reason that more years are not so identified unless you provide a reliable source which explicitly links "Jahiliyyah" with years "before Hijra". The source should be in English because this is the English Wikipedia. "Full years" vs lunar years is a separate issue already discussed in the article under History concerning the meaning of "Nasi", and on this talk page immediately above, beginning at #Fictional intercalary month. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic pilgrimage[edit]

This line

Other scholars, both Muslim[5][6] and Western,[7][8] concur that it was originally a lunar calendar, but about 200 years before the Hijra it was transformed into a lunisolar calendar containing an intercalary month added from time to time to keep the pilgrimage within the season of the year when merchandise was most abundant for Bedouin buyers.

is confusing to me. If the Hijra was Mohamed' move from Mecca to Medina (and presumably the beginning of Islam) then this change in Calendar calculation took place before the existence of Islam (or so it reads). Why then is there a reference to Pilgrimage in the same sentence when none could possibly have existed when this change took place? Did other types of pilgrimages occur prior to the establishment of Islam? If so, shouldn't there be a distinction made between that and the Islamic definition?Hschlarb (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The pilgrimage to Mecca or Hajj existed long before Muhammad. Indeed, according to Islamic tradition, it has existed since the time of Abraham, who built the Kaaba, its main focus, in some form, also according to Islamic tradition. The main purpose of the pilgrimage was to vist the Kaaba, to worship the idols around it, and to attend the annual fair held there to buy merchandise. Muhammad destroyed the idols, but otherwise continued to observe the pilgrimage. Of course, several Islamic elements have been added to pilgrimage, such as a visit to Mount Arafat in commemoration of Muhammad's Farewell Sermon, the Stoning of the Devil, and circling the Kaaba seven times (Tawaf). The annual fair now takes the form of Eid al-Adha. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. I see traditional patterns that move from religion to religion. Christianity converts Sol Invictus into Christmas. Islam converts a pilgrimage to a pagan site into something more focussed. Judaism must also have an equivalent. You got to go with what works.Hschlarb (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Muslims believe that Islam was created by God and the first muslim was Adam. The pilgrimage to the kaaba begun by the muslim prophet Abraham was corrupted over time into a pagan festival. The islamic pilgrimage isn't an adaptation from another religion, rather it is a restoration of the original muslim tradition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah PBA (talkcontribs) 04:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be most beneficial if you could provide citations from third party sources Hschlarb (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Read first comment, and, by the way, you can type and search yourself, or are you too spoonfed to do research. Plus, Christianity changed dates due to an emperor of non-christian decent, Islam did not experience such and allowed for it to continue, please blanket statements makes you stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.88.212 (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Days of the week in Urdu?[edit]

The days of the week should just be listed in Arabic (without Urdu translations). As much as I love Urdu, this is an English language article about the Hijri calender, which is in Arabic. Urdu is not even the most common language spoken among Muslims, so better just leave that to the Urdu article (the Persian as well). The Persian days of the week could go in an article describing the Persian calendar system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.75.198 (talkcontribs) 08:59, 3 June 2009

Cleanup of article[edit]

I have eliminated most redundancies, some incoherences between the propositions presented in different sections, some factual errors, some dubious statements, and tried to improve style and readibility.Aster77 (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Lunar or not?[edit]

In the introduction of the page the article says that the Islamic calendar is lunar, but in the "Astronomical considerations" section it says specifically that it's "not to be confused with the lunar calendar". Which is it? The lunar calendar page clearly indicates that the Islamic calendar is a lunar calendar, so the astronomical considerations section appears to be making a very fine distinction in a confusing manner - since it suggests that 'actual' lunar calendars have an intercalary month, while the lunar calendar page claims that this is actually a feature of lunisolar calendars and that the Islamic calendar is an example of a purely lunar one. 118.93.77.8 (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Converter[edit]

It would be great if someone who understands computing could design a converter for this page, so the reader can put in a date and get the date in the other calendar. It wouldn't be hard to do for someone who understands these things. Other Wiki pages have special mini-programs attached for various useful subject-specific effects. --Doric Loon (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The page now has several date converters. — Glenn L (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Please remove the picture showing the prophet[edit]

Zohebkidwai (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Please remove the picture stated 'Muhammad prohibiting intercalation'. We in islam do not encourage to draw pictures of our prophet. I hope you understand the sensitivity of this subject and remove the Picture from there.

See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Dougweller (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The picture you claim to remove is a 17th century copy of an early 14th century Ilkhanid manuscript. So, it's an islamic picture. If your islamic ancestors could put this picture in their books, who are you to object doing the same today? I don't understand it. Merewyn (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear Merewyn. the picture is as you say Ilkhanid, but the Ilkhanate, was part of the Mongolian empire, stretching into the Persian territories, perhaps not regarded too muslim in the aftermath. Another point here to consider in regard of the socio-political power of visual representation and propagation, i.e. history of the discourse regarding iconoclasm, is that this is not a particularly islamic featurer. Wars have been fought between christians of challenging points of view. It is not a settle matter between orthodox christians, and catholics. It is a millenia long discourse relating to the second commandment. Christian Protestantism, especially Zwingli and Calvin, has been considered iconoclastic. Hiskia, King of Judah, was an Iconoclast, even destroying the representation of Nehushtan, the brazen snakes on the ark of the covenant. Even Early Buddhism is considered iconoclastic inregard of its Hindu background, until hellenisation of Buddhism that was. In a modern reflection the commandment needs be related to the discourse of ad-busting and propaganda. On the other hand, what would be the pre-requisites for making a film on Muhammad (PBUH) without it being a blasphemous film. --Xact (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't want to sound offensive but what is the final short conclusion of your long story? The muslims in 14th century COULD DEPICT the Prophet but now they cannot because of Christian Protestants and Early Buddhism quarrels?? Or what? Merewyn (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

taking pictures and drawing living beings is highly discouraged in islam. with that said, graphics of prophets (peace be upon them) is very inappropriate. even if somebody thinks its useful or educational somehow and some muslims might have previously used the graphics but it doesn't justify the arguments thats taking place now. i know a lot of muslims would be willing to remove this picture but they dont know how to. so please consider the request. peace! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.6.68 (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Stimulated disharmonies[edit]

There is an error, I believe, in the weekday table of this article stating that Sabbath is the first day of the week according to Muslims. Such an error is potentially stimulating disharmony between faithfulls. The correct (signified orthodox) view among muslims are not that Yawm Sabbath is the first day of the week, but the last. Similarly secular Christians, and secular western calendars, of phones and computers and so on, keep the erroneous calculation of Sundays as the seventh day of the week. I do not believe any biblical scholar, nor muslim scholar, as no wise Jew would disagree that Yom Sabbath, or Yawm Sawth, (or whatever transliteration) is anything else than the seventh day of the week. In addition: Jews, Christians and Muslims, do all similarly convert the Sabbath with the Roman empirical Saturday in our time. --Xact (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As the Arabic names of the weekdays Sunday to Thursday literally mean 'first day', 'second day', etc., it would seem to be obvious (even for simpletons) that the list should begin with Sunday and that Saturday should placed at the bottom (not at the top) of the table. AstroLynx (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Why it may be considered of importance[edit]

At least I feel it is of importance. And I feel an urge to elucidate it; since I for years have been mislead to assume that Muslims, Jews and Christians disagree about which day of the week is the Holy Day: Saturday of Jews, Sunday for Christians, And the Muslims keep the Friday.... I've even been thinking that this is a typical sillyness of religion. It surely creates problems in integration-politics, and so on. But! This is not the case! Now I've come to the opposite conclusion: what is held to be the orthodox & scholarly view within all these three denominations of the Abrahamic Religion is that it is the seventh day that is the Sabbath. We all agree. Religion is not the cause of this confusion.

The Christians keep Sundays as congregation day, because the ressurection of Jesus the Messiah was witnessed by Maria the Magdalene on the break of the first day of the week following the second Sabbath of the first month; which was the passover of Jews and all of Yisrael (not bound to the Sionist perspective). It seems quite obvious that in the year of the Golgata mystery, the lunar Sabbath and the seventh day of the Romans which was the day of Saturnus (Hebrew Kiwan) was a match, thus the indication is that according to holy Scripture Christ overcame Satan and subdued the Nephilims in the netherworld on the Seventh day, Yom Sawt, and ressurected on the first day, on that year a Sunday. That it most probably was on a Sunday is not given for every year. Because the orthodox Jews of the time most probably calculated the seven day week primarily according to the lunar calendar. The Pesakh, passover, and the sacrifice of the Holy Lamb, was/is ritually to be held on the evening before the full-moon day of the first month of spring Nisan. The following full-moon day was/is evidently a Sabbath. --Xact (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Solar or Lunar week?[edit]

The solar-lunar correlations seem to have been somewhat confused during the Babylonian captivity. A theme accounted for in the canonical book of Esther. So, it was not every year a lunar Sabbath happened to be on a Saturday of the Solar Romans. Because The Julian Calendar was as novel as the Roman Empire was young; the Judeans were most probably divided along several lines in regard of what should be correct timekeeping. The western, alledged christian habbit of keeping the Sunday sacred, is actually not so much a christian as it is a pagan tradition, as is in matter of fact the western calendar (in spite being in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church). But still a cause to keep the day in awe and free from business, from a christian-muslim perspective, is that Isa the Messiah rose from death on a first day of the current global calendar, the day of the Sun in the reckoning of the Roman Calendar, There are no reason to believe that the perpetuality of the seven day week has been broken since Julius Ceasar inaugurated the system. --Xact (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Spiritual pragmatics of Muhammad (PBUH)[edit]

One needs not much moral phantasy to see the revolutionary Muhammad (PBUH), being very concerned about the importance of calendars in regard of the power politics, e.g. control of the masses. It is easy to imagine him urging the people of the true religion of the prophets and all of Yisrael, to summon the holy assembly for devotional prayers allready on the sixth day, leading up to the holy seventh, on which day in the free nation of Allah, God of the ineffable tetragrammaton, the children of God are awake, giving (offering) everything back to Him; who on the seventh day of creation rests in union with the nature of All, Holy Mother Mercy of the Heavens. Or something like it. It is a matter of economics, or that is, of becoming free from enslavement. From any of these religious perspectives it is a sign of infidelity to trade, make money, to work, or to exploit the earth and the hearts and minds of people on the Sawt. My point is that Muhammad (PBUH) in line with Jesus the Messiah and all the Prophets herolds the view not merely defending the seventh day as sacred, nei, rather expanding the realisation that all of creation is sacred, directing our observation to the waxing and waning of the holy lifeforce in regard of the moon with its seventh day principle perceivable for all on the globe. This last point is of course not the orthodox perspective, since all three denominations are fooled by the calendrics of the Roman empire (probably derived from an ancient etruscan market calendar) binding the seventh day cycle to the strictly solar calendar, and mixed up with the wisdom of the Babylonian Zoroastrian calendars. Muhammad (PBUH) I believe, was aware of the errors of both the Sassanid-Persian and Roman-Byzantian imperialist traditions. When calling out for the Friday prayers, this is a statement not against the holiness of Yawm al-Sabbaoth, but the infringements to spiritual devotion and sacred time caused by the commersial interests of the elites of both the quarrelling powers of his contemporeality. --Xact (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Libya[edit]

The sources appear as confused as the Libyan people, but Gaddafi may have changed from the Prophet's death to his birth in 1979 following the declaration of the new calendar (dating from his death instead of the hijra) in 1978. MacFarquhar's take is anecdotal and includes women saying "Why can't we be like everyone else?" but probably sums it up best. If it weren't original research, I would add that in practice people use the Western calendar anyway. Jabrol (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Image[edit]

Removed the erroneous image سليمان عدنان مصطفى (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Added back per consensus and WP:NOTCENSORED. --NeilN talk to me 10:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I WILL REMOVE ANY UNNECESSARY PICTURE OF OUR Prophet, especially on a page for the ISLAMIC CALENDAR!! It is stupid, just don't put it back, many muslims, including me, will remove it each f****** time, so dont bother putting back on. thank you and excuse my language or tone. As a muslim i am never like this, but sometimes, the way people try to justify acts just anger me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daasmarka (talkcontribs) 23:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry the image offends you, but Wikipedia is not censored. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for all the answers to questions about depicting Muhammad. — Glenn L (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Glenn, Robert, William and the rest - when will you get the message that it's not a question of censorship but CONSENSUS? Of course the people holding minority views will scream "censorship" when their views are overruled, but that's the way Wikipedia works. If you don't want to play by the rules, go away and start your own on - line encyclopedia - you can do what you like then. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Converter (again)[edit]

Up until about a month ago, there was a converter which enabled the Gregorian equivalent of a specified month to be checked by reference to a list on the Hebrew calendar page. Examples:

2011 1 Jumada I equals 4 April (actual conjunction at Greenwich 3 April)
2012 1 Jumada I equals 23 March (actual conjunction at Greenwich 22 March)
2013 1 Jumada I equals 12 March (actual conjunction at Greenwich 11 March).

Although the data is correct (the Muslim month begins about a day after conjunction when the new moon becomes visible) it has been removed twice. I think it is a useful addition to the article and should stay, but I would like to know what other readers think. 92.24.106.228 (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The French Republican Calendar has an actual calendar avaiable (as the calendar would appear currently if it was still in use), along with the current Gregorian day. Could a similar calendar be made for the Islamic calendar? I don't know how the other one was made. 65.65.230.49 (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

At the bottom of the page are several links to online date converters. See also Tabular Islamic calendar. AstroLynx (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirect for Umm al-Qura[edit]

This calendar is also referred to as the Umm al-Qura calendar (see http://www.siao2.com/2011/06/15/10174716.aspx) - a redirect for Umm al-Qura to this page should be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.98 (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I created Umm al-Qura calendar as a redirect to the existing section Saudi Arabia's Umm al-Qura calendar. — Joe Kress (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Remove the picture of muhammad.[edit]

You had previously stated that the picture is islamic and it is not. No picture of that nature is islamic. Here is the proof that these pictures have nothing to do with islam. The picture has no relation to islam not even in a general sense.

Hadith - Bukhari 3:428, Narrated Said bin Abu Al-Hasan

While I was with Ibn 'Abbas a man came and said, "O father of 'Abbas! My sustenance is from my manual profession and I make these pictures." Ibn 'Abbas said, "I will tell you only what I heard from Allah's Apostle . I heard him saying, 'Whoever makes a picture will be punished by Allah till he puts life in it, and he will never be able to put life in it.' " Hearing this, that man heaved a sigh and his face turned pale. Ibn 'Abbas said to him, "What a pity! If you insist on making pictures I advise you to make pictures of trees and any other unanimated objects."

Hadith -Bukhari 4:47, Narrated 'Aisha

I stuffed for the Prophet a pillow decorated with pictures (of animals) which looked like a Namruqa (i.e. a small cushion). He came and stood among the people with excitement apparent on his face. I said, "O Allah's Apostle! What is wrong?" He said, "What is this pillow?" I said, "I have prepared this pillow for you, so that you may recline on it." He said, "Don't you know that angels do not enter a house wherein there are pictures; and whoever makes a picture will be punished on the Day of Resurrection and will be asked to give life to (what he has created)?"

Hadith - Muslim, Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib

AbulHayyaj al-Asadi told that Ali ibn AbuTalib said to him: Should I not send you on the same mission as Allah's Messenger sent me? Do not leave an image without obliterating it, or a high grave without levelling it. This hadith has been reported by Habib with the same chain of transmitters and he said: (do not leave) a picture without obliterating it.

So whoever invented these pictures are unislamic and so are the pictures. They are of severe offense to the true muslim people and would be greatly appreciated if it is removed as it is not associated with islam. It's a fabrication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DamirWahid (talkcontribs) 06:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see you are using the "no true scottsman" arguement.157.157.68.205 (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

First day of the week in islam is Sunday, Not Sat.[edit]

Saturday is the sabbath, friday is jum'ah. The first day of the week is youm- al ahad meaning "day one" and that falls on a sunday, not saturday. I can provide my proof if you are serious about editing this article to accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DamirWahid (talkcontribs) 06:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, there is an error in the article regarding the English translation of the Arabic names of the days of the week. For example, Sunday and Monday are correctly transliterated as al-Ahad and al-Ithnayn, but they are wrongly translated as seventh and first days, whereas the meaning is actually first and second days. This applies throughout, with the obvious exception of al-Jumah (Friday).

Remove the picture depicting the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)[edit]

the picture is irrelevant to the topic and offensive to 1.6 billion Muslims. I don't know why Wikipedia care so much about copy right law (which I agree with) and not care at all about the feeling of millions if not billions of Muslims. Please remove the picture immediately as it has no value in the topic rather than offending Muslims. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yabdulky (talkcontribs) 19:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry the image offends you, but Wikipedia is not censored. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for all the answers to questions about depicting Muhammad. — CIS (talk | stalk) 19:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep the pictures depicting Mohammed[edit]

I feel strongly the pictures should remain. They help immensely to illustrate the story being told, and it's vital to note that Wikipedia is not subject to Muslim or any religious belief. To be guided by religious feeling from any religion sets a very dangerous precedent. Randal Oulton (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Remove or Blur face of Prophet Muhammad SAW from one of the image[edit]

Hi

The image under the section "Prohibiting Nasi" is depecting Prophet Muhammad's face (which will not be taken well with muslims). Kindly remove or blur the face of Prophet as soon as possible.

THanks, 193.130.234.15 (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Mateen

Won't happen. See Talk:Muhammad/images William M. Connolley (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Can't you guys add up?[edit]

Re this post on my talk page User talk:87.194.35.154 the voting following discussion here was

For removal of the image

Moda yahia 16:33, 15 April 2009
Dr B2 04:36, 8 July 2009
Noman.king 22:52, 12 February 2010
68.82.156.153 11:16, 21 March 2010
202.125.130.163 09:35, 14 April 2010
Zohebkidwai 09:55, 27 May 2010
72.213.16.163 23:53, 11 Aug. 2010
yasirniazkhan 02:16, 21 Aug. 2010
78.150.127.225 23:54, 13 Nov. 2010
174.115.198.24 05:59, 13 Dec. 2010
سليمان عدنان مصطفى
08:53, 13 May 2011
DamirWahid 06:05, 29 June 2011
Yabdulky 19:37, 18 July 2011
193.130.234.15 08:59, 1 Aug. 2011
Daasmarka 23:20, 9 Oct. 2011

Against

Amalthea 09:34, 17 April 2009
Neil N 12:43, 14 April 2010
Barts1a 09:35, 12 Aug. 2010
Dougweller 05:56, 21 Aug. 2010
Merewyn 13:08, 7 Jan. 2011
Xact 04:37, 18 Feb. 2011
CIS 19:55, 18 July 2011
Randal Oulton 01:54, 30 July 2011
William M. Connolley 09:59, 1 Aug. 2011
Glenn L 02:44, 10 Oct. 2011

All the IPs are on different continents.

Motion passed15/10/0.

The argument by the antis is that removing the images would make writing a neutral encyclopedia impossible. But the pros aren't asking for them to be removed altogether, only from places where they are not material to the subject being explained. The subject matter of this article is not the Prophet at all - it's the calendar used by his followers. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


For policy on this see [6] and [7]. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That isn't how consensus works on Wikipedia. Egg Centric 12:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
That's not consensus and the opinions of two people running in the board elections carry no special weight. See Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not consensus. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is a summary of the argument:

In favour

Moda yahia (irrelevant)
Dr B2 (blasphemy/irrelevant)
Norman.King (blasphemy)
68.82.156.153 (blasphemy)
202.125.130.163 (blasphemy)
Zohebkidwai (picture not allowed)
72.213.16.163 (offensive/provocative)
Yasirniazkhan (irrelevant)
78.150.127.225 (adds nothing to the article/offensive)
174.115.198.24 (disrespectful)
سليمان عدنان مصطفى
(no reason given)
DamirWahid (offensive/not a true likeness)
Yabdulky (irrelevant/offensive)
193.130.234.15 (offensive)
Daasmarka (unnecessary)

Against

Amalthea (useful)
NeilN (claiming consensus for keep when there is none)
Barts1a (claiming consensus for keep when there is none)
Dougweller (inadmissible reason)
Merewyn (picture is Islamic)
Xact (inadmissible reason)
CIS (uses WP:NOTCENSORED argument which says in effect that you can put anything in even though the majority don't want it)
Randal Oulton (useful illustration/Wikipedia does not care about religious sensitivities (???)
William M. Connolley (inadmissible reason)
Glenn L (claiming consensus for keep when there is none)

It will be seen that discounting the objections which are mainly hot air the consensus is even more marked - 8 to 3 for removal. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ? AstroLynx (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the point being that while in normal circumstances editors might cut someone a little slack if they want to include content which is not relevant, if that content is going to upset the majority of readers it might be better to leave it out. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think that the majority of the readers of this article are Muslims? There are many non-Muslims who are interested in the organization and history of the Islamic calendar (I surely am not the only one). Anyway, deleting the image here would also affect other articles in which the same or similar images are used - see Talk:Muhammad and Talk:Muhammad/images. The image in question is a respectful image of Muhammad made by a Muslim artist for a Muslim audience and is relevant for the article as it is linked with the abolition of intercalary months in the early Arabian calendar. AstroLynx (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Did I say that the majority of the readers are Muslims? Many non-Muslims are appalled that a handful of people deliberately set out to rile members of faiths that they are not (so far as I am aware) members of. I take the Tube (subway) to my place of worship so therefore you can say that the Tube is relevant to places of worship but you wouldn't therefore expect to see pictures of Tube trains in an article on places of worship. The picture is not a picture of Muhammad at all - if put in an auction catalogue with the label "Picture of Muhammad" it would contravene the Trade Descriptions Act. If you disregard the blasphemy argument there is still a consensus of 6 - 3 for removal. I don't know where you get the idea the picture was painted by a Muslim artist - according to the attribution the author is unknown. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I do not see why the Tube is now relevant to this discussion. The (unknown) artist who made (or in this case copied) the image was perhaps not a Muslim but it was made for a work by a well-known Muslim author which was dedicated to a Muslim ruler. Did you actually take the trouble to have a look at the work we are talking about? It is available online in several editions. You will then see that the image is quite relevant for this topic. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia and is not subject to religious rules. If you are offended by this image, then there are ways to block it from appearing on your screen - see Talk:Muhammad and Talk:Muhammad/images. AstroLynx (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
So the book was written by a Muslim and dedicated to a Muslim ruler. So what? This book covered not only Muslim chronology but also Babylonian, Coptic, Greek, Jewish, Persian, Roman etc. the last time I looked. In any event, the picture was painted 200 years after the book was written.
I fail to see how a picture of a group of believers standing around a pulpit can in any way aid the understanding of the Muslim (or indeed any) calendar. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Your arguments are shifting targets in an attempt to remove an image, isn't going to happen. Ogress smash! 19:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The tenuous link is that this is a representation of the Prophet telling the faithful there will be no more intercalary months. But does the painter actually say that, or does he merely say that this is a representation of the Prophet giving his address at the Farewell Pilgrimage? 87.194.35.154 (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I see that you still have not taken the trouble to do some research yourself. The image in question is found in the second chapter of al-Biruni's Chronology of Ancient Nations. The text clearly links the image with Muhammad's abolition of intercalary months in the local Arabian calendar during the Farewell Speech given at his last pilgrimage [Sura 9:37]. You can find an English translation here [p. 14]. If you want to check Sachau's translation, the Arabic text can be found here [p. 12]. If you want to check Sachau's edition of the Arabic text, the Paris manuscript (ms. Arabe 1489) is online here [see fol. 5v]. WARNING: the manuscript contains several Muhammad images! AstroLynx (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────All right, you've made a valid point there. The picture does have some passing relevance to the subject of the Islamic calendar. The point is that if every fact which had some passing relevance was included in articles they would all be the size of full - length novels. This is why the concept of "consensus" was introduced to provide an efficient mechanism for determining what peripheral matters should go into articles and what should stay out.

Although the picture is billed in the article as "Muhammad prohibiting intercalation" that is misleading. It misrepresents the intention of the artist, which was to depict the Prophet addressing the faithful at the Farewell Pilgrimage. A number of matters were covered in that discourse, not least the fact that this would be the last time he would be able to speak to them. So please, in this instance, respect the consensus. Thank you. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is that the picture stays - your statistics (half of which consist of people - like yourself - hiding behind an anonymous IP address) do not convince me. The sources mentioned above make it pretty clear that the image refers to Muhammad's abolition of the intercalary month (al-Biruni's text does not refer to the other topics covered in Muhammad's Farewell Speech). I really don't see the point in discussing this any further and wonder what you are trying to achieve. Even if you would be able to get this image permanently removed from this page (which is not likely to happen), what are you going to do about the other WP pages (and the WP pages in other languages) which have this image? And what about the original manuscripts - how will you make these disappear from the web? AstroLynx (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
They say statistics can be made to prove anything, but no statistics prove nothing - they certainly don't support your claim that most editors support your stance. An uninvolved reader looking at this talkpage would come to the opposite conclusion.
You're now trying to smear other editors by insinuating that the vote has been rigged - request CheckUser or withdraw that allegation.
If you are unable to find a definitive statement from the painter that the picture is Muhammad prohibiting intercalation you are not in a position to say that it is. It is highly unlikely that painting 600 years after the event he was intending to convey anything more specific than the delivery of the Prophet's farewell message. Browsing the link you provided, I believe I saw a picture of some men on horse- (or camel) back. Now don't tell me that has some deep chronological significance as well.
Finally, don't smear Muslims by suggesting that they want to tear pictures of the Prophet out of ancient manuscripts. Muslims do not practice censorship as you imply. The simple issue is that readers come to the article hoping to learn about the Islamic calendar and a picture of the Prophet delivering his homily imparts no information at all. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
You are clearly grasping at straws now. First you claim that statistics prove that you are right and now you claim that statistics don't prove anything at all. Nor did I say that the vote has been rigged - I would however argue that the votes of people who hide behind an anonymous IP (like youself) and who never have contributed anything useful to the article in the past should not be given the same weight. However, I do not know what the WP rules are in this case.
If you do not understand the other images in the Paris manuscript, why do you not take the trouble to read Sachau's English translation and find this out for yourself? You are really acting like a spoiled child now - too lazy to seek knowledge by yourself?
Where do I say that Muslims want to deface ancient manuscripts? I only asked how you intend to prevent the images from appearing on the web. In English there is a very nice phrase about the pot calling the kettle black - recognize anyone?
You are really wasting your time (and those of others) on this issue - it would be much wiser spent on improving the article. AstroLynx (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • How does a picture of a homily delivered 1,380 years ago improve the Islamic calendar article?
  • People who don't produce statistics (such as yourself) can't argue from them - but others may draw the inference that the statistics are not forthcoming because they don't support the argument.
  • If you don't know what the WP rules are, don't invent them.
  • Did I say that I wanted to stop the Bibliotheque Nationale digitising its collection? We're not talking about other pictures of Muhammad - no two cases are the same.
  • Who's "acting like a spoiled child?" Aren't you the one who's building up a comprehensive online library of chronological works? Where does a spat about an obscure picture fit into the grand scheme?
  • Sachau's English translation (with which I am familiar) isn't going to aid the understanding of the pictures in the Paris manuscript for the simple reason that it is a faithful rendition of what Al - Biruni wrote a millennium ago, not a commentary on some pictures produced by an unidentifield artist 500 years later. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
How do you know for sure that Sachau's edition and translation are a faithful rendition of al-Biruni's original text? One can never be sure as all known manuscripts are later copies. You can perhaps argue that al-Biruni's original manuscript did not contain images but there is no way to prove this. The earliest known manuscript (Edinburgh University Library, ms. Arab. 161), dating from 707 AH [1307/08 AD], is illustrated and there is no reason to doubt that it continues an earlier tradition of illustrating this particular work. AstroLynx (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The only consensus which can be taken into account at this article is the one which is manifest on this talk page. Whether a particular picture is relevant to an article is determined solely by the subject of that article, not other articles. Presumably the different editions of al - Biruni have different illustrations, so unless the author of a particular illustration added a caption saying it was Muhammad forbidding intercalation you can't assume that it was, and your caption will fall foul of the rules against original research. From the picture you have inserted there is no way of telling whether Muhammad is speaking or not, and if he is there is no way of ascertaining what he was discussing at the time. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
What gives you the impression that I inserted the image and also wrote the caption? If you study the image file you will see that it was already inserted in 2006 by the user 'Der hungrige Hunne' - I can assure you (and swear on the Bible if you wish) that he and I are not the same. If I had inserted the image, I would have shown the complete page - not the cropped version. Regarding the image caption, you cannot expect that medieval scribes followed the same conventions as modern publishers. AstroLynx (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
You just don't get it, do you. Whether or not it's your caption, this diff [8] shows you inserted it into the article nine minutes before your denial above. Furthermore, you now admit that the caption (whoever wrote it) is a modern fabrication. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────IP87, it's time to give up and move on. You are a minority of 1 arguing against longstanding consensus. The issues you raised have been refuted numerous times before and you've brought nothing new to the discussion. Further removal of the image will be reported as vandalism and could lead to your account being blocked. Doc Tropics 20:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a sure sign of desperation when one editor grabs the stick and starts beating another editor with it. I think RMHED put things very well in his statement before the 2008 arbcom election:
"Whether someone is POV pushing or trolling very much depends on personal opinion, so is therefore extremely subjective. It's all too easy to label someone you disagree with as a POV pusher or accuse them of trolling, likely as not, they'll think the exact same of their accuser."
You need to back up your argument with some diffs, and the names of the editors who you claim form this "consensus". 87.194.35.154 (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please remove the image[edit]

Hi,

this is regarding image which was inserted depicting Prophet Mohammed (Sallellahu alihi wasallam) sitting with followers, which is strictly prohibited in Islam ref: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Calender). My request to remove the picture immediately from there else All muslims will Boycott use of Wikipedia.

Thanks Zareef — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.210.100 (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry won't be done, see. See Talk:Muhammad/images, Talk:Muhammad/FAQ and Help:Options to not see an image. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Always 29 or 30 days per month?[edit]

Is it possible, that an Islamic month has 28, fewer, 31, or more days? --84.61.131.15 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete the Image[edit]

Remove the Picture of Mohammed (PBUH).Big text

We are boycotting. delete the Image Immediately.


Syeds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.79.177 (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Title change from Islamic calendar to Hijri calendar?[edit]

Hijri is more specific name of the islamic calendar? Let me know if you like the move? Thanks MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Please explain how hijri is a more specific name of the Islamic calendar and how renaming the article will help English-speaking users of Wikipedia to be more familiar with its history and use. Personally, I would prefer to keep the current title as this is English Wikipedia, not Arabic Wikipedia. AstroLynx (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem is muslim who speak english don't say islamic calendar but Hijri calendar. MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As I noted at MohammedBinAbdullah's talkpage, I believe WP:COMMONNAME applies here, in that Hijri is not commonly understood by English speakers in general and wouldn't be a productive search term. This is contrasted with Hajj, which is widely understood and which has been incorporated into English vocabulary. I don't see how the present status quo with a redirect is problematic: Wikipedia generally uses a translated title for foreign terms when there is a satisfactory English equivalent and the foreign-language term is not in widespread use among English speakers. I am open to a rewording of the lead paragraph to provide a better discussion of the Arabic terminology, as the "also called" doesn't seem to do the proper Arabic terminology justice. Acroterion (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd hate to see such a move even if it were shown that the Hijri calendar is the one only calendar used by Muslims. This is an English-language encyclopedia. Unless your motivation is to make the "inscrutable" Islamic culture even harder to fathom, I'd suggest that we keep Islamic calendar where it is.
We can always emphasize that the "proper" term for the calendar uses a foreign word. By the way, I don't agree that Hajj is either (a) widely understood or (b) incorporated into English vocabulary (not the way Sushi is, at least). I daresay for every English-speaking Westerner who knows that each Muslim must make a one-in-a-lifetime pilgrimage to Mecca, less than 1 percent of them know that Muslims call it a Hajj (let alone what language they are using when they call it this).
You still run into people who aren't sure that Qu'ran means the holy Koran. (On the other hand, the transition from Calcutta to Kolkata went rather smoothly, but there were political reasons involved.)
There have been many attempts to de-Westernize the English-language Wikipedia, including a concerted attempt to pretend that many major scientific advances were discovered first by Muslims (or within the Islamic world). It took a lot of trouble to remove all this bias, and I'm not sure it's been completed - or even undone!) so let's not start more trouble. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

English is not just spoken by english people but by many different people so that argument is flawed. Hijri calendar is islamic calendar and islamic calendar is hijri calendar. MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with English people: this is the English language Wikipedia and policy requires that article titles be in English unless the foreign-language term is a recognized English word. Hijri is not used in the English language. Acroterion (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with Acroterion above. So far as I can see, English usage is for "Islamic" (a term which most English speakers understand), as opposed to "Hijri", a term few if any non-Muslims even recognize. [{WP:COMMONNAME]] would seem to support the use of "Islamic" on that basis. While I could see, if anything, Islamic religious year might be preferable, as that is the title of the article in the Eliade/Jones "Encyclopedia of Religion", parallelism would probably support the usage of the word "calendar." John Carter (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Authors who discuss this calendar in the English language use Islamic and Muslim with about the same frequency. Usage of Hijri or Hijra is quite rare. Although Muslim had been present in the first sentence for many years, somewhere among the recent edits by MohammedBinAbdullah and reversions, Muslim was lost. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


No, because there is also a Solar Hijri calendar. Khestwol (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Crescent Islamic Calendar?[edit]

This just redirects to the main article and the section is otherwise empty. A quick google reveals nothing but mirrors and knock-offs of this page. Deleting. Tigerboy1966  09:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge from Arabic names of calendar months and Turkish months[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbian months, articles on names of months in specific languages are not likely to be notable as stand-alone articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose a merge: This is an article about this Islamic calendar, those articles contain information about the names of Gregorian months in various languages. Also, the AFD resulted in a keep for Serbian months, with the understanding that the article could be improved. I think the same goes for Arabic names of calendar months and Turkish months. Fitnr 15:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose: Gregorian months and Islamic months are two different topics. Let's not confuse Arabic and Islamic. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Should the date converter at the top be more specific?[edit]

At the top of the page the date converter Today presents today's date and its equivalent in the Persian solar calendar and the Islamic lunar calendar.

Considering the different versions of the Islamic calendar which are currently used and which can differ one or even two days from each other, I think that some indication should be given about 'which' version is actually followed. Many unsuspecting users of WP may be inclined to believe that it always displays the 'correct' date.

For today (9 October 2014) the converter gives the Islamic date as 14 Dhu al-Hijjah while the date in the Umm al-Qura calendar and in the Turkish Islamic calendar is actually 15 Dhu al-Hijjah. I suspect that the converter is probably based on one of the several possible tabular calendars. AstroLynx (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed this thread. There's currently a discussion on this topic at Wikipedia: Village pump (technical)#Template access to Preferences: Appearance: Offset (or local time generated from it)?. One thing I noticed is that the template contains a link (AH appears in blue). When I clicked on it it directed me to "Tabular Islamic calendar". I guess this is the only option for a script like this. Wouldn't putting the rules of the Turkish Islamic calendar or the Umm al - Qura calendar into a template be too difficult? Incidentally, what are the rules for the Turkish Islamic calendar? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
It is more difficult but it can be done, see the JavaScripts used for The Umm al-Qura Calendar of Saudi Arabia and The Islamic Calendar of Turkey. AstroLynx (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Moving Sunday to the top of the weekday table?[edit]

In view of the often-recurring changes (and reverts) made to the meanings of the Arabic weekday names (is Monday the first or the second day of the week?) it may be less confusing for most readers if we move Sunday (now at the bottom of the table) to the top of the table. Any thoughts on this proposal (and my earlier proposal of 9 October)? AstroLynx (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

So far nobody has commented on my proposal, so I assume that most editors have no strong opinion on this matter. Unless someone objects within the next 24 hours, I will restructure the weekday table and move Sunday (the first day of the Islamic week) to the top (where it properly belongs). AstroLynx (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Names of Months and Weekdays[edit]

I have two, somewhat unrelated, questions:

  1. Are there are any traditional English names for Islamic months that could and should be provided in this article? I happened to be reviewing the U.S.–Tripoli treaty signed and ratified in 1797. The text of the treaty mentions Hegira months such as Junad and Argill. Could someone look into this further?
  1. What is the purpose of providing a table with names of weekdays in various world languages? While the names may be specifically related to Islam or the Islamic calendar in some languages, there are others that make no distinction whatsoever. The names usually belong to the Gregorian or local civil calendar and are "religion-neutral" in the sense that they're used by non-Muslims, too. If you look into the Albanian names, for instance, you'll the see days of the week named after Roman and Illyrian gods and celestial bodies ("e martë" means Mars day; "e mërkurë" Mercury day; "e enjte" Jupiter day; and the rest have the same meaning as in English; so the Semitic root for Sabbath isn't used either.) Is it this discrepancy that the table is trying to prove then?

Thank you, --Getoar TX (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

KEEP:

The consensus is to keep the image at this time. The picture is well-sourced, per the discussion, and illustrates a salient point of the section. HiDrNick! 20:53, 20 February 2015 (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.

Should we remove the picture of Muhammad? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a topical moment for this RfC. There has been for many years, ever since it was first inserted, a slow edit - war between people removing the picture of Muhammad and people adding it back.

Remove. This is an article about the Islamic calendar. It in no way adds to the reader's understanding of the article subject. The caption is disingenuous. The picture was painted 700 years after the Prophet's death and is not a true likeness. It purports to be a picture of the Prophet forbidding intercalation at the Farewell Pilgrimage. In an earlier thread a proponent tried to justify this by saying that the picture was added into Al - Biruni's book at the point where he was narrating the events of the Farewell Pilgrimage.

This justification is also disingenuous. There were no doubt many matters discussed at the Farewell Pilgrimage - not least the fact that Muhammad would not be speaking to the faithful again. There is no basis for the suggestion that the Prophet was discussing intercalation as opposed to any of the other matters which came up. I would suggest that the uploader of the picture only put this into his description as an attempt to justify his insertion of an irrelevant image. Also there is no indication in the picture that the Prophet is actually speaking as claimed. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There was a long discussion about this topic with user IP 87.194.35.154 about three years ago (see "Can't you guys add up?" on this Talk page) - the consensus then was to keep it. AstroLynx (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting that discussion, in numbers there were fifteen !voting to remove and ten !voting to keep. On argument, omitting comment such as "disrespectful", there were eight for remove and three for keep. I note that some of the iconophiles made the comment "there is consensus for keep". How come, when the consensus is not ascertained till the debate is closed? I see that Astrolynx is now going down the same road. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep. The image seems relevant to the topic and fills the mundane whitespace throughout the article. My two cents. - Gaming4JC (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep. Gaming4JC summarizes my thoughts exactly. So make it four cents ;-) PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


Keep As Gaming4JC points out, the image is relevant and punctuates the monotony of the text nicely. It is also a lovely example of early Islamic art available in the public domain. Extremists would do well to be reminded that their prohibition on any depiction of the Beloved (salallahu aleihi wasalam) is a minority opinion which the rest of the Islamic world has historically rejected. The suggestion of removal is essentially a campaign from a religious minority to exert censorship of wikipedia according to their personal prejudices. Isn't there a Wiki policy concerning such campaigns? Chrislamic.State (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep per others voting keep. Legacypac (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep It is a good illustration. --Adam in MO Talk 04:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep The IP has used the same arguments regularly seen at Muhammad which were rejected by the community. The caption reflects the sourced text in The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries. I would suggest this is yet another case of attempting to censor the image per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --NeilN talk to me 04:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the "sourced text" in al-Biruni's book? From what I remember he frequently says "It is reported" and then quotes his sources. How could he source a picture which was painted getting on for a millennium after his time? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a strawman argument. Jimbo enunciated the "principle of least astonishment" and IIRC it was endorsed by the community in an RfC and made official WMF policy. Bottom line - if material is irrelevant and also alienates a section of the readership it has no place in Wikipedia. People need to be proactive - I bet Mark Zuckerberg wishes he had taken steps to ensure that Facebook gave no offence to the Chinese government, now that it's banned in its biggest potential market and his learning Chinese hasn't helped. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
That is the argument to keep the picture. One of the few ways for Wikipedia to become worse than it is would be for it to be edited by governments. Religious movements, especially sectarian ones, would be no better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd just like to add that IP editors are very welcome to !vote in this discussion. Also, the claim that the argument is the same as that deployed at Muhammad is wrong. Obviously a picture of a person has relevance to an article about that person. A picture of a staircase has no relevance whatsoever to an article about a calendar. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep. That is not a "picture of Muhammad", it is a picture of an incident relevant to the article. And it does not contain a "likeness of Muhammad", it contains a generic representation of a bearded man, very like several other representations in the same image. Maproom (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly my argument. We're not in the business of feeding misleading information to our readers. The caption says it's the Prophet, but it's not. And no - one has pointed to the elephant in the room, that not only is it not a picture of the Prophet, the caption relating it to the subject of the article (i.e. intercalation) is pure sophistry.
There are plenty of illustrations which could be added to the article. This one has no merit and should be removed. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The Islamic art historian Robert Hillenbrand, in the paper referred to in the caption text, argues quite convincingly that the central person in this image is indeed Muhammad. AstroLynx (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep. It might be more or less relevant, as many pictures in Wikipedia are, often used to illustrate a monotonous text, and there is no reason to remove it, except for the claim that it is "offensive" to depict the prophet, a claim which is fake, given that still in the 1960 Syrian mainstream Muslim theologists edited a children's cartoon depicting the life of the prophet. That was mainstream. There is no reason to give in to a minority sect claiming offense. Ilyacadiz (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's get this straight. Were any pictures of the Prophet painted before his death? If so, did any survive to the fourteenth century? And if they did, was the painter of this picture aware of them? I suspect that the answer to all these questions is "no". 87.81.147.76 (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove This is rubbish; we aren't a colouring book or a comic-book for infants and imbeciles, but a source of reference for people seeking information. Irrespective of religion, politics, or sentiment, irrespective of whether we have or have not any verifiable pictures of Mohammed, the article is not about him and gawping at even a true picture of him would not inform any one a scrap about the calendar, whether Islamic, Judaic, Gregorian or Bhuddist. You want a relevant picture for a lunar calendar? Put up a picture of the moon; I have seen some nice ones in Mother Goose books, smiling and complete with a cow jumping over. Whitespace??? People complaining about whitespace? No one likely to read about the Islamic calendar and equipped to understand the article is likely to find the whitespace a serious impediment. Get real folks, the article is to tell anyone who wishes to know, whatever it is they want to understand, not to gawp at a fictitious portrait that would have been irrelevant even if it had been an exact likeness. JonRichfield (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    • And again, these arguments have been used in the community-wide RFC. Please tell me which portrait of Jesus, Buddha, the Apostles, etc. is "non-fictitous". This article is about the Islamic calendar. --NeilN talk to me 14:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
You may be unaware of this, but there was a radical change in the way Jesus was portrayed in the middle ages, and that was because of greater exposure to the Holy Mandelion (what we call the Shroud of Turin). 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't answer my question. --NeilN talk to me 16:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Shroud of Turin. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Too bad the only modern scientific study in favor of its authenticity is widely disputed. --NeilN talk to me 17:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The article says

"In 2013, new peer - reviewed articles were published in favor of the hypothesis that the Turin shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth."

If you have more up - to - date information it might be worth putting it in. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Remove. Hi. First, because it is not offensive (people in it are well-groomed and respectable), one can assume the artist attempted to produce a visual work in good faith. But a picture of Muhammad belongs to Muhammad article, especially since I don't know which one is Muhammad and I don't see the act of forbidding. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    • So you're advocating removing pictures of Jesus from all non-Jesus articles? And, as forbidding is an abstract action, we rely on the interpretation of reliable sources. --NeilN talk to me 13:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Leave Lisa alone. Why would anyone want to put a picture of Jesus in a non - Jesus article? You can't "rely on the interpretation of reliable sources" because that's original research. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I am replying to her points (just like you have done with other editors, over and over again). There's lots of articles which contain pictures of Jesus which are not specifically about Jesus, Christian Church for one. And we're not interpreting reliable sources, we are using the interpretations of reliable sources. --NeilN talk to me 19:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
"Christian Church" is an obvious repository for a picture of Jesus. "Islamic calendar" is not an obvious repository for a picture of Muhammad. And according to Astrolynx, Hillenbrand argued that the picture was of Muhammad, not of him forbidding intercalation. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Given that Muhammad founded Islam, it seems you are grasping at straws. And AstroLynx was specifically replying to your assertion that the figure was not Muhammad. --NeilN talk to me 20:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I should clarify, Hillenbrand specifically links the illustration with Mohammad forbidding intercalation in the pre-Islamic calendar - the earlier practice of intercalation and its abolition by Muhammad is the topic discussed on the same pages in al-Biruni's text. It is not simply a picture of Muhammad, it is Muhammad forbidding the insertion of intercalary months so it is perfectly appropriate to show it here. AstroLynx (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
If you feel that the following answer is reductio ad absurdum, perhaps you should clarify what you mean by "non-Jeus". But to my current perception, the following items, chosen from the very top of my current watchlist, are non-Jesus articles: Windows PowerShell, Adobe InDesign, Sniper (disambiguation), Adobe Flash, Adobe InCopy, Windows RT, Microsoft Surface 2, Windows 3.1x, List of DOS commands, Spartan (browser), Graphical user interface builder. Yes, I will revert addition of an image of Moses, Jesus, Muhammad or Bill Gates in all these articles.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
There's a picture of Christopher Clavius in "Gregorian calendar". You might just as well claim it's him announcing that ten days will have to go. It's a load of rubbish. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Christopher Clavius was one of the astronomers who advised pope Gregory XIII on the calendar reform and later wrote a very fat book on it. So there is every reason to depict him there, though perhaps his image should rather follow that of the Pope than precede it. AstroLynx (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Clavius was one of a group who effected the reform, but most of the work was done by Lilius. Mohammed didn't advise anyone and didn't even devise the calendar that bears his name - that was done by one of the caliphs about ten years later. And you still haven't answered the point that the caption to the Wikipedia portrait was dreamed up by the person who uploaded it - like to cite a page reference for your claim that this is Muhammad forbidding intercalation? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The reference to Hillenbrand should be sufficient for this claim - it is easily verifiable for anyone who makes the effort to look it up. AstroLynx (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry - WP:CITEHOW, WP:PROVEIT. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry - I don't understand either. What is lacking in the Hillenbrand ref. (nr. 20) in the fig. cap.? Author, title of article, title of book, place of publication, year of publication, publisher & page numbers are given. AstroLynx (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, 87.81.147.76. I am afraid "other stuff exists" discussions of arbitrary kind are the least favorite discussions in Wikipedia. I categorically make a point of not engaging in them. But I tell you this: If the image was an image of the real Muhammad (peace be upon him) as opposed to an artistic image, I might have said something different. (I am not saying that I would or wouldn't but I reserve myself the right to do so.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The image illustrates the accompanying section quite well. The image is also a Muslim work, from a book by a Muslim author. So what is the problem? An image isn't controversial if it illustrates a section (and this one complies with WP:PERTINENCE), but for some reason if the image happens to show Muhammad, suddenly it's controversial. I see no reason to single out Muhammad for special treatment in editorial decisions regarding illustrating sections on the English Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Your comments on this so far (not you, Amatulic)
The (unknown) artist who made (or in this case copied) the image was perhaps not a Muslim but it was made for a work by a well - known Muslim author which was dedicated to a Muslim ruler.
The sources mentioned above make it pretty clear that the image refers to Muhammad's abolition of the intercalary month (al - Biruni's text does not refer to the other topics covered in Muhammad's Farewell Speech).
Unfortunately for your argument, citing a negative does not prove a positive. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove The image does not improve reader's understanding of the article subject and the image may be considered offensive by some readers. We gain no potential benefit from offending even one person with this image. 173.53.57.63 (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    Bogus argument, not grounded in Wikipedia policy. First of all, images should have WP:PERTINENCE. there is no requirement that they "improve reader's understanding". And that image is pertinent to the section. Secondly, Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia's editorial decisions aren't made on the basis of "offending even one person". ~Amatulić (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Quite the contrary, WP:PERTINENCE#Offensive_images addresses images that may seem offensive to readers and recommends against using them unless doing so 'would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.' We could use an image of Mount Arafat in place of the image of Mohammad that would be just as pertinent since that is where Mohammad delivered the sermon that mentioned the prohibition of Nasīʾ. 173.53.57.63 (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I think it is a bit unfair that you are attacking his secondary reason so fiercely, while he even italicized "may". His primary argument is relevance. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@Amatulic: WP:PERTINENCE:

Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article topic.

Let's suppose it was Muhammad and that at that moment he was discussing some of the finer points of Muslim theology. What's the relevance? The burden is on the uploader - otherwise someone could willy - nilly shove in an image from the Parliamentary newsfeed showing the Secretary of State announcing yet another bank holiday.

As for WP:NOTCENSORED, if a woman unwittingly enters the showers while the rugby club is there they would probably cover up. That's polite. By your argument they would carry on regardless. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The section is called "Prohibiting Nasīʾ". We have an image of Muhammad prohibiting nasīʾ. Seems like a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --NeilN talk to me 14:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Where in the image is the act of prohibiting? Where are the nasīʾ? If these things are not obvious and the source is not considered to be reliable, the image cannot be pertinent.173.53.57.63 (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep CommentKeep The sole question this RFC rests on is "Does the reliable source, from which the picture is obtained, describe it as depicting an event relative to the page". While I cannot verify the source myself, even the opposers do not challenge this reading of events. Therefore it stays. SPACKlick (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The reliable source concludes this is a picture of Muhammad. The reasoning is that it was inserted in a book (which is a history of chronological systems) at the point where it mentions Muhammad. However, the uploader, using his own opinion, claims it is a picture of Muhammad forbidding intercalation. I wouldn't grace this with the title "original research" as there's no evidence the uploader did any research. There is no reliable source to back the claim.
As to why the uploader made this claim, the obvious explanation is that he wanted to insert the picture in the article at the point where it mentions Muhammad,but knew that if he simply captioned it "Muhammad" he would fall foul of the rule which requires the image to be directly relevant to article text. The caption is a fabrication and one of the pillars of Wikipedia is that what is written must be true. There is also the point made earlier that if an image is not directly relevant but also may distress some readers then we do not cut the contributor the slack that we might otherwise have done but look for substitutes (which in an article of this nature are not hard to find). 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Please be clear! Who do you refer to as the "uploader"?
The image was uploaded to WP on 22-09-2006 by "Der hungrige Hunne"; it was linked to this page on 24-02-2008 by "Dbachmann"; I myself added the Hillenbrand ref. to the fig. cap. on 20-10-2011 (does that count as "original research"?). AstroLynx (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Dbachmann has been censured for bad editing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann and acting without consensus Talk:Gregorian calendar#An unnecessary split. Done without any discussion.. The concern is that you have conflated an art expert's opinion and the positioning of the picture in the text to make the assertion that the picture is of the subject doing one of the things which are mentioned in the text. Amalthea added the same claim on 15 April 2009 and it was subsequently removed. I don't see any consensus for adding it back. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Shows the weakness of your argument. Dbachmann "censured for bad editing" is actually "reminded to avoid using his administrative tools in editorial disputes" seven years ago. --NeilN talk to me 18:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Shows the weakness of your argument. You are now concentrating on side issues to avoid addressing the matters in issue. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Apparently you've pinged Dbachmann, so to clarify the finding was "repeatedly reverted content edits without offering any explanation." And 2008 is what we're talking about. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I pinged DBachmann to let him know another editor was making accusations against him. And the editor who reverted Amalthea's edit was quickly reverted himself. --NeilN talk to me 19:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
You're a master of weaselling. I made no accusations. I merely quoted an archived discussion. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Really? A quote? Care to point out where "censured for bad editing" was said? --NeilN talk to me 19:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
[9]. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
You know what a quote is, correct? "To repeat someone’s exact words." --NeilN talk to me 19:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Dead right. And you know what, to identify quotes they have little marks on either side of them thus (" "). And do you see those little marks there in my comment? No. And I'm not talking about your misrepresentation of my comment in which you added those little marks. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@AstroLynx - your edit 20th October, 2011 [10] edit summary added bibliographical note on this and other images in the same work added the words

See also: Robert Hillebrand, "Images of Muhammad in al - Biruni's Chronology of Ancient Nations", in: R. Hillebrand (ed.), "Persian Painting from the Mongols to the Qajars: Studies in Honour of Basil W. Robinson" (Londen [sic] /New York: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 2000).

So this was a general comment about all the art in the book, not speculating as to what the Prophet may or may not have been doing in any particular picture.

That would explain why the diff shows that the caption to which this information was added makes no reference to any activity being undertaken by Muhammad. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If you had read the reference (nr. 20) to the figure caption carefully (how difficult is this!), you would have seen that I refer to an article specifically focussed on the illustrations in al-Biruni's Chronology and not to Islamic art in general. AstroLynx (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

A thought. The picture shows Muhammad in a building. The Farewell Pilgrimage sermon was delivered on Mount Arafat. Therefore the picture does not show Muhammad on Mount Arafat. Therefore it shows him delivering a perfectly ordinary sermon in a perfectly ordinary village. Therefore WP:PERTINENCE#Offensive images kicks in and the picture must go. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting point - if I recall correctly, Hillenbrand also noted this. However, how sure are we where Muhammad was in Mecca when he delivered this part of the various speeches which he gave during those days? The Quran (sura 9:36-37) certainly doesn't specify the location, nor do the earliest sources on Muhammad's life such as Ibn Ishaq (cf. Guillaume's translation, pp. 650-652) or al-Tabari (cf. Poonawala's translation, pp. 112-114). For other speeches locations are cited such as Muhammad standing on Arafat or seated on a camel or a grey mule but not for this particular speech. AstroLynx (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I've changed my above !Vote to "comment" because it seems there's more controversy over the source than I first interpreted from the discussion. but rather than arguing back and forth the simple solution seems to be for an editor to go to a library, find the book and quote the description of this image from the book. SPACKlick (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@SPACKlick: Actually, the IP (who seems to be very familiar with policies and arb cases) is making things up again. I've asked another editor for permission to copy their comment here, but pending that, please read this. --NeilN talk to me 11:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
[copying from my earlier posting on this topic on 11-10-2011 - all links still work] "The image in question is found in the second chapter of al-Biruni's Chronology of Ancient Nations. The text clearly links the image with Muhammad's abolition of intercalary months in the local Arabian calendar during the Farewell Speech given at his last pilgrimage [Sura 9:37]. You can find an English translation here [p. 14]. If you want to check Sachau's translation, the Arabic text can be found here [p. 12]. If you want to check Sachau's edition of the Arabic text, the Paris manuscript (ms. Arabe 1489) is online here [see fol. 5v]. WARNING: the manuscript contains several Muhammad images!" AstroLynx (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Picture is slightly historical, very old and provides a good depiction. Delibzr (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

When I added the Hillenbrand reference in 2011, I could easily have added more references but at that time it seemed exessive, so I opted for only one. Among several Islamic art historians who have written on the al-Biruni images and whose works I have consulted there is no doubt how the image should be interpreted.

As an example one can look at the most recent BNF catalogue of Arabic manuscripts (Yvette Sauvan & Marie-Geneviève Balty-Guesdon, Bibliothèque Nationale. Département des Manuscrits. Catalogue des Manuscrits Arabes. Deuxième partie. Manuscrits Musulmans, tome V, Nos. 1465-1685 (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1995), pp. 35-38), online here, where the description of ms. Arabe 1489, fol. 5v, reads "Le prophète Muḥammad interdit l'intercalation d'un mois supplémentaire dans l'année lunaire".

Another paper which I also could have mentioned is: Priscilla P. Soucek, "An Illustrated Manuscript of al-Bīrūnī’s Chronology of Ancient Nations”, in: P.J. Chelkowski (ed.), The Scholar and the Saint: Studies in Commemoration of Abu’l-Rayḥan al-Bīrūnī and Jalal al-Din al-Rūmī (New York: New York University Press, 1975), pp. 103-168. AstroLynx (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Neil N: That link is very interesting. I believe the article says the Arabs intercalated every three years, but your translation clearly shows they followed the Jews, who intercalated eight or nine months every 24 years. I'll look at the article and see what changes I can make to reflect that.
Different authors in the past have made claims about the original intercalation method: once in every three years, nine in every 24 years (appears to be equivalent with three in every eight years), seven in every 19 years (as the Jews do) or 11 in every 30 years. AstroLynx (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@AstroLynx: Why the reluctance to provide page numbers? I have no doubt that the original Arab text and the translations of Sachau and Neil's correspondent all match up, and the Bibliotheque Nationale's description confirms that. But what has this to do with a perfectly ordinary sermon preached in a perfectly ordinary village? Let me give you an analogy. A biographer writes a book about Margaret Thatcher. The printer binds in a photograph of the subject and does so opposite page 64 (that being a very convenient place to interleave a photograph). It so happens that on page 64 the author is describing how the subject met Denis. It is WP:CONFLATION to say that therefore this is a picture of Margaret meeting Dennis. (OK that's a redlink but it shouldn't be). 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Just saw your comment of 2:04 PM. I refer to "all art in the book". Obviously "the book" is Chronology of Ancient Nations. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Where do I show reluctance to provide page numbers? AstroLynx (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
You quote page numbers 129 - 146. Is there somewhere in that wall of text the opinion that Muhammad is forbidding intercalation, and if so, what page is it on? Better still, reproduce the actual words here.
That I can look up for you on Monday, the library is now closed and Hillenbrand's book is not online (AFAIK). AstroLynx (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
As for Delibzr's comment, the Mona Lisa is a nice portrait, but it's not really appropriate in a scientific article.
Isn't eleven in every thirty years the current method in the Islamic calendar, or is that coincidence, like the Muslim calendar will catch up with the Gregorian in AD 20,874, and the Gregorian cycle is 20,871 weeks. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there is a scholar who believes that originally 11 months were intercalated every 30 years. AstroLynx (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
And per your comment 2:31 PM, three in eight is not the same as nine in 24. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
What makes you so sure about this? AstroLynx (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

As an aside it may be useful to note that the images in the Edinburgh manuscript Or. 161 are also online here. Here the image of Muhammad forbidding intercalation is fol. 6v. It is obvious that the Paris and the Edinburgh manuscripts are closely related.

According to this online inventory (see nr. B.3) some 17 manuscripts of al-Biruni's Chronology have been described (there appears to be at least one more in Cairo). The London manuscripts do not appear to have illustrations. Regarding the other manuscripts I have no information whether they contain illustrations or not. AstroLynx (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Remove. According to Hillenbrand, "three of the five Muhammad images in the Biruni manuscript are already permeated by strong sectarian feeling. Thus the polemical potential of such subject matter is there right at the beginning of religious painting in Islam: proof, if any were needed, that it was a sound instinct which had steered earlier painters away from such themes." (Persian Painting, 2001, p. 135). Unless we're making a point about sectarianism or propaganda in art, I don't see the point of having this image in this article. Wiqi(55) 20:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
If you read the paragraphs preceding the one which you chose to quote above you will have seen that the "strong sectarian feeling" in those Muhammad illustrations refer to the depiction of the investiture of `Ali and Muhammad's apparent support of Shi'ite teachings. But these other images are not relevant in this discussion as we are discussing the image of Muhammad forbidding intercalation in the early Islamic calendar, before any sectarian issues arose. If there is one single WP-EN page on which this illustration is relevant and pertinent it obviously is this one. AstroLynx (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Your assessment is not entirely accurate. Hillenbrand didn't see a need to examine the other two images (note the word "already" in his conclusion). Also, the third image that he used to prove the "strong sectarian feeling" (The Envoy of Musailama) has nothing to do with the investiture of Ali. Incidentally, his arguments concerning that image also applies to this image (the prominent placement of ahl al-Bayt; al-Hussien is favored over al-Hassan by being placed closest to the prophet; etc). I didn't get your last point though, since the image is still relevant in the book's own page or where an example of sectarian or polemical art is needed. Wiqi(55) 01:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The image which belongs here (on Islamic calendar) is the one of Muhammad forbidding intercalation, the others certainly do not belong here. AstroLynx (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, it was clear enough that you misrepresented Hillenbrand. He actually noticed a "strong sectarian feeling" in an image that was not about the investiture of Ali, contrary to what you wrote above. Then based on how you misrepresented the source you assumed that the RFC image has no sectarian purposes, which is original research (and can be disputed by pointing at Hillenbrand's arguments about the Envoy to Musailama). In any case, I don't see a reason why I should change my !vote. Adding pages/images to a general article from a source that has been described as sectarian and agenda driven is not inline with npov. Wiqi(55) 13:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


As promised, here are the relevant lines in Hillenbrand's (2000) paper on the illustrations in al-Biruni's Chronology of Ancient Nations. Note that Hillenbrand actually discusses and reproduces the illustrations in the Edinburgh manuscript (Edinburgh University Library, Or. 161) but he clearly states (p. 129) that the images in the later Paris manuscript (BNF, ms. Arabe 1489) copies those of the Edinburgh manuscript. After some general remarks on the illustrations in this manuscript, Hillenbrand continues on p. 131 [in-text footnotes are not transcribed]:

"The first picture (pl. 5), on f. 6b (dimensions: 67 by 134 mm) depicts the Prophet forbidding intercalation. This may sound an abstruse subject, and it certainly does not lend itself naturally to illustration; but for an Islamic author, the Prophet's own views on time as they affected Muslims were a natural place to begin a disquisition on that subject. Hence, perhaps, the choice of this scene for the first painting in the book. Its immediate context is the controversy about observing a sacred month. Some argued that it could be postponed in a given year and then reinstated in a later year. [...] The importance of Muhammad's stand on this matter may be gauged from the fact that two of the Five Pillars of islam -- fasting and pilgrimage -- are involved in this ruling. Intercalation, then, was a practice with very serious repercussions and justified a pronouncement by the Prophet ex cathedra. Hence the location of the scene in a mosque setting and the presence of a minbar, wheras according to tradition the event occurred in the open air and Muhammad was seated on his camel."

Hillenbrand adds several other interesting observations on this illustration which I haven't copied here but anyone with access to a good library can easily look these up him- or herself. AstroLynx (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hillenbrand says that "The first picture ... depicts the Prophet forbidding intercalation." The problem is that while Al - Biruni was an Islamic author and hence started his exposition with the Prophet's views, there is no evidence that the painter of the picture was. Further, even if he was a Muslim Wiqi55 has demonstrated that he was inimical to Muhammad's theology. The only way Hillenbrand's assertion would hold water would be if Muhammad had commissioned the picture himself. Anyone can put forward a theory (e.g. perpetual motion, cold fusion). These theories only become acceptable when they are supported on peer review. There is no peer review of Hillenbrand's claim, so it falls in the category of WP:FRINGE and we cannot use it. In Mr Wales' words, "We are not transcription monkeys."
On the face of it, this a pretty picture of Muhammad preaching in a mosque to break up the text at the point where Muhammad's name is introduced. It is absurd to suggest that the painter had some deep theological agenda. Occam's razor - the simple and obvious explanation is usually correct. Unfortunately Hillenbrand cites no source in support of his opinion so it is completely unsubstantiated - it is original research. Conceding purely for the sake of argument that the picture does illustrate some event described in the passage does not help - the passage is a general discourse on intercalation and Muhammad could just as easily have been explaining how intercalation works (and the perceived evils of it) as making an "ex cathedra" announcement outlawing it. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately (for you) that's not how WP:NOR works. Hillenbrand is a reliable, published source. However your speculations are original research. --NeilN talk to me 13:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@87.81.147.76 Perhaps you should first read Hillenbrand's paper yourself before you start accusing him of not citing sources. He does, in abundance, and in particular he cites Priscilla P. Soucek's important study from 1975 on the same illustrations (which I already mentioned on the 31st of January).
I don't see why it is important whether the painter of the picture was a Muslim or not. Furthermore, the allegation that he or the manuscript's owner(s) may have had Shi'ite leanings is likewise of no importance because the illustration refers to an event predating the sectarian divides between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims.
From your claim that the image was inserted at the first instance of Muhammad's name in al-Biruni's text, I can infer that you have not taken any effort to read the original text yourself (a curious fact as the English translation is easily available online). Need I point out that this is a false claim (as most of your other claims)? The Prophet is also referred on pp. 1, 2 and 9 (in Sachau's English translation) whereas the intercalation reference is not found until p. 14.
The bottom line, as I see it, is that we have a nice illustration of Muhammad forbidding intercalation. We have several printed scholarly sources (Soucek, Hillenbrand) supporting this interpretation (which invalidates your claim that it is original research by myself or another editor) and until someone publishes a scholarly paper arguing that it is not Muhammad forbidding intercalation I see no reason why not to use it. AstroLynx (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have changed my !vote above to keep. Having been provided the sources and read the sources. The claim that the picture illustrates mohamed forbidding intercalation is clearly reliably sourced. Given that fact and my opinion that the article is easier to read with the break in whitespace I see no reason to remove the image. SPACKlick (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The source that Hillebrand uses is a discourse on the subject of intercalation. To show how ridiculous the claim is imagine a webcast of a company's Annual General Meeting. One of the resolutions is to change the end date of the company's financial year. A screenshot of the Chairman is taken and inserted in the Annual Report. A city journalist reviewing the results says the report shows a picture of the Chairman announcing the change of reporting date. But he never viewed the video.
AstroLynx's argument is a strawman. He raised the issue of whether or not the painter was a Muslim. I agree it's unimportant. The idea that a simple illustration has a deep theological significance is absurd whatever the painter's religion. Is a simple Persian artist of the fourteenth century really going (a) to have a grasp of seventh century theology and (b) have a burning desire to reflect that in art? As for the Farewell Pilgrimage predating sectarianism, why were there so many battles? What's important is that the picture was painted by a sectarian. Anglicans don't welcome images of the Virgin Mary into their churches just because the Church was united during her lifetime.
What we have here is two editors who are determined to have their way and don't mind twisting other people's words to get it. I have read through this voluminous discussion and nowhere do I find myself saying "the image was inserted at the first instance of Muhammad's name in al - Biruni's text". The claim that Miss Soucek and Hillenbrand constitute "several printed sources" is hilarious. So far you've quoted the Bibliotheque Nationale (which doesn't support your claim) and Hillenbrand. I will take it that Miss Soucek is also a negative unless you come up with a quote from her which says different.
What actually is your motive in prolonging this time sink? Why take issue with Jimbo? Even a birth certificate doesn't trump fact. [11]. And Jimbo comprehensively demolishes your argument here: [12]. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Please explain how the BNF catalogue description of the Paris manuscript, which I supplied on 31 January, does not support my claim. If you have problems in reading French, perhaps I can help. You could also use Google Translate or an old-fashioned French-English dictionary.
As usual you do not answer any of my points directly but fly off into tangent discussions involving imaginary general meetings, faulty passports, the gender of Harry Potter, Christopher Clavius, Jesus, the Holy Mandylion, the Shroud of Turin, etc. You have a habit of selectively citing and altering other editor's remarks which borders on dishonesty. You were the person who first raised the issue whether the painter of the image was Muslim or not, not me.
You also accuse authors of not citing sources and editors of being biased, opinionated and obstinate. So far, I have provided three published sources which all agree that the image represents the Prophet forbidding intercalation -- if necessary I can add more. You have not yet cited one single reliable publication challenging this view. In fact, your remarks about the contents of al-Biruni's book strongly suggest that you have not read one single page of this work. AstroLynx (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I protest strongly against people using the WP:PERTINENCE#Offensive_images argument. There is nothing offensive about a picture of some religion founder. It is not true that "Muslims find it offensive to depict Muhammad". A small Muslim sect puts forward this argument which is not mainstream. So don't argue about the picture as this was just plain pornography, which it isn't. Ilyacadiz (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear oh dear. The views of Jimbo are hardly a "tangent discussion". It is difficult to answer your points when you do not provide reasoning. In what way does the Bibliotheque Nationale support your claims? It correctly categorises the manuscript as a discussion on intercalation. Miss Soucek? What does she actually say on the topic? The rest of the comment is a Personal attack which is not even veiled. "Selectively citing and altering other editor's [sic] remarks which borders on dishonesty" - diffs please? No, it was you who first raised the issue of whether the painter was Muslim or not [13]. "Accuse authors of not citing sources and editors of being biased, opinionated and obstinate." I'd love a diff here. "I have provided three published sources which all agree that the image represents the Prophet forbidding intercalation". You haven't. Of the two you've quoted Bibliotheque Nationale doesn't. That's a strike rate of 50%. So the chances of Miss Soucek supporting you are even - in fact I'd rate them much less because I can't believe that two art experts would come up with this crackpot theory.
"Strongly suggest that you have not read one single page of this work". I strongly suggest that you would not make a very good detective. From what I remember it's a very comprehensive discussion of world calendar systems and their history. It says the Alexandrian calendar had a four - year leap - year cycle from the start which some scholars (notably Skeat/Snyder) disputed. It has very comprehensive tables of the Jewish calendar. It says the Persians added 30 days every 120 years which I doubt very much. It describes the festivals and the seasons and believe it says that Persians would watch out for scorpions in August. It describes the arable calendar and how it was reset periodically to align with the seasons. The issue here that the Islamic calendar being shorter would, if it was used to regulate taxation, result in the land tax being paid more often. The farmers made a protest to the caliph about this. To the glory of the ruler, the arable calendar was finally tied to the Julian so that Nowruz would always fall on 12th Haziran (12th June). The epagemonae in the Zoroastrian calendar were periodically moved from the end of one month to the end of the next (which I doubt very much). Right at the end there is a description of the Julian calendar, which is described as Greek. There are inaccuracies in that, as there are throughout the work.
Now how about answering some of my points? It is claimed that iconoclasm in Islam is the preserve of an unrepresentative minority. I think not. In other faiths, whether or not to allow images is a basic tenet. Why should Islam be different? Next time you're in Constantinople have a look round Hagia Sophia. I don't think you'll find any images there. I may have been once inside a mosque (I remember a notice about removing shoes) but I'm confident that no mosque will have images inside it. Now let's turn to policy.

Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principal of "least astonishment": we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as possible without sacrificing the quality of the article.

In what way does a picture of Muhammad respect the conventional expectations of those who desire information on the Islamic calendar? In what way does the omission of a picture of Muhammad make the article less informative, relevant or accurate? You may not agree with policy, but if that is the case you should start an RfC with a view to getting it changed, not ignore it. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The BNF catalogue description which I cited refers to the illustration (fol. 5v) - you obviously did not read the whole description of the manuscript (pp. 35-38). Sauvan & Balty-Guesdon also refer to Soucek's detailed 1975 paper on the illustrations in the Edinburgh manuscript. Now you want me to cite extensively from Soucek's paper - I can do that after I have ordered the book from the library (it is not online AFAIK), but why should I be doing your homework? If you think that she made it all up then why would both Sauvan & Balty-Guesdon and Hillenbrand cite her work? Why don't you prove me wrong by looking it up for yourself?
Regarding the Muslim/no Muslim identity of the painter I see that you are now referring to the discussion in 2011 with IP87.194.35.154. You obviously did not read the preceding paragraph - it was IP87.194.35.154 who on 14-09-2011 (correctly) pointed out that we do not know whether he was a Muslim or not.
I am glad to see that you finally have provided evidence that you actually have read parts of the book - from your earlier postings referring to al-Biruni's text I had seriously begun to doubt that.
Referring to the Aya Sofya in Istanbul as a mosque in which you will find no images is actually a poor example. It was a church before it was converted into a mosque and contained many mosaics which were largely plastered over. It is now a museum and some of the original mosaics are still there and plain for all to see. AstroLynx (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
And as I said at the beginning, your reason for censoring the image is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --NeilN talk to me 14:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
There are two editors to respond to here, although you wouldn't think so from Neil's indentation.
@AstroLynx:Paragraph B3 on the link you have given does not link to what you say. The other link is to pages of Arabic text (no images visible).
Please indicate more clearly which links you are referring to. AstroLynx (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN:Your editing is like a broken record. We know you don't like it - my reference was to WP:PERTINENCE. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
How about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? "The section is called "Prohibiting Nasīʾ". We have an image of Muhammad prohibiting nasīʾ" And my indentation is fine. --NeilN talk to me 16:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@AstroLynx:I'm trying to track down pp. 35-38 of the description of the manuscript to which you refer.
Try this direct link. AstroLynx (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
By the way: are 87.81.147.76 and 156.61.250.250 the same? According to Geolocate both IP addresses appear to be London based. IP 87.194.35.154, who in 2011 had a long discussion on this very same topic, was apparently also London based, but perhaps this is a coincidence. AstroLynx (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN:Since you ask, assuming for the sake of argument that this was a picture of Muhammad prohibiting Nasi, how would that aid a reader's understanding of the workings of the Muslim calendar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.61.250.250 (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@Astrolynx: It says "Le prophete Muhammad interdit l'intercalation d'un mois supplementaire dans l'annee lunaire (f.5v)". The typeface changes from normal to italic, indicating that the description refers to f.5v (describing the content of the text) rather than the content of the picture. What I'm looking for is an unequivocal claim that the picture is of Muhammad forbidding intercalation and I don't think you're going to be able to provide it. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
You should also read the preceding words: "25 peintures:". It should be obvious to anyone that the writers of the catalogue are describing the illustrations, not the text. AstroLynx (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @87.81.147.76: Some choice quotes from Pertinence with justification for this image

  1. Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in
  2. Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation.
  3. Effort should ... be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals.

So we have an image, which is relevant to the article, depicting the act that the section is talking about, which is included as part of the multimedia presentation of the article and effort has been put into the choice of this image on an article with few visuals. How does WP:PERTINENCE support removal? SPACKlick (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow the argument. Are you now saying that the cataloguer is claiming that there are 25 pictures of Muhammad forbidding intercalation? Are you saying that the picture of a man sitting on a camel is also Muhammad forbidding intercalation?
Now you are either pretending to be stupid or deliberately obstinate: there are 25 illustrations (not counting additional diagrams) in the BNF manuscript and each illustration is briefly described with a different text - surely you must have noticed the folio number at the end of each description? In a catalogue like this which describes hundreds of manuscripts the writers have to be brief and concise - there simply is no room for essay-length descriptions of each manuscript. Those you will find in the papers of Soucek (1975) and Hillenbrand (2000). AstroLynx (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
@SPACKlick: I don't see that these pictures, whether of a man preaching in a mosque (did they have mosques in those days?) or sitting on a camel have any relevance whatsoever. I think that a picture of, for example, an astrolabe would be far more useful. That gets the reader thinking about the uses of astrolabes and how they tie in with astronomy and the calendar. People in pulpits and on camels don't really float my boat. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Whether or not you personally like it the section discusses mohamed prohibiting the nasi. The image depicts mohamed prohibiting the nasi. The two are necessarily linked. If the section discussed calculation of months using astronomoical data then an astrolabe may be appropriate but the section's about the prohibition of the nasi and so the appropriate image is one depicting the nasi, the lack of nasi or the prohibition of the nasi. Prohibition of the nasi is what we have an image of and I'm not sure that anythong more appropriate will be found. SPACKlick (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The image doesn't appear to be vital to the article, but it fits with the content plenty fine. I don't see any problems with it from a sourcing perspective either. I haven't seen anything discussed above either that the image shouldn't be here. If it's simply because it apparently depicts Muhammad, time and again in many other related such images stay when relevant because Wikipedia is not censored. If an image is going to be included, this seems to fit exactly with the topic of the section, so I can't see any reason to remove. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a list of pictures:
  • The prophet Muhammad forbids the intercalation of a supplementary month in the lunar year (f.5v)
  • Isaiah sees the Messiah accompanied by the prophet Muhammad (f.8v)
  • Birth of Caesar (f.12v)
  • Ahriman tempts Masya and Maysani (f.32v)
  • Feast of Sede on Mount Damavand (f.73v)
  • Peroz at the fire temple (f.74v)
  • Death of Mani (f.80)
  • The Prophet Muhammad, Fatima and Ali at Gadir Humm (f.87)
  • Fair of Ukaz (f.110v)
  • The prophet and the messengers of Musaliyma (f.111)
  • Bihafrid ibn Fawardin and a peasant (f.111v)
  • Defeat of al - Muqanna' (f.112v)
  • Execution of al - Hallag (f.113)
  • Chastisement of one of the followers of Ibn - Abi - Zakariya at - Tamani guilty of sodomy (f.114)
  • Celebration of Mihrgan (f.120)
  • Faridun judges Zahhak (f.121) *Feast of Favardigan: Abel beside Adam and Eve (f.121v)
  • Celebration of the autumnal equinox (f.142v)
  • Death of Eli (f.146v)
  • Buhtnasar orders the destruction of the temple (f.147v)
  • Abraham destroys the idols of the Sabaeans (f.156v)
  • Baptism of Jesus (f.161v)
  • Annunciation (f.162v).

What is striking looking at that list is that this a multi - religious illustration of a book that deals with a multitude of religions. Hillenbrand has said that the first picture can only be of Muhammad forbidding intercalation if it was painted by a Muslim deeply versed in abstruse theology who had a point to make about Muslim doctrine as laid down by Muhammad. He produced no evidence to support that assertion and looking at the catalogue it is patently false. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

That is just your personal opinion in which you appear to be pretty alone. I have given references to three published papers (I can add more if you wish) which all concur that the first illustration in al-Biruni's book depicts the Prophet forbidding intercalation. As soon as someone publishes a paper (perhaps you should start writing one) in a scholarly publication proving that this claim is false we can revisit this issue. AstroLynx (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Your approach is common but wrong for Wikipedia as Mr Wales has pointed out. Hillenbrand says

Hence, perhaps the choice of this scene for the first painting in the book.

He didn't say the theological argument was valid, he said it might be valid. Judging by the other pictures, where theology plays no part, that's a pretty tall assumption.

The illustrations start on page 5 - judging by the length of the book and the number of illustrations that's about where you would expect them to start - no theological basis for that. Hillenbrand says

It certainly does not lend itself naturally to illustration.

which means that on the balance of probabilities it is not a picture of Muhammad forbidding intercalation but of a man preaching in a mosque, which on the face of it it is.

At its highest, you could quote the Hillenbrand reference and say

"According to [source] this may be a picture of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation."

If you don't do that you are caught by WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS (misrepresentation of sources). You are already caught by selective use of sources to make a WP:POINT because you haven't mentioned the other people who have published papers on this. If the other sources don't support you you can add WP:FRINGE to that list. Then WP:PERTINENCE steps in to stop you using the picture at all. I wonder why you bother.

You are presumably paid by the University and have free use of their resources and IT facilities. Shouldn't you be doing something more productive with your time than misrepresenting art to Wikipedia readers? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Again you try to muddy the waters by citing Hillenbrand selectively. Where does Hillenbrand say "this may be a picture of Muhammad" -- again this is your own personal opinion which you will not find reflected in the published sources. And who is wasting whose time? AstroLynx (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh how I wish I hadn't gotten WP:Involved so I could close this interminable RFC. The consensus is clear. The majority of editors Seem to believe that this image passes the test of Pertinence and is based on WP:RS and there has been no response to that except selective quotes from one source to muddy the waters. One IP editor disagrees and hears no argument against his bluster despite repeated extensive quoting from variable sources demonstrating the picture is claimed to be what we say it is claimed to be. Please just stop 87.81.147.76, even if you're right consensus at this time is against you and you're going round in circles. Accept the consensus now and if facts change come back again later. SPACKlick (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You actually missed an important argument. The image is found in a book that was illustrated for sectarian and polemical purposes. I would expect the closing party to justify why polemical/sectarian imagery/works should be given space in this article. Wiqi(55) 14:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
al-Biruni was one a relatively small number of Muslim scholars who treated believers of other religions with respect. His book is about the calendars of not only the Muslims but also of the Christians, the Jews and other religions. Therefore you will also find illustrations of Jesus and Abraham. To call his work sectarian only shows how biased you are yourself. AstroLynx (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
If you had bothered to read the sources you're citing then you would have known that this has nothing to do with Biruni. Hillenbrand clearly states that the illustrations have a different agenda compared to the text. He and other reliable sources recognize the sectarian and polemical agenda of the illustrated edition. Wiqi(55) 14:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't miss it, as yet nobody has made that argument. Some editors have claimed there is a sectarian issue but claiming it isn't making the case. Point to a quote from a source and demonstrate why you feel this negates the benefit of the picture. That hasn't been done yet. SPACKlick (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I made that argument just above, and I cited the conclusion of Hillenbrand, who throughout his paper uses words such as agenda, sectarian, polemical, partisan to describe the illustrator and their work. Wiqi(55) 18:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Notice that when Hillenbrand says the picture is of Muhammad forbidding intercalation the keep brigade call "no sources necessary" but when he says the art is sectarian the call changes to "cite sources to prove it". Isn't it obvious that they have an agenda on which fair discussion doesn't figure? I can't fault Hillenbrand's reasoning on the sectarianism though.

I can fault him, however, on his claim that

for an Islamic author, the Prophet's own views on time as they affected Muslims were a natural place to begin a disquisition on that subject.

I can't get inside the book, but the word "Nasi'" only appears on page 330, in the following text:

pilgrimage, because the Arabian months were back behind real time in consequence of the Nasi (postponement of certain months in the times of heathendom). Therefore he waited till the months returned to their proper places and then he performed the farewell - pilgrimage and forbade to use the Nasi'.

Which book are you now citing? The text in Hillenbrand's book Persian Painting from the Mongols to the Qajars (2000), which contains the Hillenbrand paper we have been discussing end over end, only runs to p. 323, followed by an index of proper names and subjects, none either mentioning the word "Nasi". AstroLynx (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that the closing party allows the full thirty days to run to give AstroLynx the opportunity to fail to come up with quotes from the other experts who he claims support him. "Selective use of sources" can then be taken into account in arriving at a decision. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I can order the 1975 book with Soucek's paper from the library and quote her lines here as well but that will probably not satisfy you either. Anyway, why should I be doing your homework? As you hinted at yesterday I also do have plenty of other things to do. If you think that her paper is humbug why don't you look it up yourself and prove me wrong by citing where it says that the ilustration does not depict Muhammad forbidding intercalation. AstroLynx (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you realise that there are better things you can do with your time than conduct a personal crusade (or should that be jihad?) using public resources. Organisations look askance at staffers who use their equipment for their own purposes, especially when they are being paid to do something else. Wikipedia has a strict policy on paid editing. People who edit Wikipedia from government computers tend to get themselves sacked.
I'm citing Sachau's translation of Al - Biruni. As to whether editors will be satisfied by Miss Soucek, that depends on what she says. I hope her conclusions are not completely unsourced as Hillenbrand's were. It would be instructive to know what was being discussed at the point where each of the 24 pictures were inserted in the text. Did Al - Biruni really discuss sodomy in a treatise on timekeeping?
You could look this up yourself -- a few days ago you claimed that you had access to Sachau's translation (which really is not difficult to find online) and had actually read parts of the book. AstroLynx (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, you could also look up Soucek's paper yourself -- as you said yourself, I shouldn't be wasting my time with these matters. According to your IP address you are London-based (unless you are intentionally hiding your geographical location) and there really is no other city in the world where you will find more copies of the book with Soucek's paper. According to COPAC there are at least 4 copies in your neighbourhood. If even that is too much trouble for you I can order the book from my library (but will not be able to access it before Monday) but you will have to ask this nicely and include the magic word.
The image has been up for several years -- I have given sufficient proof that the image is properly sourced -- you have not produced one single shred of evidence that the sourcing is incorrect except for your own personal opinions and false allegations. AstroLynx (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
IP, Wikipedia looks askance at users who try to prevent other editors from editing articles by threatening or insinuating real world consequences. Cross the line again and I will ask admins to look at your conduct. --NeilN talk to me 13:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Pictures are named contemporaneously, not 800 years after they were painted (see Mona Lisa). There is no intrinsic reason why we cannot use a picture of the Pope making an ex cathedra pronouncement inside St Peter's provided we do not misdescribe it as him delivering a sermon during an open air mass in Glasgow. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
A Watford civil servant made distressing amendments to the Hillsborough tragedy article. The authorities were notified and he was dismissed. Was that wrong?
A guy created an attack article on White House aide John Siegenthaler resulting in Wikipedia getting beaten up across the globe and most of the population barred from making Wikipedia articles. The guy was traced through his company IP which he used to create the article and he was dismissed. Was that wrong?
Alleged unsavoury activities of certain Wikipedia editors were reported to the Foundation and they were globally locked. Was that wrong?
Foundation lawyers sent a cease and desist notice to Cooley LLP asking them to stop editing. Were they wrong?
Editors regularly link IPs to corporations. See the Wifione arbitration case (decision due today). The arbitrators do not censure editors who publish this information. Are the arbitrators misbehaving?
The Foundation recently stated that a certain staffer whose paid editing activities had been under discussion was no longer in their employ. Were the editors wrong to voice their concerns? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Different historians have also given this image a different name/description. For instance, a well-known canonical text on the subject describes this image using the following: "Muhammad preaching his farewell sermon". There is no mention of intercalation. See p.89 in T. W. Arnold, Painting in Islam, republished in 2002, Gorgias Press. Wiqi(55) 22:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
T.W. Arnold's Painting in Islam was first published in 1928, long before Soucek and Hillenbrand published their far more detailed studies of the Edinburgh illustrations.
For the moment, I have decided to spend my time more usefully and to spend less time trying to convince people who only want to vent their personal opinions and to stop feeding the troll(s). It should be obvious to most editors by now that this discussion is obviously going nowhere anymore. For the time being, I will limit myself to one edit (or less) per day on WP. AstroLynx (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh come on. There was no more background information available in 1975 than there was in 1928. There is no evidence extraneous to the manuscript as to what these pictures represent. One expert's claim that the picture represents Muhammad forbidding intercalation is as good as another expert's claim that it is his Farewell Sermon. It would still be interesting, though, to hear what Miss Soucek has to say on the matter. Does she attempt to explain the dichotomy between someone obviously preaching in a mosque and claims that they are out in the open air, which is where we know the Farewell Pilgrimage sermon was delivered? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I've accessed the book and it says this on page 13:

In a similar way the heathen Arabs proceeded, observing the difference between their year and the solar year, which is 10 days 21 1/5 hours, to speak roughly, and adding it to the year as one month as soon as it completed the number of days of a month. They, however, reckoned this difference as 10 days and 20 hours. This business was administered by the Nasa'a (the intercalators) of the tribe of Kinana, known as the Kalamis, a plural form of Kalammas,which signifies a full-flowing sea. These were 'Abu Thumama and his ancestors:

I. 'Abu Thumama Junada ben
'Auf ben
'Ummaya ben
Kala' ben

<snip>

Another poet says:

"The difference between the revolution of the sun and new-moon
He adds together and sums it up,
Till it makes out a complete month."

He (i.e. Hudhaifa) had taken this system of intercalation from the Jews nearly 200 years before Islam: the Jews, however, intercalated 9 months in 24 lunar years. In consequence their months were fixed, and came always in at their proper times, wandering in a uniform course through the year without retrograding and without advancing. This state of things remained till the Prophet made his Farewell pilgrimage, and the following verse was revealed to him: "Intercalation is only an increase of infidelity, by which the infidels lead astray (people), admitting it one year and prohibiting it in another." (Sura ix.37.) The Prophet delivered an address to the people, and said: "Time has come round as it was on the day of God's creating the heavens and the earth," and, continuing, he recited to them the (just mentioned) verse of the Coran on the prohibition of the Nasi', i.e. intercalation. Ever since they have neglected intercalation, so that their months have receded from their original places, and the names of the months are no longer in conformity with their original meanings.

So it's fair comment to say that the picture represents Muhammad delivering his farewell sermon. The reference to the Jews is perfectly consistent with descriptions of intercalation as 3 in 8 (9 in 24) or 11 in 30, as that is what 7 in 19 (the Jewish method) amounts to. According to an earlier thread on this page, "Fictional intercalary month", al - Biruni mentions this on pages 73 - 74. He does indeed, but the account is somewhat misleading. Safar was not called Muharram, it was Muharram because the extra month had pushed all the names back one month. Al - Biruni suggests it took 200 years for twelve intercalations to be made (i.e. the calendar was the same as when it started) but the true figure is only 33 years. The thread also mentions Burnaby (p. 367).

Burnaby says

thus, if an intercalation occurred at the end of a given year the intercalated month was called by the name usually given to the first month of the year - Muharram: then the second month, usually called Safar, became Muharram.

So the first month was duplicated.

I think this demonstrates that Sci fi writer is wrong. Maybe we should ping Joe Kress for an opinion? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - The main reason is not that I support freedom of speech but you can't ban images. This is not how a neutral point of view works. Some people don't like looking at pornography and Wikipedia has that. I mean it's not satire. It doesn't symbolise any hatred whatsoever. Jackninja5 (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The picture may not be satirical, but it's misdescribed. We can't have misdescriptions in Wikipedia. Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists weren't satirical but that didn't get them anywhere. So for pete's sake let's get it right. Sectarianism is not necessarily evil. However, the fact that ISIS may be funding some kind of social security programme with its oil wealth doesn't make them good. The only reason why they haven't been flattened (apart from the fact that few people will meet them in the field) is the money they pay to their fighters - money that isn't theirs to spend. The editor who claimed art expert Priscilla Soucek supports his completely unsubstantiated interpretation of the picture has been uncharacteristically quiet for the past three days. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Misdescribed in your opinion. Not according to sources posted above. --NeilN talk to me 18:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Would you like to name the "sources posted above" which support AstroLynx? The Bibliotheque Nationale catalogue is a convenient description - it's not a sourced statement of fact. Arnold is a well - researched book which takes a different view. Hillenbrand makes it clear that his theory is only a theory, not backed by sources, which may or may not be right.
AstroLynx, who you would have thought would be beating down the doors of the library to get the book which he says supports him, seems to have dropped out.
What is needed is reasoned, scholarly argument for his interpretation, but the issue is not amenable to that because we do not know who the artist was and what was in his or her mind. And after 800 years there is no way of finding out. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The poor admin who will close this RFC can look at the sources provided above. As you have nothing new to add, I see no reason to humor you. --NeilN talk to me 18:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
You're not making it easy for the "poor admin", are you. And it doesn't have to be an admin. Someone who is well versed in these matters could do it just as well. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Replying to NeilN, the use of this particular image which you so vociferously advocate will only mislead our readers. They will think that the pilgrims who were present at the Farewell Pilgrimage were a handful in a mosque listening to the Prophet preach, whereas in reality there were thousands of them, out in the open air, listening to him preach while seated on a camel. I don't know why you are so keen to belittle the Muslim faith by planting this idea in our readers' heads. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, your opinion, not backed by any sources. --NeilN talk to me 14:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
So now you're saying that Astrolynx (this thread, 10:59, 2 February) was making it all up. I know he does make a lot up but I thought that even he could be trusted on this. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
You still need to get more proof. Jackninja5 (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The state of play at the moment:
Source 1: art catalogue description which does not warrant the truth of the description (not a reliable source)
Source 2: reasoned analysis which says Astrolynx may be right
Source 3: reasoned analysis which says AstroLynx is wrong.

In my book, a reasoned "no" outweighs two "maybes", whether reasoned or not. Per WP:BURDEN it's the job of the editor who adds the picture to authenticate it, and while AstroLynx sits sulking in his department that's not being done. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Source 1: Perfectly fine
Source 2: Astrolynx is right
Source 3: Different interpretation
--NeilN talk to me 14:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I disagree that that is a fair summary of what's in the sources. We have several RS describing it as forbidding intercalation. If you disagree that's what's the image is, why are you fighting for removal rather than discussing it at the file page to query the accuracy of the descriptor? SPACKlick (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
"File:Maome.jpg" doesn't say anything about intercalation. I see a huge number of places where this image is used, so one less won't hurt.
Source 1 - You should know that art catalogues always contain a disclaimer as to provenance.
Source 2 - "Perhaps" doesn't equal right - it's a word of caution.
Source 3 - The "Different interpretation" is that AstroLynx is wrong.
I'm glad that SPACKlick agrees with me that NeilN's post is not a fair summary of what's in the sources.
By the way, what are the "several RS describing it as forbidding intercalation"? I've been given one name so far, Priscilla Soucek, as someone who discusses the matter, but what her opinion is is still a mystery.
Interesting, my preview is overlaid by a huge picture of Mohammed.
I just sussed it out. This should fix it. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't misrepresent me IP Single indent, edit conflict tag It was clearly YOUR summary I was disagreeing with. SPACKlick (talk)
I've had a look at other articles to see how this image is described.

Censorship by religion, Censorship in Islamic societies - A page from a 15th - century illustrated copy of a book by Al - Biruni, depicting Muhammad at the Farewell Pilgrimage.

Early Middle Ages, User talk: Nwauthoz - The Islamic prophet Muhammad preaching. (Note: 17th century Ottaman copy of an early 14th - century (Ilkhanate period) manuscript of Northwestern Iran or northern Iraq (the "Edinburgh codex). Illustration of Abu Rayhan al - Biruni's al - Athar al - Baqiyah "The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries").

List of Wikipedia controversies - A 17th century copy of a 14th - century Persian manuscript image of Muhammad, one of the depictions of Muhammad which raised objections.

Talk:Muhammad/Archive 14

I believe that WP:V either requires us to change the caption or to remove the image, as the current assertion that this is an actual literal depiction is clearly unverifiable, unless some breakthrough has been made in artistic scholarship.

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 7

What it tells us

  • Muhammad was a teacher.
  • Muhammad was a leader of his society.
  • Muhammad was greatly revered during his lifetime.
  • Muhammad had a diverse group of followers.
  • Muhammad was male.
  • Muhammad was from a culture that wore robes and turbans, in which men were bearded.
  • Muhammad was regarded as a prophet (or otherwise seen as holy).

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 8

The current image (Image:Maome.jpg) at the top of the Muhammad page has such a reference, verifying that it is:

1. A depiction of Muhammad
2. Drawn by Al - Biruni
3. Made in the 15th century
4. Is of Arabian origin

All based off of this reference: Le Prophete Mahomet Al - Biruni, al - athar al - baqiya (Vestiges des siecles passe). BNF, Manuscrits (Arabe 1489 fol. 5v)

The picture was probably created by some ill - paid artist hired to decorate the book, either by a bookseller (creating a copy on speculation) or by a patron...

Without original research we cannot tell the event depicted in Image:Maome.jpg however, in Kaaba image we can...

That article does not seem to mention that image, just events that could be interpreted as being what that image represents...

4. The images illustrate other aspects of real historical information about Mohammed besides his looks such as outward traits of the culture he came from (clothing etc.) or certain aspects of the role he played.

Maybe, but these things are either trivial enough to fade into insignificance compared to the main issue at stake ("he came from a culture where men wore beards and turbans") or they can just as well be related through words alone ("he used to preach and people looked up to him")...

Just two questions, which I think may be important. One, which is the reliable source that you say verifies the image as Muhammad (it should be linked to the image caption, if it is to be kept); and two, which museum featured this image? Was it an Islamic one?

The reference for that image is: Le Prophete Mahomet Al - Biruni, al - athar al - baqiya (Vestiges des siecles passe). BNF, Manuscrits (Arabe 1489 fol. 5v)

It is French (from the "Bibliotheque nationale de France"), I don't see what the ethnicity of the source has to do with anything. I have read WP:RS and I don't see anything about that.

That citation has been with the image for weeks.

Alright, thanks.
I think the link should be added to the caption. Would that be fine, or is it against policy?
Not against policy, just against the WP:MOS, there is a link in the caption to the references section. Clicking that link highlights the reference and takes you to it.
Ah, it does not anymore, a side effect of the transclusion I suspect. May be worth adding a link till we get this worked out.

Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 2 - 15th century illustration in a copy of a manuscript by Al - Biruni, depicting Muhammad preaching the Qu'ran in Mecca. (Le Prophete Mahomet. Bibliotheque nationale de France. Retrieved 03-02-2007.)

User:Adam Cuerden/Censorship, culture, and the law: WMF dilemma - The image of Muhammmad singled out in the 2008 petition. 17th century copy of a 14th - century original. Deemed acceptable for Wikipedia.

User:ElijahOmega - Image of Mohammed from The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries. See Depiction of Muhammad.

User:SchmuckyTheCat - Mohammed.

User:Stoopster - <Abu l - Qasim Muhammad ibn 'Abd Allah al - Hashimi al - Qurashi Muhammad, Mohammed, Muhammed, Mahomet)

User talk:Anthonyhcole/Archive1 - As for Western reception, I'd favour replacing the present "Muhammad preaches" with a good picture of the SCOTUS Muhammad, as the latter's physical place says more about Western reception than either image alone does.

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 21 - The prophet Muhammad

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-11/Muhammad image - The 17th century copy of a 14th century Persian manuscript image showing Muhammad, specially singled out for removal by the petition

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-01-07/In the media - A 17th century copy of a 14th century Persian manuscript image of Muhammad, one of the historical images which raised objections in 2008.

ang:Mahomet Mahomet in Mongol persicum gewirte (paes 14. gearhundredes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.147.76 (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Strange how you missed The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries. --NeilN talk to me 20:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
"The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries" is the book by Al - Biruni. The pictures are nothing to do with him. Thus if Banksy adorns a house with a mural that's nothing to do with the architect. Continuing the analysis,

ast:Mahoma - Ilustracion del sieglu XV d'una copia d'un manuscritu de Al - Biruni que representa a Mahoma predicando "El Coran" en La Meca.

bg.wikipedia.org - Mohammed Arab and Islamic religious leader.

ca:Edat mitjana - Illustracio del segle XV que pertany a una copia d'un manuscrit d'Al - Biruni. Representa Mahoma predicant a La Meca.

de:613 - Mohammed vor seinen fruehesten Anhaengern.

de:Mohammed - Persische Darstellung Mohammeds (rechts) vor seinen fruehesten Anhaengern. Illustration aus Al - Birunis Kompendium Athar al - Baqiya 'an al - Quran al - Khaliya. Das Werk befindet sich in der Sammlung der Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris (Manuscrits Arabes).

el.wikipedia.org - O Prophetes Moameth arabiko xeirographo

Wikibooks: Ancient Civilizations of the World/The Prophet Muhammad - Persian depiction of the prophet Muhammad from the time of Persia's conversion from Mongol Buddhism.

eo:Islamo - Bildo de la 15-a jarcento kiu reprezentas Mahomedon predikante en Mekko.

es:Mahoma, es:Islam - Ilustracion del siglo XV de una copia de un manuscrito de Al - Biruni que representa a Mahoma predicando El Coran en La Meca.

es:Expansion musulmana - Mahoma predicando.

es:Dia de Dibujar a Mahoma - Copia otomana del siglo XVII del manuscrito Los signos remanentes de los siglos pasados de Al - Biruni en el siglo XIV (en el noroeste de Iran), que representa a Mahoma predicando el Coran en La Meca.

es:Libertad de expresion y blasfemia - Ilustracion del siglo XV en la copia de un manuscrito de Al - Biruni, en la que Mahoma predica el Coran en La Meca. (Le Prophete Mahomet. L'art du livre arabe. Consultado el 03-02-2007.)

eu:Wikipedia:Urteurrenak/Iraila, eu:Txantiloi:Iraila 24 - Muhammad profetak (irudian) Mekatik Medinarako bidaia bukatu zuen, hejira burutuz.

fa.wikipedia.org - This verse was revealed to the Prophet's Farewell Pilgrimage: Praise and companions in the Farewell Pilgrimage, portrayals of Muhammad and the Companions of the Farewell Pilgrimage; Video of the 15th century the manuscript Abu Rayhan Biruni left, and Muhammad is preaching in Mecca. Quran shows agonistic in Wikipedia Bhpa because Vyrayshgrany demanding clean the It had been.

fi:Muhammad - Muhammad saarnaamassa Mekassa. Kuvitus 1400 - luvulta.

fi:Teemasivu:Uskonnot/Artikkelipoiminta 15 - Kuva Muhammadista alkoi elaa hanen kuoltuaan varsin itsenaisesti, ja hanesta tehtin 800-luvulla ihmisten ja Jumalan valinen profeeta.

fr:Mahomet - Mahomet selon une illustration persane (Bibliotheque nationale de France).

fr:Representation de Mahomet - Representation de Mahomet dans un manuscrit des Signes restants des siecles passes d'Al - Biruni. xviie siecle, copie d'un manuscrit du xive siecle.

hr:Sloboda govora i blasfemijka - Ilustracija iz 15.stoljeca u rukopisu Al - Birunija s prikazom Muhameda kako naucava Kur'an u Meki izazvala je kontroverziju kada su je neki urednici pozeljeli uklonitis Wikipedije (Le prophete Mahomet. L'art du livre arabe. pristupljeno 2. ozujka 2007).

it:Portale:Islam/Sahaba, it:Portale:Islam - Sahaba (in lingua araba) o Compagni, furono i primi seguaci del profeta islamico Maometto. Tradizionalmente la maggioranza dei sunniti intende con Sahaba tutti coloro che conobbero o videro il profeta. Tuttavia il numero si limita a cinquanta o sessanta personaggi se si considerando quelli che stettero a lungoa contatto con Maometto. E stato importante, per gli studiosi islamici di tutti i tempi, identificare i Compagni per la loro valida testimonianza raccolta nei hadith, basati sull'esempio vivente del profeta Maometto.

it:Maometto - In questa miniatura dell 'XI secolo, tratta dall' Athar al - baqiya (Tracce dei secoli passati) di Al - Biruni (manoscritto della Bibliotheque nationale de France, Arabe 1489 fol. 5v), Maometto e invece raffigurato senza velo sul volto.

Japan - Preaching to Islam of Prophet Muhammad (17th century Ottoman copy of an early 14th century (Ilkhanate period) manuscript of Northwestern Iran or northern Iraq (the "Edinburgh codex). Illustration of Abu Rayhan al - Biruni's al - Athar al - Baqiyah, The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries).

la:Mahometus - Mahometus discipulos adloquitur, in libro manuscripto saeculi septimi decimi Albiruni operis al - Athar al - baqiyah depicta est.

Macedonia - Muhammad in Ottoman copy of 17th century manuscript of Iran 14th century.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC) ms:Penggambaran Nabi Muhammad s.a.w. - Prophet Muhammad delivered his Farewell Sermon, the 17th - century Ottoman copy of the image Parsi early 14th century. (The version pictured from the 11th century Al - Biruni Remnants of the past (Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, Arabe 1489 fol. 5v. (Bibliotheque Nationale on - line catalog Mandragore.)

nl:Mohammed - Een illustratie van Mohammed in een zeventiende - eeuwse kopie van een veertiende - eeuws exemplaar van een werk van Al - Biruni.

pl:Portal:Islam - Muhammad preaching a sermon.

pt:Maome - Profeta Maome recitando o Alcorao em Meca (gravura do seculo XV).

pt:8 de junho - Profeta Maome.

pt:Usura - Profeta Muhammad recitando o Alcorao em Meca (gravura do seculo XV). Para o profeta, o individuo que cobra juros e amaldicoado por Deus.

qu:Muhammad - Muhamadqa Quranmantam nawinchaspa rimachkan Makkah llaqtapi. Al - Biruni qillqa, 15 niqin pachakwata.

ro:Califat - Copie dinitr - un manuscript din secolul XV.

ro:Portal:Religie - Scene persane din viata lui Mahomed.

ro:Istoria lumii - Mahomed.

ro:Istoria islamului - Predica lui Mahomedd.

ru.wikipedia.org - Anonymous illustration "Monuments of the past generations," Al - Biruni, depicting Muhammad during the Farewell Pilgrimage. Ottoman copy of the XVII century (ilhanidskoy) manuscript of the XIV century (Edinburgh Code).

sh:Zlatno pravilo - Muhammad with students.

sh:Na danasnji dan/11.01 - 630. - The head of the army of 10,000 members, the Islamic prophet Mohammed (pictured) wins Mecca.

sh:Sloboda govora i blasfemija - An illustration from the 15th century in Manuscript Al - Biruni depicting Mohammed as the Quran teaches in Mecca has sparked controversy when some editors wish to remove from Wikipedia. ("Le Prophete Mahomet". L'art du livre arabe pristupljeno 2. ozujka 2007.)

sq:Muhammedi - Views Persian with Muhammad (right) before his first followers. Illustration by Al - Biruni summary of t - Athar al - Baqiyah 'an al - Kuru al - Khali. This work is in the collection of the Bibliotheque Nationale Paris (manuscrits Arabic).

sr wikiquote:Myhamed - After a belief in God is the most valuable piece manifest love for people.

tr:Dini sansur - Read depicting Mohammed in the Koran of Mecca al - Biruni the manuscript (15th century) ("Le Prophete Mahomet". L'art du livre arabe. Erisim tarihi:14.07.2011).

Ukraine - Discussion: Mohammed - Picture the face of the Prophet Muhammad in medieval Muslim books.

So to sum up, the picture itself is not a reliable source linking it with the events narrated by Al - Biruni. That is the only source we have. If the primary source isn't reliable, then no amount of comment or analysis by secondary sources is going to plug that gap. The captions show that there are widely varying opinions at to what the picture portrays - Mohammed preaching, Muhammad with the companions, Muhammed with students, the Farewell Pilgrimage, etc. People make their own assessments, and that is the classic definition of original research.

It's getting on for two weeks since AstroLynx threw in the towel, and his acolytes appear to have made no effort either to read Miss Soucek's paper or to quote from it. That suggests they regard their fight as a lost cause. (Personal attack removed)87.81.147.76 (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

LOL. This shows how desperately you're grasping at straws. Content on other language Wikipedia's has no bearing here and trying to smear editors (and me) for trying to make sure sexually-related articles meet our content guidelines. This is what you've sunk to? --NeilN talk to me 16:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
You still haven't answered the point about not quoting the sources (i.e. Priscilla Soucek). Are you afraid of her? Have you noticed that 44% of my analysis actually relates to en:wp including the comment

Without original research we cannot tell the event depicted in Image:Maome.jpg?

On this page the only editor who disagrees with that assessment is (Personal attack removed) SPACKlick. However, that !vote can be disregarded because there's no supporting argument. (Personal attack removed) stroLynx says the text links the image with Muhammad's abolition of intercalary months in the local Arabian calendar during the Farewell Speech. But that's irrelevant, because the text predates the picture by 300 years. What we don't have is a link from the picture to the text and therefore the claim is unverifiable. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@SPACKlick - it would have been more apposite if you had sent your message to AstroLynx, NeilN and yourself. I can't off the top of my head recall another RfC involving such intimidation directed at one editor. But that's by the by. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 April 22#Calendar riots (and the events of this RfC make the events of September 1752 look like a vicarage tea party) especially this comment:

The whole thing is a wonderful example of the circularity that one tends to find in certain forms of historical reportage: textbooks cited textbooks which cited other textbooks, and so on and so on! In other words, it was an event quite without witness.

I think the BNF entry can be ascribed to that, as do the few Wikipedia attributions of the picture as forbidding intercalation, and unless AstroLynx, who has now stuck his head above the parapet in a remote corner of Wikipedia, can come up with something new from Priscilla Soucek within the next few days I suggest we move to close. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I've already asked this RFC to be closed, as I expected just more insults and intimidation from you. --NeilN talk to me 20:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no need for further sources. We already have outside reliable sources that have assessed this is what the image depicts. I note you haven't volunteered anything from Soucek yourself either. SPACKlick (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed your censorship (I thought your argument was "Wikipedia is not censored"). If you're going to doctor other people's comments, how about removing
  • I pinged DBachmann [sic] to let him know another editor was making accusations against him.
  • Actually, the IP (who seems to be very familiar with policies and arb cases) is making things up again.
  • Need I point out that this is a false claim (as most of your other claims)?
  • You have a habit of selectively citing and altering other editor's [sic] remarks which borders on dishonesty.
  • You also accuse authors of not citing sources and editors of being biased, opinionated and obstinate.
  • And as I said at the beginning, your reason for censoring the image is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
  • Now you are either pretending to be stupid or deliberately obstinate.
  • Again you try to muddy the waters by citing Hillenbrand selectively. Where does Hillenbrand say "this may be a picture of Muhammad" -- again this is your own personal opinion which you will not find reflected in the published sources. And who is wasting whose time?
  • ...there has been no response to that except selective quotes from one source to muddy the waters. One IP editor disagrees and hears no argument against his bluster ...
  • To call his work sectarian only shows how biased you are yourself.
  • ... you will have to ask this nicely and include the magic word.
  • ... you have not produced one single shred of evidence that the sourcing is incorrect except for your own personal opinions and false allegations.
  • ... IP, Wikipedia looks askance at users who try to prevent other editors from editing articles by threatening or insinuating real world consequences. Cross the line again and I will ask admins to look at your conduct.
  • For the moment, I have decided to spend my time more usefully and to spend less time trying to convince people who only want to vent their personal opinions and to stop feeding the troll(s).

Just describing someone as a friend is logged as a personal attack.

  • I've already asked this RFC to be closed, as I expected just more insults and intimidation from you.

Your last comment shows that you have no idea how litigation works. Priscilla is your witness, not mine. The preceding comment shows that you have no idea how Wikipedia works either: [14] where it is neatly explained:

Reliable sources are usually third - party journals or books that cite the original research, itself presumably published in a reliable source.

Who does Hillenbrand quote? Priscilla, no less, but what good is that when you steadfastly refuse to reveal what she says? And on the subject of misrepresentation, AstroLynx has been pulled up for misrepresenting the sectarian agenda of the illustrations, and I'm going to pull him up now for his failure to mention Arnold, who blows his theory sky high. The BNF catalogue has quite a long bibliography. Wouldn't it be a good idea to tell us which, if any of those works, form part of your case? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2015 (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.


Removal of sourced, factual information[edit]

Factual information was included relevant to the artistic presentation of a picture in this article and was reverted. This is contrary to Wikipedia practice, which only permits facts to be suppressed in certain limited circumstances, which do not apply here. All edits must have a coherent edit summary explaining why a particular course of action was taken. Please provide a fully reasoned explanation of your revert. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It was pointy disruption. Continue and I'll bring the matter to WP:ANI. --NeilN talk to me 16:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The guidance to which you refer shows that your analysis is wrong. It says

editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point".

The onus is on you to say why you consider the material to be disruptive, and why the normal rules about neutrality and sourcing should be suspended in this instance. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Per the RFC close: "The picture is well-sourced, per the discussion, and illustrates a salient point of the section." This will be my last post on this matter. I maintain your edit was pointy and if you continue to make it, I'll bring up your behavior at ANI. --NeilN talk to me 17:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
That's not the issue. The issue is that readers must be presented with material that is neutral as far as point of view is concerned. Sectarian propaganda does not come under that heading. If you're not prepared to discuss in a reasonable manner you should remove the offending material instead of insisting on its retention in a POINTy way. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm responding to NeilN's post of 17:46 on his talk page here so that other editors can be aware of the discussion. The issue is that the views of other art experts were added to the article to balance it per WP:NPOV. NeilN has removed them because they don't align with his personal view. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It's obvious you didn't like the way the RFC was closed so you've decided to mess around with the caption which currently consists of a sourced, attributed interpretation of the image relevant to the section. --NeilN talk to me 18:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
You can't get it into your head that some editors actually care about WP:NPOV and like to edit articles accordingly. It's rare that all experts agree. Editors need to be vigilant to thwart the less scrupulous who remove the views of experts just because their assessment is not in line with their own. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The RFC closing statement didn't deal with the NPOV concerns, hence shouldn't be relevant to this discussion. Also, Hillenbrand's "sectarian" conclusion is notable, and usually the sole reason why reliable sources refer to his paper and this image set. It is disingenuous to ignore his conclusion and pass this image/MS. as neutral. Wiqi(55) 21:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Images can have different interpretations. The image is in the article because one accepted interpretation is relevant to the article section. It is no accident that the IP seeks to omit or minimize the prominence of this interpretation. [15], [16] --NeilN talk to me 23:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
NeilN, do you have a source refuting Hillenbrand's conclusion about this Ms. and its illustrator? If not, then why should we treat this primary source as neutral even though reliable sources recognize as "sectarian" and "polemical"? Wiqi(55) 01:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
You're using the same argument that is used to try to get images removed from Muhammad - the painter wasn't a "true" Muslim, the painting was done to insult Islam, etc. What caption would you propose? --NeilN talk to me 02:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I partially edited the current caption a few years ago, but I wasn't aware of Hillenbrand's paper back then. Now I think the image should be removed. We usually don't refer to biased primary sources unless we're making a point about bias. And I'll always take the side of reliable sources against your other stuff exists. That said, if the image must be kept, then I'd support mentioning the sectarian and polemical purpose per Hillenbrand. Wiqi(55) 20:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

One of the reasons why I opposed IP 87...'s recently proposed edits is that there is way too much text and detail for what should only be a footnote to a figure caption (other reasons are his misrepresenting of Hillenbrand's paper and adding his own research).

There is already a WP entry on Biruni's book where such detail and discussion would be far more appropriate. Why not open a new section on the Muhammad illustrations in the illustrated mss of this work and editors who claim that important and unused scholarly references are missing can add them there.

The figure caption footnote on this page can then be kept concise and could either refer to the other WP page or should only refer to one of the more detailed studies on these illustrations such as Soucek (1975) or Hillenbrand (2000). AstroLynx (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You're twisting the facts again. The relevance of the artist not being a Muslim is that it gives the lie to Hillenbrand's claim that the picture is a deep theological statement relative to Muhammad's dogma that the divinely ordained number of months in the year is twelve.
God was capable enough to arrange that the sun and the moon are the same size - some people think that's a mystery although it's due to the sun being 400 times larger and 400 times further away. So if Muhammad was right God would have arranged for twelve months equals one year, not 12 1/3 months equals one year.
Since the "deep theological significance" argument is tosh, that means that the image of Muhammad preaching in a mosque is just that - Muhammad preaching in a mosque. Given that this article is about the Islamic calendar, the picture's relevance is peripheral at best.
Nowhere in my caption do I say "the painting was done to insult Islam". You go on to say "What caption would you propose?" despite the fact that Wiqi55 has indicated that my wording is satisfactory and there is consensus for it. You were the one who repeatedly removed sources without any attempt at dialogue although a talk page thread had been opened for that very purpose.
Your record on POV pushing is appalling. You give yourself an accolade for upholding NPOV above in your usual pleasant style:

...trying to smear editors (and me) for trying to make sure sexually - related articles meet our content guidelines. This is what you've sunk to?

However, when other editors do the same they get abuse:

It's obvious you didn't like the way the RFC was closed so you've decided to mess around with the caption which currently consists of a sourced, attributed interpretation of the image, relevant to the section.

Indeed it does, because you nuked all the other sourced, attributed interpretations. And I thought your mantra was "Wikipedia is not censored".

This post was drafted before Vgent's intervention, and I would just say this. Generally, quoting one source and referring the readers elsewhere for others would be giving undue weight to that one source. This is doubly unfair on the reader, since he comes here to learn about the Islamic calendar, not to be lectured on Islamic art. This just shows the unreasonableness of these people in insisting on the use of this particular image, despite the fact that an online petition secured 400,000 signatures against it (which may be a record for all I know). 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiqi55 indicated no such thing. The fact that you think a caption is a lecture on Islamic art and that you give credence to an online petition calling for the censorship of Wikipedia only reinforces why you've been trying to get rid of the image for years - WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --NeilN talk to me 13:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
If we go with Vgent we will get a lecture on Islamic art. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Further comment - if 400,000 people vote Democrat in an election for a State legislature and one person votes Republican you presumably think the Republican should be elected. (Don't quote me - I have no idea how state elections work in your country:)). 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Wiqi55. The "no true Muslim" argument has failed. There is zero evidence to support Hillenbrand's claim and Genevieve doesn't claim anything. Priscilla - who knows?

if the information is reliable then there should be other sources available. If not, there's no harm to Wikipedia by not including it.

AstroLynx's suggestion to cite Hillenbrand and ditch the others is cherrypicking sources - see the admonition against this.[17]. If a wall of text is needed to justify the inclusion of something which is peripheral to the article let's just remove it and get back to building an encyclopaedia. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As you still seem fixated on removing the image, despite the RFC, see the admonition against tendentious editing. --NeilN talk to me 12:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Everyone who has contributed to this discussion is agreed that the current caption is non - neutral and needs to change. So instead of slagging off other editors, why don't you do something constructive - i.e. agree that the proposed wording is satisfactory or (if that is the case) suggest a wording which you think is better? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The current wording is significantly better than anything that has been proposed. --NeilN talk to me 14:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Nor do I see any reason to change the caption as it is. It is concise and to the point and if necessary any further references and observations pertaining to this particular image are probably better given on the WP page on Biruni's book on chronology. Note that this image is used on several WP pages and it would be silly to have to repeat the same arguments again and again on all these other WP pages. AstroLynx (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The current caption is well sourced and provides as neutral a reading of the information presented in the image as will likely be achievable in an image caption. More detail can go on the relevant page for the image. SPACKlick (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

NeilN said that Wiqi55 was using the "no true musselman" argument against the caption. I don't see that at all. Wiqi55's argument was not that. His/her complaints (and mine) were:
  • Ali was given undue prominence in the picture.
  • The expert opinion is that the picture is biased to promote the Shia view, and WP:NPOV requires no favouring of one side over the other.
  • Per the current discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 118#Direct link to wikidata entry in infoboxes the references must link to material cited in the article, not in some other article as suggested by AstroLynx. In any event, what may be opined in a Wikipedia article is not a reliable source.
  • On the face of it, the picture is of Muhammad preaching in a mosque, the sources say that he prohibited intercalation in the open air on camelback, and Hillenbrand's suggestion that the non - Muslim painter was expressing in art a belief that the divinely ordained number of months in the year was twelve was not supported by evidence. In fact the Persians had twelve months plus a "little month" of five days (similar to the French Revolutionary Calendar).
  • The caption misrepresents the sources, since it suppresses expert opinion that this is not a representation of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation.

You're supposed to engage in intelligent discussion, not just keep repeating "I am right because I say so" without engaging the issues and analysing the opposing arguments. WP:NPOV is non - negotiable, so if you can't prove your case anyone can remove both the image and the caption. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  • No undue prominence is apparent within the picture
  • No sources of bias in the original source have been presented since the RFC and the opinion of the RFC was that the image relating to intercalation was in neutral and reliable enough sources.
  • Is not an objection to using the image
  • The consensus view of the RFC of a variety of editors was that the image did represent that, no evidence has been presented since that was not presented during. If there is more to say on the image it can be said on Al Biruni's page.
People are engaging in intelligent discussion but other people are stamping their feet at not getting their own way. SPACKlick (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
You wish to rehash the RFC - simple as that. Not interested. --NeilN talk to me 15:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the close can be justified by the arguments. The specific problem is

the prominent placement of ahl al - Bayt: al - Hussien is favored over al - Hassan by being placed closest to the prophet; etc.

Also, the expert opinion is that this image has sectarian purposes. The close does not address these issues so cannot be used to support your argument. It does not address the point that

Adding pages/images to a general article from a source that has been described as sectarian and agenda driven is not inline with npov.

It makes no mention of the experts cited in the argument who say the picture is not Muhammad prohibiting intercalation. It makes no allowance for the fact that the picture will give the readers the mistaken idea that the pilgrims (thousands of them) gathered in a mosque to hear the Prophet speak.

I've read right through the RfC and nowhere does the argument say that "the image relating to intercalation was in neutral ... sources". Even if it did say that, it happens all the time that biased images are presented in neutral sources - that's objective scholarship.

"The RFC and the opinion of the RFC was that the image relating to intercalation was in ... reliable enough sources". The image is in al - Biruni and al - Biruni is a reliable source. So what?

"No sources of bias in the original source have been presented". I don't think you've ever seen a copy of either al - Biruni's or Hillenbrand's book in your life. Hillenbrand argues that the pictures are biased, not the book they appear in, and all later commentators agree with him. An artist with a political agenda is not going to be worried about faithfully portraying what is described in the text, so the fact that al - Biruni mentions that Muhammad prohibited intercalation is no basis for latching on to that to say that the artist decided to portray him prohibiting intercalation. Why should he decide to paint a picture of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation when the reader who sees him in a pulpit addressing his followers will read no more into it than him giving a sermon? His purpose was to portray the Shiites cosying up to the Prophet so why should he have given a tinker's c*ss about the subject of the sermon?

"Is not an objection to using the image". - if an argument that an image misrepresents Islamic art and bears a caption misrepresenting scholarly opinion as to what it represents is not an objection to using the image what do you think it is?

There's no intelligent discussion from you people. It's just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Just spotted NeilN's post of 15:36. "Not interested" sums it up nicely - more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

Replying to AstroLynx - as confirmed at the Village Pump, references must be to cites within the article and other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Thanks for alerting me to the use of biased art on other Wikipedia pages - if I find anything there that isn't neutral and doesn't comply with sourcing rules I'll remove it. If you think Wikipedia's policy on citation and neutrality is wrong go to the Village Pump and make a fool of yourself. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the close can be justified by the arguments. In short tough. Dispute the close at ANI (there may be a more apt venue but if there is I'm not aware of it) if you think the closer acted wrongly but until it's overturned the RFC close represents the consensus of wikipedia and your arguments are not overturning it with those engaging here. SPACKlick (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
You edit like NeilN, who is notorious for something - [18]. Your editing is just f*ck, f*ck, f*ck.[19] I haven't suggested challenging the close - that suggestion comes from you. You make a lot of noise about following the guidelines, and how you're the white knight around here who reverts everyone else who doesn't (in your opinion). Consider this - do we need an RfC every time an editor adds a sourced fact to an article? Of course not. The sourced facts added were:
  • Hillenbrand says the depiction of Muhammad preaching in a mosque is a fiction for which his suggested explanation is that it is designed to make a theological point.
  • T W Arnold's view is that this is not a picture of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation.
  • Yvette and Marie - Genevieve do not explain how a picture of a man preaching in a mosque can be attributed to the prohibition of intercalation when we know that this was done in the open, on camelback in front of thousands.
  • The picture shows shiites cosying up to the Prophet and is intended for propaganda purposes, rather than to illustrate an abstruse theological point.

The WP:BURDEN is on you to show why sourced facts should be removed and why editors should be allowed to make an end - run round WP:NPOV. If you do nothing, then any editor is free to remove the disputed content. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

1) Trawling through my edit history hunting for discrediting remarks is disingenuous and smacks of bad faith
2) The original intention of the picture has little to do with its use here. Whether or not it was drawn to make shiites look good or used to make shiites look good is neither here nor there.
3) The RFC shows that the content is not disputed consensus was reached, as assed by the closer that the image should remain. This consensus was assessed against all our policies and guidleines whether specifically raised or not. To challenge it would be to declare the closer wrong and to do that you need to do that rather than whine here. SPACKlick (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

as assed by the closer

Couldn't agree more. Read what I wrote. I am not going to "whine" (as you put it) at ANI that the close was wrong.

This consensus was assessed against all our policies and guidleines [sic] whether specifically raised or not.

Source for that claim? Try referring to Newyorkbrad before opening your mouth. We know that Wikipedia is not a court of law but he has said that he and his fellow experts set up the dispute resolution mechanism to be as close as possible. Every legal system has a provision under which fresh evidence can be adduced at any time. In Wikipedia, that's done by adding facts and referencing them. It's done a hundred thousand times a day. So don't be so presumptious as to claim that editors are not allowed to add content to articles.

By linking the picture to the text you put the original intention of the artist in issue. The text refers to prohibition of intercalation at the Farewell Pilgrimage. The caption says the picture is of prohibition of intercalation. The reader will infer (not synthesise) that the Farewell Pilgrimage consisted of six shiites gathered in a mosque listening to Muhammad preach.

The caption relies solely on Hillenbrand's passing statement that the picture is of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation. Hillenbrand makes it clear that that interpretation is only valid if the artist was making some abstruse theological point. However, all experts are agreed that the artist's purpose was aggrandisement of the shiites at the expense of the sunnis.

Doing some trawling of your edit history (thanks for giving me the idea) I see that you fancy yourself as an administrator (God help us) and Bishonen has told you to shut up. Frankly your language to her is disgusting.[20] 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Just for reference to the ANI thread, this consensus is not phantom. It's an RFC still on this page. Immediately above this section. Which you participated in and are therefore fully aware of. Which closed less than 50 days ago. And you started this thread 2 days after that close, in response to actions against the consensus formed at that RFC. Link. Drop this, accept that the user base has concluded the picture can be used for this purpose and stop stalking editors it's cheap. SPACKlick (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit summary is nonsense. It is verifiable that François Hollande visited an orphanage yesterday. Doesn't mean it belongs in his biography. The IP, for as long as they've been editing here, should know that WP:V does not mean guaranteed inclusion. --NeilN talk to me 15:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The RFC closing statement didn't deal adequately or explicitly with the two issues raised, thus not sure why it should stifle this discussion. The two issues are 1) including material that reliable sources consider as having a sectarian/polemical function in this article, and 2) ignoring reliable sources that do not link this image to intercalation. I've been reading this discussion on and off and I haven't seen a compelling answer to these two points. Wiqi(55) 16:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
But in the RFC they were raised and considered. They have been since. 1) The image may have been created with sectarian or polemic intent, that doesn't preclude it from being used in non-sectarian/non-polemical ways here. 2) A broader discussion of this image should be found at the work it's in. The image caption is to say why the image is here, because it is believed, by a reliable source, to depict something relevant to this article. Simples. SPACKlick (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the image is being used here in the same context that reliable sources have described as sectarian (i.e., illustrating a neutral text about calendars). So your claim that it's "being used in non-sectarian/non-polemical ways" is nonsensical. Your 2nd point shows that you have very little experience in content editing. We are not supposed to give preference for one source and ignore others. In this case, reliable sources differ on caption and pertinence. This article must reflect these differences to meet WP:NPOV. Wiqi(55) 17:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not used in the same context and the RFC above concluded that it was not here used for nefarious or sectarian purpose and did not purport a nefarious or sectarian message. This article is not about the image, or about the meaning of the image. This article is about the calendar so a deep discussion of the meaning and purpose of the image would be inappropriate here per WP:V and I quote While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. The content is disputed. The consensus appears to be to include that content on the page relevant to the image and to include the image here captioned as a relevant illustration. Policy is against you, consensus is against you. SPACKlick (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content

You said it yourself. You and NeilN want to include this crap, everyone else doesn't. So out it will go. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry 87.81 but that's not true. You want to add some additional "crap" and Wiqi wants to include additional "crap" NeilN and I are arguing to not include it on this page. The onus is on you to overcome consensus. As already stated the RFC above approved the image as was. No discussion of the caption in that RFC or previous attempts to remove the image has gained consensus to change the caption. Make your cae but stop trying to wikilawyer your conclusion. SPACKlick (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
You do not understand how editors make use of sources. If you choose to use a source the onus is on you to summarise it dispassionately. Hillenbrand starts off by saying that it's highly unlikely that the artist would choose to illustrate Muhammad prohibiting intercalation. He then speculates that, if he were deeply religious, he might construct a fictitious scene involving the Prophet prohibiting intercalation in a mosque. If you don't make it clear to readers that this is speculation unbacked by fact then you are misrepresenting the source. Because it cannot be verified that the artist was deeply religious you also fail to meet the verifiability guideline. In fact, experts are of the opinion that the illustrator was a poor artist who was commissioned by a bookseller to make a volume more attractive to a rich ruler.
The artist wasn't being paid to depict boring historically accurate scenes. He was being paid to spice up a Shiite ruler's book in a way that would be pleasing to him. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I do not dispute that the image is an illustration created, with little reference to historical fact, in order to illustrate a manuscript as commissioned by a ruler with a particular interpretation of islam. I do dispute the relevance of that fact here. Nobody is claiming "This is exactly how intercalation happened".
As much as you claim I don't understand how editors make use of sources you seem to be struggling with what consensus means and how wikipedia works. You make no argument worthy of over-ruling the above consensus and have yet, on the talk page, to propose a relevant change to the article.SPACKlick (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Strawman argument. You are claiming that the picture is an image of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation. The closer did not say that that claim was correct, nor would he because the evidence he had to consider was that of the experts who had investigated the provenance of the picture one denied the claim outright and the other said that it could be true but only in very unlikely circumstances. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you might need to read the closer's statement again

The consensus is to keep the image at this time. The picture is well-sourced, per the discussion, and illustrates a salient point of the section.
— [[User: HiDrNick!]] 20:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What salient point do you think @HiDrNick: was referring to? I've notified them so they can answer. Also note, I'm not saying the image is an image of mohammed forbidding intercalation. I'm saying that it is or likely is an illustration of mohammed forbidding intercalation. SPACKlick (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Previously you denied any possibility of this being anything other than Muhammad prohibiting intercalation. So we seem to be making progress. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
My position hasn't changed in the slightest but you seem to be missing the distinction being drawn between an image IS a thing and an image is an ILLUSTRATION of a thing. Here we have an illustration intended to illustrate an event. Even if the facts of the illustration and the facts of the event wildly differ it can still be an illustration of that event.SPACKlick (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's ever been suggested that the image is Muhammad. The nearest analogy would be the Roman Catholic interpretation of the sanctified bread and wine in the Mass as "really" (in it's old sense, opposite to the way the word is used today) the true body and blood of Christ. That is, the "accidents" (appearances) remain unchanged, so that they are indistinguishable from bread and wine.
As the artist hasn't said this is an illustration of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation, why do you prefer the non - intuitive interpretation (a fictitious representation of him prohibiting intercalation) to the obvious one (a factual illustration of Muhammad discoursing with his shiite followers in a mosque)? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

To try and bring this back to the issue. The agreed points as far as I can see are;

  • This image we show is a copy created in or about the 17th century of an original illustration from Al-Biruni's The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries (a.k.a. Chronology of Ancient Nations).
  • The section of the manuscript illustrated by this image is the section where Biruni discusses Mohammed's abolition of intercalary months in the local Arabian calendar during the Farewell Speech given at his last pilgrimage.

are either of the above in dispute? SPACKlick (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

So why don't you craft a caption building on the above? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Before I move on I want to confirm, you agree neither of the above are in dispute? SPACKlick (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not me. You have to get a consensus of the editors who participate in the discussion. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thing is, I'm pretty confident everyone agrees on those two points except you, given the pre-existing consensus but why not state clearly whether you agree with those two points? SPACKlick (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
If you're confident go ahead and do it. End of story. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
This is my point, given the above 2 points, the current caption is satisfactory. SPACKlick (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You agree that this is no more than a picture of Muhammad added to a manuscript at a point where his name is mentioned. Just to point to an inconsistency in the logic,

section of the manuscript illustrated by this image is the section where Biruni discusses Mohammed's abolition of intercalary months

does not equal

Muhammad prohibiting Nasi

You are presumably familiar with Boolean operators in computing - if you coded a logical inconsistency like that your programme would not work. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

That depends on how well you code for them. You are also familiar with the fact that English, as a means of transmitting information is not purely logical?
It is perfectly fine to caption an image of a speaker giving a speech in which they calls for higher taxes "Speaker calling for higher taxes in his speech at place and time" You'll see it in newspapers all the time. The image isn't necessarily at the moment the words "tax rises" comes out of their mouth, but it's the event where they did it and the image would be similar enough either way. Also note, I didn't say "no more than a picture of Muhammad added to a manuscript at a point where his name is mentioned.". SPACKlick (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
But if a report of the Pope at a conference describing the Turkish massacre of Christians in 1915 was accompanied by a picture of him preaching in St Peter's you couldn't accurately caption the picture as "Pope Francis preaching against genocide". 87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Well there your slightly running into an issue of difference between illustrations and photos. SPACKlick (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
A photo is factual. An illustration can be anything that takes the painter's fancy. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes and because an illustration is created, and here noted to be created well after the event, the reader understands that not all the details will be perfectly accurate to the event, or even indicate the event ever happened. (for instance there are plenty of illustrations of George slaying the Dragon). SPACKlick (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. So you have no mandate to say that a picture of Muhammad preaching to the founding fathers of shiism in a mosque is "Muhammad prohibiting Nasi". 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean exactly. This is an illustration of Mohammed giving the farewell sermon where he prohibited Nasi. That's what we can say about it. You can't call a picture of George slaying the dragon not a picture of George slaying the dragon because the text clearly says Oak woods and the image shows pines. It's an illustration, the contents are not expected to be 100% accurate to any version of the facts. They are interpretive and every reader knows that. Nobody is being misled by the current image and caption. SPACKlick (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding. In the example you give we have a picture of a man slaying a dragon. Where in this picture are the thousands of pilgrims, Mount Ararat and the camel which would enable you to make this logical leap. And how do you explain away the presence of mosque furniture? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The same way I explain the pine trees and the swords and the dragon in the George picture. Artists interpretation. As I said, an illustration will not confirm to everyone's interpretation of a story, it may differe wildly, that doesn't stop it being an illustration of that event and discussing the differences between the contents of the image and the narrative is not appropriate in the caption. SPACKlick (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Beam me up, Scotty. If we're going to divorce what is in the picture from our interpretation of it then you can equally logically caption it "Muhammad hailing a taxi in Oxford Street". 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
No we can't because it was not created to illustrate a passage about Mohammed hailing a taxi in Oxford street (also hailing a taxi is generally a shorter event than giving a speech so there'd be more discussion as to precisely what it illustrated) In this case, it illustrates mohammed giving the farewell sermon and prohibiting Nasi. So it's an illustration of mohammed giving the farewell sermon and prohibiting nasi. See?SPACKlick (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Further up on this board there's an analysis of this series of pictures. Among them there is one of somebody being chastised for sodomy. Where does al - Biruni discuss someone being punished for sodomy in a work on chronology? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Further proof of how little you know about the actual contents of al-Biruni's work. This scene refers to the pseudo-prophet Ibn Abi-Zakariyya and his followers; see p. 213 of Sachau's edition of the Arabic text and p. 196 of Sachau's English translation. See further Soucek (1975), p. 128 ("The Punishment of a Pederast"). AstroLynx (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The prophet Muhammad forbids the intercalation of a supplementary month in the lunar year (f.5v)
Reported on page
  • Isaiah sees the Messiah accompanied by the prophet Muhammad (f.8v)
Reported on page
  • Birth of Caesar (f.12v)
Reported on page
  • Ahriman tempts Masya and Maysani (f.32v)
Reported on page 108
  • Feast of Sede on Mount Damavand (f.73v)
Reported on page
  • Peroz at the fire temple (f.74v)
Reported on page
  • Death of Mani (f.80)
Reported on page 192
  • The Prophet Muhammad, Fatima and Ali at Gadir Humm (f.87)
Reported on page
  • Fair of Ukaz (f.110v)
Reported on page 324
  • The prophet and the messengers of Musaliyma (f.111)
Reported on page
  • Bihafrid ibn Fawardin and a peasant (f.111v)
Reported on page
  • Defeat of al - Muqanna' (f.112v)
Reported on page
  • Execution of al - Hallag (f.113)
Reported on page
  • Chastisement of one of the followers of Ibn - Abi - Zakariya at - Tamani guilty of sodomy (f.114)
Reported on page 196
  • Celebration of Mihrgan (f.120)
Reported on page
  • Faridun judges Zahhak (f.121)
Reported on page
  • Feast of Favardigan: Abel beside Adam and Eve
Adam and Eve are mentioned on page 115 but there is no mention of Abel.
As usual you're on the wrong page, try pp. 210-211. AstroLynx (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Celebration of the autumnal equinox (f.142v)
Reported on page
  • Death of Eli (f.146v)
Reported on page
  • Buhtnasar orders the destruction of the temple (f.147v)
Reported on page
  • Abraham destroys the idols of the Sabaeans (f.156v)
Reported on page
  • Baptism of Jesus (f.161v)
Reported on page
  • Annunciation (f.162v).
Reported on page 307

The other pseudo - events are not mentioned at all. This is only to be expected - al - Biruni was presumably Sunni and would be turning in his grave when his masterpiece was trashed by the shiites.

As for Priscilla, I'm fairly certain now that she blows your argument out of the water.

Why don't you prove me wrong by looking it up for yourself?

According to you to get the book would involve ordering it from the library and then waiting several days for it to arrive. But you had no difficulty quoting from it instantly today when you thought it would bolster your case. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but only a tiny fraction of the pictures are linked to the text. I see SPACKlick is now up before ANI for a topic ban. His/her editing is tendentious. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

As usual your claims are false. If you had taken the trouble to look up Soucek's (1975) paper in a library you would have seen that she provides the page refs in Sachau's edition of the Arabic text and in his English translation for all the illustrations. If you can't find the proper page refs this doesn't mean that you are correct - it merely shows your poor knowledge of Biruni's text. AstroLynx (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Your claims don't stand up to scrutiny. Journalists are aware that if their reporting is not fully objective they will soon find themselves on the wrong end of a libel action. If Barack Obama is due to fly to Afghanistan at 10 pm the early editions (which you will read next morning) will say "Obama was due to fly out at ten o'clock last night". The later editions will say "Obama flew to Afghanistan at ten o'clock last night.

A general picture of a president - elect at her swearing - in ceremony will be captioned "President at her swearing - in ceremony". If the picture shows her, Bible in hand, repeating the oath it will be captioned "X being sworn in as President of the United States".

I've examined numerous newspaper articles with pictures and there is no evidence of the abuse which you advocate. For instance, the London Metro of 4 June 2014 has on page 4 a picture of a lorry carrying an octopus alongside a bus. The caption is

Squidlock: A lorry carrying an octopus used in a Betfair ad campaign breaks down in Oxford Circus bringing traffic to a standstill.

It is beyond the realms of possibility that a news photographer happens to be on the scene at the exact moment the engine conks out. No, the traffic got snarled up and the photographer came along later. It would therefore be very wrong to caption the picture "Squidlock: A lorry carrying an octopus used in a Betfair ad campaign breaking down in Oxford Circus bringing traffic to a standstill".

As for (Personal attack removed) AstroLynx-cum-Vgent, I am dying to know how Priscilla describes the first picture in the book. Are you going to reveal your little secret? Is a Sunni writer really going to write about the investiture of Ali? The list of pictures is further up the page. Please fill in the blanks. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Why should I do your homework? You can also look up Soucek's (1975) paper yourself. On 5 February I pointed out that there are at least four libraries in your vicinity which have it. Why trust/believe me while you can easily check yourself. AstroLynx (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
A photo of a definitive moment vs an illustration of an event are quite different. You have no point and are at this point simply being tendentious. SPACKlick (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
If someone goes into a market and asks a stallholder to sketch her, for which she pays a pound, how is that different to her handing her mobile phone to the stallholder and asking her to take a photograph? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Right you have two types of image there but neither are equivalent to our illustration.

1) A photo taken of PersonA in the market between stalls before they bought item x 2) A drawing of PersonA in the market between stalls created across the time where they bought x but showing what was seen before they bought x 3) A drawing created without visual reference to the market at all at a later date showing PersonA in the market between stalls.

In all three situations even though the contents of the images could be identical the third one is different for captioning purposes. It could very reasonably be called "PersonA buying x in the market" Because it is an image illustrating that event. SPACKlick (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
And that demonstrates exactly why you are wrong. The third picture shows the woman after she has bought y in the market from a stall, moving down the street in the direction of another stall from which she intends to buy z. The caption "PersonA buying x in the market is simply wrong. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hang on, how can you claim The third picture shows the woman after she has bought y in the market from a stall, moving down the street in the direction of another stall from which she intends to buy z. when the three pictures show the same scene and differ only in how and when they were created. In all 3

PersonA (who I note you choose to assume is a woman) is standing between stalls in a market. The Difference is that 3) is not trying to depict a realistic moment seen by the artist but trying to illustrate a later description of that event. 3) is an illustration of PersonA in the market. 3) is an Illustration of PersonA in the market buying x. 3) is not an illustration of the transaction where PersonA bought x I'd agree. SPACKlick (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Boy, if there was a degree in wikilawyering you would pass out with honours. In my local street market 99% of the customers are women. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't trust you further than I can throw you. I entered the following search terms into archive.org's digitisation of the book:
intercalation - result, page 14
Isaiah - page 22, no mention of God or the Prophet
Caesar - nil return
Sede - ditto
Peroz - ditto
Gadir Humm - ditto
Musaliyma - ditto
Bihafrid - ditto
al - Muqanna - ditto
al - Hallag - ditto
Mihrgan - ditto
Faridun - ditto
autumnal equinox - ditto
Eli - ditto
Buhtnasar - ditto
Abraham - page 186
Jesus - 9 hits - no mention of baptism

So to coin a phrase, who is wasting whose time? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the only link that needs to be given here is WP:CONSENSUS. Your opinion on this matter appears to be in the minority...a minority of one, no less. That settles the matter. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
So are you saying that WP:NPOV and WP:V can be overridden by an alleged consensus? SPACKlick has said that s/he is not saying that the picture is of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation and Wiqi55 has cited experts who say it is not. Add in myself, and it seems the person who is in a minority of one is yourself. I'm surprised to see your name - I thought you had been banned for tendentious editing. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Deliberate misrepresentation on your part as usual. --NeilN talk to me 17:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The point remains; you position is in a minority. As pending changes (see WP:PEND are now live, any edit you make to the article will not be visible to the reader unless approved by an actual editor. So, that would seem to be the end of it. I have also reverted your pasting of old Arbcom data regarding myself to this talk page. As article talk pages are for discussion of article content and not editors, it was most inappropriate. Do not re-add it, or steps will be taken to either protect this page from anon IP editing as well or block your address, whichever is easier. Tarc (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Three against none is a consensus. You're a topic - banned editor claiming sysop powers. Knock it off. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
There are other editors participating in this thread that you're leaving out, and the two you name-drop do not seem to be as zealous about the change as you come across as. This is largely academic, now that pending changes have been turned on. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe not so zealous, but they're certainly not opposed. Since all the other editors are autoconfirmed, why should pending changes affect it? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It prevents the sole editor warrior (i.e. you) from further disruption of the article. If one of those actual editors wishes to propose changes, we'll certainly listen. I think this tangent has run its course. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
They already have. Here's Wiqi55 above:

The image is being used here in the same context that reliable sources have described as sectarian (i.e., illustrating a neutral text about calendars ... we are not supposed to give preference for one source and ignore others. In this case reliable sources differ on caption and pertinence. This article must reflect these differences to meet WP:NPOV.

SPACKlick has taken this to ANI, invoking your name, and editors are laughing at him/her. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"...and editors are laughing at him/her" More deliberate misrepresentation from you. Do you ever get tired of this? --NeilN talk to me 14:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Exchange copied over per editor's request[edit]

As you're so knowledgeable about this, can you explain why @NeilN: put a similar notice on my talk re Muhammad images when that was dealt with by individual arb sanctions with no general sanctions whatsoever? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

What are you on about now? Pages related to Muhammad are subject to discretionary sanctions. --NeilN talk to me 16:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Within the area of conflict, editors are expected to comply with all applicable policies and guidelines. There's no policy that says a caption is exempt. Indeed, if it was a caption to a scientific diagram could be seriously misleading. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Please take this to the article talk page rather than here, that's the appropriate venue. SPACKlick (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)