Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← Archive 7 |
Archive 8

Poll on every little issue

Please sign if any of these things applies to your understanding of this issue. Please put you name under all of the options you think would be acceptable. You can sign all or none of these, I'm hoping this will give us a more-fine grained understanding of the issue. If you wish, indicate your (FIRST CHOICE) as I have done... futurebird 22:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong no images

no human depiction images in the article at all, even at the bottom, even with a veil. Only links to images. (Just sign, no comments please.)

Only one image, not at the top

Calligraphy at the top and at the bottom one image with a veil. (Just sign, no comments please.)

Multiple veiled images, not at the top

Calligraphy at the top multiple veiled images. (Just sign, no comments please.)

Multiple images, some unveiled images, not at the top

Calligraphy at the top, multiple other images, with and without veils, but not at the top. (Just sign, no comments please.)

  • futurebird 21:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (FIRST CHOICE)
  • Sefringle 22:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Aslamt 22:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (LAST CHOICE)
  • HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Acceptable, so long as "not at the top" refers only to the lead.Proabivouac 00:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • per Proabivouac. · AndonicO Talk 00:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (FIRST CHOICE)
  • Ttiotsw 05:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (FIRST CHOICE)
  • Nonprof. Frinkus 05:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Nil Einne 13:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC) (FIRST CHOICE)
  • Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (FIRST CHOICE)
  • DavidYork71 01:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Veiled image at the top, multiple other images, some unveiled

(Just sign, no comments please.)

* Liberal Classic 01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Tom Harrison Talk 05:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (BEST image at top, which I think would be a veiled image)
  • Ttiotsw 05:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (SECOND CHOICE)
  • TewfikTalk 17:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC) (best image)
  • DavidYork71 01:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a second best solution to end this conflict but only if the veiled image is not accompanied by a calligraphy. It must either stand alone or alongside an unveiled image. Str1977 (smile back) 15:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

human depiction with no veil at the top AND multiple other images

Who feels we should have an image right at the top that is a human depiction of some-kind with no veil

* Liberal Classic 01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Tom Harrison Talk 05:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (BEST image at top, which might conceivably be one that is not veiled)
  • Ttiotsw 05:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (THIRD CHOICE)
  • Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Nonprof. Frinkus 05:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • TewfikTalk 17:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC) (best image)
  • Matt57 21:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (first choice)

.128.193.238.6 01:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Weregerbil 13:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (first choice)
  • DavidYork71 01:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Arrow740 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Corporaljohnny 17:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Arkon 20:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • JGHowes 2 March 2007
  • FOo 11:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC) (Do whatever makes the best encyclopedia article. In this case, we have a wealth of historically significant images, and it would be wrong to leave them out.)
    • Problem is that including images on the top with Muhammad shown make it a less good encyclopedia article. It is because it gives wrong impression to the end reader. --- ALM 12:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I disagree. There's no problem for the reader who comes to the article with a reasonable amount of good faith and can read the caption discussing the general proscription against depictions of Muhammed in human form. Including unveiled images (not necessarily at the top of the article) made by Muslims at times and places when this was possible is informative to the reader and opens doors to an understanding of the complexities of the subject. (Apologies for placing comments here) Corlyon 19:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Corlyon
        • First you say disagree and then you say not necessary on the top. Both of these things are opposite to each other. If they are down the article then even I am fine with them and we are on the same page. Problem is WP:NPOV#Undue weight which say position and quantity(of text, images) should be proportional to its importance and it is a part of policy too. --- ALM 19:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Sorry for any confusion. I disagree with your assertion that placing the pictures at the top makes the article somehow "less good" because it somehow gives a wrong impression to the reader, as I have faith that most readers have enough intelligence to see the pictures in their proper perspective. In my view it would still be a fine article with pictures depicting Muhammed at the top, provided that the captions explain the common proscription against such images. However, I am also reasonable enough to acknowledge that having such images "not at the top" could also result in a perfectly workable article as long as they're not being deliberately buried at the bottom. I actually like the way the article is set up right now, with calligraphic image atop the pictorial depiction, but other approaches will work too. Corlyon 23:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Corlyon
            • But WP:NPOV#Undue weight is a policy and do you wish to go against policy to please yourself? Did it mention changing caption to adjust undue weight? NO. If going against policies is allowed to please yourself and then I wish to have no picture at all. However, I wish to go with the policies around and want to shift the picture down per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. It says Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. --- ALM 10:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • ProtectWomen 20:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Karl Meier 20:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • ThuranX 01:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC): no special treatment should be tolerated here.
  • This is the norm on WP we should implement it here too. I am also fine if this is accompanied by a calligraphy. Str1977 (smile back) 15:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No doubt. Wikipedia biogrpahies always start with an image when one is available. Beit Or 20:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As it is customary with any biography. Where it is missing, it should be added. --tickle me 13:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oreo Priest 02:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)--
  • Canar 07:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please put all other comments this poll here

My view - most explicit image at top with attribution and references to sections in the biography dealing with:

1. reliability of depictions, history and range of depictions of him

2. references from hadith and biography relating the characteristics of his appearance and dress (these exist)

3. traditions of aniconism (at which place show veiled portayals and calligraphy)


DavidYork71 01:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't most people who would visit a biographical article about this person want to know about the description of his physical characteristics and how how he is/was portrayed?

DavidYork71 01:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please try and avoid gerrymandering. I.e., rigging the questions to try and split the opposition, or in some other way to distort the results. TharkunColl 00:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope that I have not done that. futurebird 00:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, do you have a first choice?futurebird 22:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

yeah. I added it now.--Sefringle 22:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


My point of view doesn't fit nicely in the categories given, so I'll just summarize. I don't much care about whether Muhammad is veiled or not-- what's primary in my mind is what the images do to illustrate the subject of the article. We should neither prefer veiled images, nor insist upon images just for the sake of their being unveiled. In my mind, the three images that are most useful to the reader are Teaching, At Kaaba, With Black Stone. A caligraphy image also seens worthy to accompany the discussion of depictions of Muhammad, but it would be out of place at the introduction to the article since it doesn't convey any information about Muhammad himself. The Persian minature lack clarity-- at thumbnail size, it's not an image, it's an abstract painting-- I suggest it be replaced with one of the other images. --Alecmconroy 22:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though I do care if he is vailed. I would prefer not vailed, but I am willing to compromise now that this is taking so long.--Sefringle 22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I said multiple images, not at top, I think only two or three images are merited. Perhaps the two 'best' veiled images and one unveiled image. However even if we settle on 6 or 7 or whatever I think that would be okay (although not my first choice) provided the lead image is not any representation Nil Einne 13:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Observation

Although some people are still voting, I think it's clear, now why we can't seem to get anywhere. Rather than having a region of overlap we have a sharp split. This is why the proposed compromises have not worked. Although, there are quite a few people who agree with putting an unveiled image at the top. The majority do not. This makes me think that mediation will not be able to work. I'm starting to think that arbitration is the best option here. Unless, of course more people are willing to compromise. futurebird 00:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to my earlier comment on gerrymandering. By phrasing the questions in a specific way, you can obtain any result you like. TharkunColl 00:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
How so? futurebird 00:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Like this: Here's another vote. Vote "yes" if you want a picture of Muhammad, or "no" if you don't. Just yes or no, no further comments please.
It seems as though the "Unveiled image at top" option currently has the most votes, Futurebird. Though this does change rapidly... --Hojimachongtalkcon 00:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I know. I can't understand why I'm being accused of gerrymandering. futurebird 00:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Nor do I. --Hojimachongtalkcon 00:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Because there is just one option for those who don't want an image, but five different options for those who do, split between different versions. Right or wrong? I don't know, but it would be possible to rephrase it in a multitude of different ways to get the required answer. TharkunColl 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, "no images" is a pretty solid view. You can't really have more than one type of image on a page without images. On the other hand, there are many different options for where to include pictures, if any. I think it represents the debate quite well. --Hojimachongtalkcon 00:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It is, however, worth noting that straightforward support for WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored is not, in fact, an extreme position, despite its location in the layout above.Proabivouac 00:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
In the context of this debate, though, it is on one end of the spectrum. Is there a suggestion that is even more supportive of images? --Hojimachongtalkcon 00:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It is only on one end of the spectrum because options as extreme as "no images at all" were not presented; e.g. "include every possible image."Proabivouac 01:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem with Gren's proposal is that it was/is very heavily weighted to one side, hence produces a result very similar to what one might have obtained by proposing no depictions at all. Though I can't speak for everyone, I believe it is really the aniconists who are unwilling to compromise. For example, were an upper limit of six depictions proposed, none in the lead, with a prominent warning on the talk page that this is a sensitive subject, and be very certain to establish the notability and appropriateness of the image before adding it (the last of which, at least, I support), these would be extraordinary provisions not applied to any other article (excepting perhaps Baha'ullah, which is clearly censored); however, I've a feeling this might not be enough.Proabivouac 00:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


I concur with Futurebird that this issue is unlikely to be successfully mediated-- at least if a successful mediation is all parties agreeing. You have the most fundamental ideals of two different cultures at opposing interests-- if ever there was a case that is going to be easily compromised on, this is it.
How to break the deadlock? Obviously I'm far from neutral here, but it seems to me that in the absence of any strong consensus that "Muhammad" should be treated differently than other biographies, Muhammad shouldn't be treated differently than other biographies. Which is to say-- in a normal biography, we want MORE images of the subject, not less. If this article is going to be the exception to the rule, it seems like the "burden of proof" would be on those those who think it's an exception. Until such a consesnsus develops that images are to be avoided, we should go about our business as we normally would.
Or alternatively-- perhaps we could obtain a clarification from the community by proposing a policy clarification and seeing if there is a consensus for it. A substantial block of editors feels that a correct interpretation of Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia should not include images of Muslim holy figures on their biography pages. We could propose a change to policy that explicitly says this conclusion. If the change passed, then Wikipedia would have an explicity "statutory"-as-it-were stance on the issue. Policy proposals get more views than a typical talk page dispute, so perhaps that would draw in others who could help resolve the situation. Does anyone thing that would be a worthwhile approach? I'd be willing to go through the steps to file such a proposal, unless people think it would just be a waste of time. --Alecmconroy 00:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Lots of people hold WP:NOT as sacred (pardon the religious connotations of the word, totally non-intentional), as it governs a large part of Wikipedia. Even if editors were up for a change, the big man himself would probably shoot it down. I (sadly) feel like arbitration may be imminent. --Hojimachongtalkcon 00:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that is a very good idea. I'm fairly certain that, were it put to the community as a whole, we would probably obtain a strong consensus to include. An impartial method of involving more voices may be the key to breaking what might otherwise be a deadlock.Proabivouac 01:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we want to link this poll at RFC? Or will that just bring too many nuts to this page? (I mean "nuts" in the most loving way, and I admit I may be one of them...) It's just at this point I'm done talking about the issue, because everything has been said. I'm more interested in finding the compromise that will result in the fewest people pushing this all the way to the arbcom. I think it would show maturity on the part of all parties involved. futurebird 01:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This may have to be decided by arbitration if this mediation fails to come to consensus. I would support such a course. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think FutureBird's RfC idea might be good, along with Alecmconroy's idea of floating this on relevant page (WP:NOT; however I'd like to hear moderator's stance on these ideas.
Here, we might simplify the issue summarily dismissing options which run afoul of current policy (e.g. veiled images only), which would likely create a clear majority, and possibly a consensus, for "Multiple images, some unveiled images, not at the top." Additionally, I propose that a message be placed atop the talk page acknowledging the sensitivity of the issue and asking that editors verify the notability and topic-appropriateness of depictions on talk before adding them.
That is a good idea about the warning message. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
In any event, as this is a content dispute, it is preferable that this be decided by the community.Proabivouac 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

What do people think of this going to arbitration? Or, to put the question another way, do you think this mediation, or any other attempt to resolve this dispute will succeed in a reasonable amount of time, or ever? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Although the ArbCom doesn't usually accept cases surrounding content disputes, I think that this case goes beyond a mere "content dispute". (→Netscott) 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree, this is more about interpretation of policy. For example, the claim that an image needs to be historically accurate is not supported by the images of the English Monarchs. I don't think we will get any sort of volunteer consensus about this. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
We might well obtain a consensus if the issue is brought to the attention of the community as a whole. It's at least worth a try.Proabivouac 01:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we should wait and see if people are willing to change their vote to support options that might lead to a consensus. If we still have a split in a few days we're going to arbcom, clearly. I'm also all for opening this up to the community. 01:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think going to ArbCom is the right solution now. If anything, I agree with Pro that this issue should be brought up to the wider community first, perhaps via some special process and widely-advertised process. This may be something that will eventually have to be decided by a poll. - Merzbow 04:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if arbitration applies here or not, but I don't see this as a simple content issue. I observe also, that as a result of edit warring, the main article is locked with an unveiled Persian image on top. Persian culture in Iran is in a very delicate position after the Islamist revolution. My guess is that this depiction, apart from being intimidating towards Muslims, creates an additional pressure against the Persian culture. I don't suggest that anyone knowingly is trying to create tension between cultures in Iran, but I hope we take under consideration the delicate nature of the issue. We are a free encyclopedia, but freedom is also the freedom to decide how we behave towards people who see a depiction of Muhammad on top of the Muhammad article as a sign that "we" (the West, the English Wikipedians) are inconsiderate and unkind towards "them" (Muslims, Islamic community). This should definitely open up to Wikipedia's community, as it doesn't only concern the editors involved in the core article or those of us who decided to take part in Mediation. It is something that places Wikipedia as a whole in relation to Islam as a whole and it includes issues that involve minorities that find themselves within the Islamic community. Hoverfish Talk 09:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It's also a question of how "they" should behave towards "us", wouldn't you agree? "They" are free to establish (and have established) "their" religiously-censored forums. "Our" (the West's) tradition - more to the point, our (Wikipedia's) tradition - is to oppose censorship by followers of "our" predominant religion, Christianity. The only thing that is being proposed here is to treat Islam exactly as Christianity is treated: as a personal choice, not as a public mandate.Proabivouac 09:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Hoverfish here. This is a big question. It seems that in some contexts (ie movie spoilers) "common sense" and "being considerate" matter, but in other contexts they do not. I suppose I feel very strongly about this issue because I think it is important to show that we are willing to take "friendly" actions for other sets of values. If we can "censor" an article because "It could ruin the whole movie experience for someone!" It seems grossly hypocritical and even deliberately provocative to insist on putting an objectionable image right in people's faces at the top of the article.
We are a community and we have norms of civility that also apply the the ways articles are presented. Especially after this cartoon controversy, using an image in this way has a new meaning. We seem to be turning a blind eye to that fact if we insist, in the name of "free speech," on putting the face Muhammad right at the top of the article, in doing so we are also making a tremendously one-sided statement about what this community is and is not willing to respect. I do not understand what the difference is. And no one here has provided a satisfactory explanation.futurebird 13:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Spoiler warnings are not censorship - indeed they are quite the opposite, enabling the article to reveal outcomes etc. Str1977 (smile back) 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Futurebird-- you raise some excellent points. This is a debate I always have within myself-- should an author work towards "making the best work possible" or should an author work towards "making the world a better place through his work". Which is to say-- let us assume that if it did not offend those of us who are Muslim, we would instantly and without a second thought put a Muhammad image at the top of the article, just as we do for every other article. Since this practice works so well for us in other articles that it is employed almost universally, I would say "Image at top" is an example of how we make "make the best encyclopedia possible".
On the other hand, suppose we knew, for a fact, that "Image at top" would have some negative consequence on the world. That our putting an image at the top would result, somehow someway, in greater oppression for a Persian minority in Iran. That our putting in image at the top would inflame the already tense relationship between Islamic and Western cultures and would result in one more death somehow.
The "Really Big Question", to me, is-- if we knew making the encyclopedia that much better would make the world that much worse-- should we still do it? Or should we go the other way-- an try to construct an encyclopedia that would make the world a better place, and if the end result isn't as good an encyclopedia, that's okay.
I go back and forth on this dilemma in my mind all the time. But I'm comforted by the fact that this dilemma really can't come up in practice. We can all agree, at least in theory, on what makes a useful encyclopedia-- we could, for example, show different articles to a 1000 people each and then give everyone a test, and see which article did the best job. In contrast, we're never going to be able to agree on how to make the world a better place. Perhaps putting Muhammad at the top will make the world a better place by showing to internet-enablled muslim youth in a bold way that there is a whole world out there where censorship doesn't exist and they'll be inspired by it. (don't snicker, it could happpen :) ). Perhaps putting an image of Muhammad at the top will send a clear signal to our readers that Wikipedia regards non-censorship as THAT important, and that it will inspire others to not be intimidated by societies into self-censorship. Or perhaps the opposite is true. Perhaps it will inflame passions and do nothing but upset people. Or perhaps there really is a god who actually has prohibited images of Muhammad, and by including them, we are committing an offense against God. When we start trying to calculate what effects our actions here at Wikipedia have and what constitutes a "good world", we're never going to agree. There isn't going to be a consensus on it. We don't even have a chance.
So, in my own mind, I've acted according to the assumption that the best thing to do is to just try to write the absolute best encyclopedia we can. To focus simply on the goal of getting information from our minds into the readers', and let them do with it what they will. (And I like to hope, along the way, that maximizing the information available to people is, in fact, the solution that will best tend towards making the world a better place in the long run. But who am I kidding-- I can't actually know for a fact that that's true).
--Alecmconroy 23:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal proposal

I'm inclined to propose, "Multiple images, some unveiled images, not in the lead" with the added provisions that they be 1) carefully selected, 2) moderate in number relative to articles for religious figures of comparable significance 3) accompanied by notable calligraphic representations of the name "Muhammad" to fairly represent the practices of aniconistic Muslims 4) captioned to specify "an artist's depiction" or the equivalent, and 5) a message will be placed atop the talk page acknowledging the sensitivity of the issue and asking that editors verify the notability and topic-appropriateness of depictions on talk before adding them.

If there are any other provisions which can be added to acknowledge and respect strong feelings on this matter without violating WP:NOT, please suggest them.Proabivouac 02:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is fair.futurebird 02:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
One veiled and one unveiled is absolutely as far as I'm willing to go. IIRC this was the status quo for a long time until recently. - Merzbow 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
If the page were in that condition, I would not change it. Tom Harrison Talk 05:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The top image was the only one edit warred over anyway. The editors never bothered reading beyond the first page !. Stick a calligraphy image at the top and 99.5% of the vandalism would disappear (using the made-up statistics adopted by some posts to date). The remaining 0.5% who remove all the images before they go back to their sectarian edits on other Islam related pages, can be fixed with reverts and 3RRs. Ttiotsw 05:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. · AndonicO Talk 12:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree futurebird 13:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Looking back through my posts in this mediation, I believe I mentioned something similar to your suggestion, Proabivouac. I have said before I am willing to compromise on a portrait of Muhammad veiled as the lead-in image. I also believe that a calligraphic representation of Muhammad's name should follow in a subsequent section. I am of the opinion that the caption should clearly cite the source of the portrait as being Muslim in origin, and that this was an acceptable representation in certain cultures. I agree with your suggestion for the talk page, and I also suggest that a comment block of code should be inserted to notify editors to make a comment on the talk page before removing the portrait.Liberal Classic 16:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
i intend to look at this proposal more closely in a while. ITAQALLAH 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Another vote (yawn): Let's keep it simple

Please vote either yes or no (without comments) to the following question: Should we treat the article on Muhammad any differently to that of any other historical figure? TharkunColl 09:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • No. TharkunColl 09:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. Every topic deserves its own unique treatment depending on what the sources say. (I'd answer yes to this question for any article.) But, to be honest, I don't understand what you're asking. futurebird 12:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, just another subject. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No hence I have put cartoon image in Muhammad article because it is most notable image I know of. I wish to have bigger version of it. --- ALM 17:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    ALM, your last edit [3] to the Muhammad article is unhelpful and violates WP:POINT. Liberal Classic 17:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    Why? Do not you agree that wikipedia is not censored and also that this are the most notable images we know. Then what is the problem? --- ALM 17:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    I believe that edit creates an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, as per Wikipedia:Civility. Liberal Classic 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    Once again wikipedia is not censored. Hence stop censoring it. These are the most notable image of Muhammad around. Do you agree with it or not? --- ALM 17:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    I think ALM is making a good point. If notability is the criteria then by all means use the cartoon. If civility = censorship then we must' use this graphic. I agree with this edit and the important point that is being made here. How and where do we draw the line? futurebird 03:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    Because the cartoon image tells us pratically nothing about Muhammad himself. I may be wrong, but my feeling is that the image of Muhammad there is being used more as a "symbol" for the Islamic world, rather than as a form of criticism about Muhammad himself. It's not a question of incivility that keeps it out of the article-- our biography often feature negative information about the subject of a biography. It's just a question of usefulnesss to the encyclopedia. I don't think we learn much about Muhammad the person by seeing the cartoon. If that weren't the case, then I'd be all for its inclusion, regardless of how offensive people find it. --Alecmconroy 04:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    We also learn nothing with the picture you people are presenting. Think like that Muhammad used to wear dark blue clothes and Sahabah used to wear red clothes etc are wrong. They are even against Islam principles. --- ALM 16:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    It is a good point. The cartoons are unquestionably the most notable images of Muhammad at this time, and including them somewhere would be perfectly in line with policy. --Hojimachongtalk 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes - a loaded, unhelpful question. If I wanted to violate WP:POINT I would answer No and then insist that all historical biographical articles be exactly 70kb in size, because otherwise they would be treated differently. - Merzbow 19:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    Can you justify why Muhammad's article should be treated any differently to that of any other historical figure? Length is a non-issue by the way - the more that is known about a person, and the more important that person is to history, the longer the article. This issue is about pictures, which are not censored from any other article. TharkunColl 19:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see how it is loaded or unhelpful. It is very relevant. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    I see it as very loaded. Most people argue 'treated differently' meaning on whether or not you show images. I believe they should be treated the same in representing traditions which will create different outcomes (fewer pictures in Muhammad, calligraphy which really doesn't belong in Jesus at all, etc.) I argue to use the same methodology of choosing on different historical figures will yield different results. gren グレン 01:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No The subject of the article should not influence the way the article is written, outlined in WP:NPOV --Hojimachongtalk 19:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

*No The subject of this encyclopedia entry is about a man. It is reasonable to expect to see a portrait of a man.Liberal Classic 23:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • No, generally speaking (as I believe the question was intended.)Proabivouac 23:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, but it's safe to say we will still disagree on the outcome. We should not treat him differently just to satisfy a constituency which does not want images. But, using the same method of how to write a biography article not all biography articles will be the same. gren グレン 01:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"We should not treat him differently just to satisfy a constituency which does not want images" - this is exactly what this mediation has always been about. Further differences can be solved after the questions which gave rise to this mediation are settled.Proabivouac 10:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
But, no. You feel that such a statement means images will be kept and will not realize that I have no urge to satisfy Muslims but to create an encyclopedic article. I am unaware of the exact motive (you seem to imply that it is to satisfy Muslims) used in the request for mediation but I do not feel obliged to agree with the motive to discuss the issue. You make the a priori judgment that excluding images is being done to satisfy Muslims when I believe it is a way to satisfy neutrality instead of delegitimizing a mode of representation that historians of Islamic art find to be immensely important. If we end this mediation agreeing that "Wikipedia should not attempt to create articles to satisfy constituencies" without agreeing on the state of images we would have another mediation in no time because you believe that not having images is only to satisfy Muslims--I do not. gren 16:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No--Sefringle 04:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, and an absolute one at that. Nonprof. Frinkus 05:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No --Alecmconroy 08:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No -- Karl Meier 16:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes we should do that for all historical figures.Bless sins 21:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Question doesn't make sense Nil Einne 13:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No -- The fact that the image of Muhammed is offensive to some Muslims should have no consequence. There are many Muslims who find this acceptable.--Matt57 21:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Re: a parallel rhetorical trick to TharkunColl's. One could also ask, "Are some terrorists entitled to special, euphemistic treatment in the encyclopedia that protects them from identification as 'terrorists,' using that word?" I predict a landslide for "weasel word orgy here." See King David Hotel Bombing -- there are a dozen sources that identify this historical event as clearly terroristic in nature, yet we must not call a spade a spade. So yes, WP avoids offending the sensibilities of sensitive constituencies all the time, with no feathers ruffled and no mediation necessary. BYT 22:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, Wikipedia strives to be a neutral encyclopaedia. While I respect the ideals behind those who would keep images out, I question where this enterprise would end up if we began running it according to various religious precepts (and their varying interpretations). TewfikTalk 05:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Nonsensical question - as pointed out above, the question is visibly loaded. we treat all articles the same in that we apply the same policies and guidelines to them. however, due to the various differences relating to topic (the subject itself, opinions and academic discussion on that subject, the history of that subject and so on), editorial judgements from one article to another will naturally vary. ITAQALLAH 16:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No Arrow740 18:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No Arkon 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No JGHowes 2 March 2007
  • No, if what you mean is subjecting this article to special censorship. Removal of notable facts or useful information, including images, from an article in order to meet someone's political or religious opinions is always destructive of the goals of the project. --FOo 11:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No way Beit Or 20:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No. --tickle me 13:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • A common sense No Str1977 (smile back) 13:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I cobbled together a possible compromise article in my sandbox

I cobbled a possible compromise position and put it in my sandbox. I make no claims this is perfect, but I think it represents a compromise which may be acceptable to those people who believe a portrait is appropriate, while respecting Muslim sensibilities about unveiled images of Muhammad. The lead-in portrait is veiled, and a calligraphic representation follows in the subsequent section. The veiled image from the section on the Miraj remains. At the bottom in the section about depictions of Muhammad, I have placed the unveiled portrait next to a photograph of some contemporary calligraphy from a mosque. Additionally, I have removed some of the other images. This is done primarily to reduce the number of images in the article, and secondarily because the images were not directly related to the paragraphs they were next to. An image of the Green Dome could be reinstated with a link to an article on Muslim holy shrines, for example.

It seems a fair compromise, and as such I would accept it. TharkunColl 16:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

See the section above "Veiled image at the top, multiple other images, some unveiled" and do not waste other people time by keep moving in loop. We know where each one of us stand then why to start this useless thing again? --- ALM 16:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I expressed support for the above suggestion in a spirit of compromise. Personally, I think Al-Biruni's picture is much better and far more notable. TharkunColl 16:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Please be civil. I am not trying to "waste time" with "useless things". It is difficult to get a feel for how the article would look just through discussion. That is why I put an example in my sandbox. My point is that those of us who believe a portrait is appropriate for a biographical article are not blind to Muslim sensitivities. Liberal Classic 16:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it is a waste of time. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no compromise here. This has three pictorial images just like the version of Muhammad we've been warring about for six months. - Merzbow 19:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, but bear with me. As an added guesture, I have removed one of the veiled images. This version contains only two portraits, with the veiled one in the lead and the unveiled one at the bottom. Additionally, it contains a calligraphic representation in the middle. Can anyone claim I am not trying to reach consensus in good faith? Does anyone claim that there is no compromise here? Liberal Classic 23:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to direct everyone's attention to my sandbox again.

This page contains a total of four representations of Muhammad.

  • Two are portraits, and two are calligraphic representations.
  • One portrait is veiled. One portrait is not.
  • One calligraphic representation is a bit-mapped image, the other is a photograph from the Hagia Sophia.
  • The illustrated calligraphy and veiled portrait are prominently displayed together at the top of the article.
  • The unveiled portrait and photograph of calligraphy are near the bottom of the article.

(I have removed all other images, for the purpose of making these four images easy to see within the article. Other appropriate images should be included in the article, but I have pulled them from this demonstration in order to highight the images under dispute.)

Is this an acceptable compromise measure?

I am trying to be as fair as possible to both sides. Of the four representations, in only one is Muhammad's face shown. Fifty percent of the representations of Muhammad are calligraphic in this version. The portrait in which Muhammad's face is shown is not the lead image. The lead image is calligraphy, but a veiled portrait of Muhammad follows immediately afterward. The effect is a combined lead-in graphic. The other two images are in proximity to the section on depictions of Muhammad, and so associated with that issue. What more can I do? How can I be more fair to both sides?

Liberal Classic 01:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer a calligraphy over picture compromise so I can maintain the illusion that we are actually trying to be representative. I still think an image should be lower down but... this is Wikipedia... not Grenapedia or Scholarapedia. :O Of course, we probably wouldn't use a German word or a picture of Layla and Majnun... but, you get the point. gren グレン 01:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I could try sticking them together. Give me a few to experiement with thumnails. Liberal Classic 01:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You know, that doesn't look half bad. Gren, I have tried putting both representations together as a combined lead-in graphic. Liberal Classic 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You would have to use Image:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.jpg or, someone skilled could remove everything outside of the circle and make it transparent... since the other image is not... good. gren グレン 02:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think I follow what you're saying. The edges of the circular calligraphy should be the transparent color, in order to blend nicely into the background. My default background is white, as is the image's background color, so for me the effect is nice. I looked at the image you linked, and while it is attractive, it has so much detail that when it is thumbnailed it doesn't look quite as good. Aesthetically, I like the circle over the square, instead of two squares stacked. Also, I don't have a lot of experience with wiki frames and tables, and the alignment is a little off. Ideally, the circle should have the same centerline as the square. Liberal Classic 02:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Now we are approaching a compromise. Like gren I still think the veiled image should be lower in the article and not smack in the lead. I notice the "Part of a series" box is probably too low now. How about keep the calligraphic where it is, but move the veiled image below the "Part of a series" box? - Merzbow 02:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The sticking point seems to be the lead-in graphic. I think a combined graphic may be the only compromise acceptable to enough people on both sides. If you take the portrait and move it downstairs, then you lose everyone who believes a portrait should be prominently displayed at the top. If you move the calligraphic representation downstairs, you lose those people who believe calligraphy is the "correct" representation. Liberal Classic 02:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I've uploaded Media:Transparent Muhammad Calligraphy1.jpg; I do not know how to make the background transparent, however. Is that image close to what you had in mind, gren? --Hojimachongtalk 02:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Moving the veiled image directly below the series box is still a prominent displayal, I'm not talking about moving it to the middle of the article. - Merzbow 02:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the current effect is aesthetically pleasing. I'm going to leave my sandbox alone for a day or two so everyone can get a chance to look at it. Liberal Classic 03:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it's far more aesthetically pleasing to sandwich the series box - here's how it looks in my sandbox. - Merzbow 04:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that's not looking bad, either. Liberal Classic 04:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Image:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.png is what I had in mind... gren グレン 04:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
That's a wonderful image, but it is so ornate that when it is thumbnailed, it loses a lot of detail and it looks fuzzy. The image from the current article has the advantage that it is not so baroque, and is about the same scale (or the exact scale) as the thumbnail. In any event, this is a trivial matter compared to getting the consensus to sign on to some sort of compromise plan. Liberal Classic 04:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not trivial to me... mostly because a user created image does not belong at the top of this article. It would be rather hypocritical to challenge others on the relevance of their images and then be lax on mine. As it is, I need to look more into the exact types of calligraphy that are important. But yes, as a matter for getting it agreed upon it's not as big of a deal. gren グレン 06:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The veiled image should not be at the top, and the image from the miniature of the placing of the Black Stone is a blown-up detail, which is dark, muddy, and a distortion of the original. What pictorial tradition there is, in Islam, consists of miniatures in books, illustrating stories from history. They did not do simple portraits of Muhammad, so far as I know. This is distorting the Islamic tradition to make it parallel to the Christian tradition, which has no qualms about portraits, icons, scripture cards, medals, statues, etc., all featuring Jesus. Furthermore, making it half pictures and half calligraphy is a distortion of the Islamic record, which is more like 95% calligraphy and 5% pictures. I would be OK with the one veiled picture, lower down. Zora 03:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, but the point of compromise is displeasing everyone equally. ;) Making the lead-in graphic half-calligraphy and half-portrait fits this idea perfectly. It's not an ideal solution, and it doesn't please everyone. I do not claim that it is the perfect solution. It is not exactly what I want, and it is not exactly what you want. Nor is it exactly what Gren or Merzbow wants, and it is not likely to be what Tom Harrison or Proabivouac wants. However, it gives something to those folks who wanted calligraphy first. The calligraphic representation is first. It gives something to those people who wanted a portrait for a biographical article about a man. When you load the page, the second image you see is of a human being. It is a bodily representation but the face is veiled, out of respect for Muslim sensibilities. Included is an unveiled image, but it is lower in the article associated with a section topic that addresses depictions of Muhammad. Nobody gets everything, but everybody gets something. Lastly, it has the added benefit of not being totally awful page layout. This is something rare in art design, that a design by compromise would turn out to be relatively pleasing to the eye. Liberal Classic 03:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You may be making the assumption that I would accept the proposal I mentioned. Can we have calligraphy on the page while not treating Muhammad differently? No other person save Mahmud II seems to have it... gren グレン 04:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not mean to imply your endorsement, but I do believe it was a constructive suggestion and I thank you for it. Liberal Classic 04:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Maomé.jpg

I see no reason for the removal of Image:Maomé.jpg.Proabivouac 03:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't either. However, I am trying to drive towards a compromise measure of some shape or form. Liberal Classic 03:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we should include Image:Maomé.jpg, but maybe a little bit lower, like not in the lead, but I am willing to compromise, so I will accept the version.--Sefringle 04:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The Maomé image is better sourced than the Kaba image I am using. In that sense it is definately preferable, because it has verifiablity. I think the Kaba image was cropped from another Persian miniature, but I don't see a citation for it. Liberal Classic 04:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I can get you a source... it's in a few Islamic art books I've read. It is problematic that it was cropped (I should get a better scan for Wikipedia) but verifiability of the individual image shouldn't be the main focus here. gren グレン 04:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
For me, verifiability is important. Especially because some people are so edgy about this issue. The image must be verifiable and come from credible sources. Showing a detail of an image is not so problematic, in my opinion. Liberal Classic 04:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I did not mean to say that verifiability isn't important. Just, on most of these images we can find the sources with a little effort... so, it shouldn't be an issue in choosing images. As for showing part... it depends on context. Artists often focus on Jesus alone. Most art of Muhammad is in important scenes from his life. The emphasis is very different and that's important in how he is scene. If you make him the only object then you are changing intentions. But, I don't think most of you have a real sense of context or placement and Islamic art--or you dismiss it. gren グレン 05:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Gren, I freely admit that I am not an art historian, however, I do feel that condescention such as the above comment is unhelpful. Liberal Classic 05:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not supposed to be. The prevalent argument is that physiognomic images are used in most other articles and thus they are relevant here. The argument attempts to make any knowledge of Islamic art irrelevant to this whole debate. I will freely admit I find the idea to be preposterous but I don't find it condescending to say that you don't have a sense of Islamic art when you don't even find it to be a relevant subject. gren グレン 06:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Some other comments on the Maomé image. I really like the image, and even if it is a minority representation of Muhammad, it would add so much to the article. The colors are vibrant, the texture of the robes is beautifully done, as is the detail of their turbans. And there are architectural features to observe, as well. Particularly the tiling pattern shown on the wall. We still see in mosques today. Frankly, it is a shame that so many people object to that painting. Liberal Classic 05:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't object to the image, in fact, it's my desktop background--quite nice. But, that doesn't make it good for the article! gren グレン 05:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It depicts a real event in Muhammad's life, it shows him doing exactly what he is most famous for doing (which none of the other images do,) it summarizes his political and military accomplishments (triumphant in Mecca,) was evidently created with hadith's descriptions in mind (funny for all the talk of "accuracy" how no one has noticed that hadith say nothing about him wearing a veil,) we couldn't ask for a more notable artist...what's the problem with it being in the article?
We know exactly what the problem is, because it's right there in the request for mediation.Proabivouac 07:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It is a portrayal of supposed events of his life, yes. Most of the other images are of him doing something famous. Taking the black stone at the kaba, his ascension into heaven. Please don't argue that this is more real than any silly religious fantasies unless you are of the belief that he and his friends walked around with a gold halo around his head just so they'd look good for future images. This is all religious iconography and none of it is more real. It's all hagiography as any religious tradition is. It is not understood as a representation of true events that truly happened, but it is a religious interpretation of events meant for the purposes of veneration of the good days when the prophet and the word were fresh. Attempts to remove it from its traditional context to make it seem that this is a representation of reality is just legitimizing hagiography as truth. My argument is that we represent the tradition, I have never talked about tradition having an accurate representation of reality... it doesn't, it's a religious interpretation just as any notable image, calligraphy or otherwise, of Muhammad will be. Religious figures are rarely represented in a secular manner, and when they were they rarely gain the notoreity of the religious images. gren グレン 08:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It is hardly mythology that he preached in Mecca in 631, forbidding intercalation among a number of other pronouncements. And no, there is nothing he did for which he is better known than he is for preaching the Qur'an. This is the only image I've seen proposed here which shows him doing this.
Meanwhile, the one image that seems most acceptable to aniconists and their sympathizers depicts a relatively marginal element of his biography, known to hardly any non-Muslims, one in which his appearance blatantly contradicts hadith (didn't wear a veil or have a featureless white head) and which, excuse me, almost certainly did not occur:Image:Miraj2.jpg.Proabivouac 08:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The veil is a device used to set him apart that the Persian iconographers developed. It is no more unrealistic than the halos in the Maomé image. Neither are the hadith to be taken accurate sources of evidence. They are traditions. gren グレン 08:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Surely you will at least concede that 1) he is most famous (by miles) for preaching the Qur'an, and that this is the only image proposed so far which shows him doing so, and that 2) it is generally believed by Muslim and secular scholars alike that he preached in Mecca 631, and 3) Al-Biruni is the very most notable source of all discussed so far.Proabivouac 09:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, the difference between a halo and a veil is that I think most viewers are aware that a halo is a religious symbol being used by the artist-- not a material object surrounding the head of the wearer. In contrast, I think that a typical reader might assume a veil in an image represents a literal veil worn by Muhammad. I think that mentioning the veil in the caption effectively solves the problem, but it is worth pointing out that all things being equal, unveiled is more accurate than veiled. --Alecmconroy 09:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It should also be mentioned that, for Muhammad at least, the halo, like most everything else about his depiction in this image, merely follows hadith, a number of which claim that his face "shone like the full moon."
In contrast, there are no hadith that I know of which claim that Muhammad was ever on fire as is depicted in two of the relatively less controversial images.Proabivouac 09:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Obviously now we have to look at the pictures. Hence we have found a new fact that hadith forget to mentioned that he used to be in a fire. We have to present that new fact to Muslim scholars who have not seen this picture painted more than 700 years after Muhammad death. Proabivouac what else these picture tell us that hadith forget to tell us. Please elaborate on them too. ALM 09:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
My point is that the renowned Muslim scholar Al-Biruni the creator of this image very consciously and conscientiously adhered to descriptions of Muhammad as given in hadith, while the occurence of the event depicted is not in dispute (whereas even Islamic scholars debate the reality of Isra and Mi'raj.) If accuracy is a serious issue, and we are to include only one image (we shouldn't include only one, but if we do,) Image:Maomé.jpg is far and away the obvious choice.Proabivouac 09:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It is the worst picture we have around. But obvious choice? Al-Biruni was a scientist NOT an islamic scholar. --- ALM 09:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I wrote "Muslim scholar," not "Islamic scholar." He was serious and learned man, neither careless nor a fool, and would not have/>whodid not make the sort of ignorant mistakes some would have us assume.Proabivouac 10:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
My recent publication list are now reached to 9. I consider myself only a scientist and not a authority on religion. However, do you consider me also a Muslim scholar now or may be in next few years? Should I start drawing pictures now? --- ALM 10:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Image
How it misguide reader
Image:Maome.jpg
Maome
  • Muhammad used to wear Blue clothes and his Sahabah used to wear red clothes. These colors are not preferred to wear by Muslim male and Muhammad used to wear white/black clothes mostly.[1][2][3] [4] [5]
  • Women used to sit in the crowd of Muslims.
  • Muhammad was male. (Obviously it is a useful information and one has to see picture for it)
  • Muhammad used to have Mustaches. One thing that differentiate Jews from Muslim is that Muslim unlike Jews have no or very small Mustaches. There is a Hadith about it. [6] [7]
  • Muhammad used to sit above people. Wrong, instead he stopped people standing up for him and He used to sit wherever there was a place available in an assembly and never sought a prominent or elevated place. [4]
  • We know not enough about the picture. For example:
    • Which one is Muhammad. Why it is not one sitting down?
    • Who are the people in the picture. They look notable enough people.
    • Who is the women in the picture?
    • What time it represent? One year after Hijra or before Hijra. After conqest of Mecca may be?
We already know what time it represents: it is in the year 631, in Mecca after its conquest, where Muhammad is forbidding intercalation. Re the robes, see this link which states, "On rare occasions, he would put on costly robes presented to him by foreign emissaries in the later part of his life."Proabivouac 10:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You have been around since long time. I strongly encourage you to read WP:OR now. --- ALM 10:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
There's no original research here at all. See image description: "16th century illustration depicting Muhammad prohibiting the intercalation of the calendar."Proabivouac 10:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Who has written that desciption and what is its source? Furthermore why Muhammad is the one sitting on top and not otherwise. Do you have any prove about that too? --- ALM 10:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The source is right there if you care to follow up on it; courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
You'd mentioned women, but I see only one figure which might be either a rather masculine-looking woman or a beardless man, as the figure closest to Muhammad appears to be a child.Proabivouac 10:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Truth vs Verifiability

From WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."

That being said, I would like to say that whether an image really resembles Muhammad is not relevant, as it is not the job of an encyclopedia to determine truth. Rather, and encyclopedia reflects that which has already been said by reliable sources. Thus, if a reliable source says "This is a depiction of Muhammad" then that is all we need.

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-Bîrûnî
  3. Made in the 15th century
  4. Is of Arabian origin

All based off of this reference: Le Prophète Mahomet Al-Bîrûnî, al-âthâr al-bâqiya (Vestiges des siècles passé). BNF, Manuscrits (Arabe 1489 fol. 5v)

If another reference is found that provides contrary information, then text can be added to the caption to show that there are differing points of view.

I am not pretending this addresses all of the issues in this debate, but I certainly think it addressed one of the main ones. Verifiability over opinion. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The cartoon pictures also have the reference and we know much more about them. Why not to have them on the top because they have more information. -- ALM 17:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
They are not really on topic though are they? They were created as satire or mockery, declared as such by their authors. They are not historical depictions, nor were they meant to be. Also I think you already know all of this. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
No I did not know them already and wish this thing to be debated properly by creating a new section. Who thinks that they are created for mockery? Their authors says that they are there for expressing freedom of speech just like you and other here says. Show the reference where there authors says that they are created for mockery. If they are cartoons then so is the picture you are varifying above. See both becasue to me both looks same kind of drawing. They are notable enough as compare to any other picture you have presented. Al-Bîrûnî is even not listed in the list of Islamic scholars but still he become notable. Here people revert all the references I have provided in Islam and science when a big Islamic scholars had no knowledge of science and a big scientist with no religion knowledge. How can you consider a person who as not a religious authority notable to include picture of Muhammad? Is he qualify WP:RS in this case. How? --- ALM 18:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT censored? Really?

Should I give more example or above are enough for argument to start. Do you really think there could be a society in which we have absolute no censorship? Think again. --- ALM 18:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not censor historical and legitimate works of art. TharkunColl 18:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
and where they have mentioned historical and legitimate works of art in the policy? --- ALM 19:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, because Wikipedia is most assuredly not censored by considerations of religious dogma. TharkunColl 19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
More ways to deny the result of the mediation. I've bolded the relevant wording;
  • girl does NOT have nude pictures, though woman does (typo ?). Islamic countries have a problem with nude women anyway (and Gays, Jews, beer, Atheists, wine, Christians, bacon sandwichs, Bahais, seafood, UNHRC...),
  • The consensus on Child pornography reflects the reality that "its production and possession are illegal in most jurisdictions, although details of local statutes vary."
  • Muslims hate the Bahais (at least in Iran they do) - but anyway the consensus was that Bahá'u'lláh has a photograph where it is. Spot the difference; photo issued with guidelines on it's attribution verses artists impression made many years ago.
  • Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy had a consensus. This is so meta anyway as the cartoons were written about how Islam causes self-censorship. The ironic and so predictable response.
  • Lolicon as with all Manga is quite simply weird and the image is perfect for that genre. I guess it is a consensus.

I think the problem you have is with what consensus is. These new sections seem somewhat petulant.Ttiotsw 19:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop attacking on Muslims. I will simply love to have Jews friend. Now you have attack on me and I owe to say that you are non-neutral and here with agenda. Stop spreading you agenda of hating Muslims. --- ALM 19:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

i don't see any consensus. there is still significant dispute over the number images, the location of the images, as well as the selection of images to use. ITAQALLAH 20:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't point an accusing finger to Muslims in particular for preoccupations. There are preoccupations the whole world around. It's just that each one tends to take his ambient preoccupations for granted. Also many of our western cultures have gone through circles of relative liberality to extreme conservatism and so on. - On the issue of censorship: is the BBC consicered as a particularly censored website? Here is what I found just toady: [5] and I get no feeling of any oppressiveness because of the lack of depictions of Muhammad. Actually, please, browse a bit in the Religion & Ethics section and see if you get any feeling of censorship. Hoverfish Talk 15:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it is probably worth noting that Wikipedia has to abide by the laws in Florida, because that is where the Wikimedia foundation is based. Child pornography is illegal, and Wikipedia's definition of censorship is not the same as illegality. If you would like to use these two arguments, you would have to change U.S. Federal laws (since child porn is a federal offense). --Hojimachongtalk 22:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
If it is about laws of Florida and U.S. Federal laws then please stop goraning that wikipedia is 'uncensored' and stop claiming it can include everything freely without censorship. The claim of 'no censorship' is joke when you have to confess that there 'are' actually some laws censoring the wikipedia.
P.S. ALM just mentioned few topics. There are many articles which are very very popular but do NOT have pictures due to the restrictions of Law. And restriction implies 'censorship'.

VirtualEye 07:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So, in order to be fair, not just Florida law, but also Islamic law must be taken into consideration.Proabivouac 07:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Reason: Mediation without solution

There are two kind of people that making this mediation impossible to end.

  1. They have 0 edits on Muhammad article
  2. They have hundred of edits on Muhammad article but all edits are related to picture warring.

Both of these kind of people even do not know who was Muhammad really. They say Jesus and Muhammad articles should be treated equally and it is not their fault when they have never read about Muhammad. They have not added a single reference in the article. Ask them which reference you have added. Remove these all people and then have votes and we will have solution. Check contribution using Page History Statistics Page History Statistics. --- ALM 19:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


By the same sort of logic, we should also remove all those people who have an agenda based on religious dogma, i.e. Muslims. TharkunColl 19:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes and anti-Muslims too. --- ALM 19:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Are there any anti-Muslims here? TharkunColl 19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes all those who think there are people with based on religious dogma. --- ALM 19:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
So the prohibition against pictures of Muhammad in Islam is not religious dogma? What on earth is it, then? TharkunColl 19:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This is nonsense and against the spirit of WP:AGF. I see no difficulty with the mediation. The consensus seems to be to have images though we are negotiating the captions. Learn to live with that instead of denigrating editors. All contributors are equal in Wikipedia though we all admit that some are more equal than others on some 'votes'. Ttiotsw 19:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
See the VOTING above. Where did you find consensus. People never have any contribution and never will has nothing to do with this mediation. --- ALM 19:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy and nobody owns articles. Nobody needs to have any amount of editing to become involved in the editing at any time, nor are there votes. Polls are sometimes productive, but that's a seperate issue. WilyD 21:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Promise me to tell truth. How much Ttiotsw and TharkunColl really know about Muhammad and how many references you have added (if any at all) ? --- ALM 19:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

My concern is to prevent the degradation of Wikipedia by religious censorship. I have a perfect right to express my opinion and vote. TharkunColl 19:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
How can you vote when you have no idea who is you voting for. When you do NOT know basic of Muslim history and Muhammad then how can you justify with the article/decision? Then you will say Jesus and Muhammad are same because of you lack of knowledge. What is our fault who seriously wish to contribute here in the article? --- ALM 19:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with ALM here. Usually mediation is over some point of contention between relatively established editors on a given article. My only reservation is over the "image" editors or not. I don't think that matters much if the "image" editors have been involved with the article for some time prior to the mediation. It can look at bit fortuitous for those supporting displaying the image if suddenly there's an influx of previously uninvolved editors supporting such a POV. (→Netscott) 23:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that all the editors here look familiar (well other than the recently created editors or IPs who say the pictures should be removed) ? Could it be that we have crossed paths on Islam pages before or is this just some random coincidence ? So what you are saying is that if we haven't added stuff to a specific page then we cannot have a say on that one page; that's page ownership by another means. I have deliberately avoided the core Islam pages (e.g. Muhammad ) for obvious reasons: Muhammad had a great idea to help destroy the older tribal gods and borrowed the Judeo-Christian myths he probably heard from Waraqah ibn Nawfal and others: it doesn't make any of what he said true or that the record we have is accurate. I usually edit on the edges e.g. where Muslim POV tries to remove Bahá'í Faith references or where Islamic pseudoscience interacts with science or where Muslim POV edits hits "apostate" BIOs e.g. Wafa Sultan or Ibn Warraq where Muslim POV vandals hit articles they don't like e.g. Faith Freedom International which is where I've come across ALM, VirtualEye, Sefringle, Arrow740 , Truthspreader, Itaqallah and others on both sides of the fence. So far hundreds of edits without a single 3RR. I think this a way of discounting editor contributions which is against the spirit of Wikipedia though I do welcome the implicit invitation to edit Muhammad. Ttiotsw 07:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not at all fortuitous: the appearance of religiously-motivated censorship has attracted people who otherwise might not show much interest in Islam-related articles. The fact that editors with a wide variety of religious beliefs and interests and no particular history of collusion have appeared to support inclusion of depictions, in contrast to the relative (with a few notable exceptions) homogeneity of those who seek to remove them, is one reason I'd encourage any course of action which fairly brings this to the attention of the wider community: it may well achieve a strong consensus for upholding WP:NOT by retaining the images. I am still curious to hear the opinion of our moderator on this idea.Proabivouac 07:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, violates WP:OWN. Trying to silence opinions because of frivolous reasons such as this breaks that policy (not a guideline, a policy). This also goes against the entire point of Wikipedia; that anybody can contribute, and other people will come and fix what they wrote, if it is malformed. Third, how can anybody prove expertise about a specific subject in the guise of Wikipedias general anonymity? --Hojimachongtalk 22:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me to get lost, ALS. In light of Nescott's comments above, and the message ALS left me on my talk page, I'm withdrawing from this discussion. Liberal Classic 03:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

ALM, this sort of behavior is not at all appropriate.Proabivouac 03:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. It qualifies as WP:POINT in my opinion. State your point, don't play games with us to try to minipulate the results of the mediation.--Sefringle 03:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
See also this.Proabivouac 03:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Other language's wikipedias

I looked through these this afternoon. I can't say much about the text, but several have pictures we might consider. Tom Harrison Talk 21:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Great idea. This article in particular is admirably uncensored: [6]. Perhaps these will also help us in our search for notable examples of calligraphy.Proabivouac 21:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow-- impressive article those German-speakers have there. It seems they hit upon the same solution that's been proposed here, of putting a caligraphy at the top, with a large image right below it. --Alecmconroy 07:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Seven depictions total, two of which are veiled, including all four we've discussed here.Proabivouac 07:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I dare say, that article's use of images is a good example of what we should be shooting for-- an article that uses images wherever they can help illustrate the subject. --Alecmconroy 13:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

(Note: above user never edits on Muhammad article at all. --- ALM 13:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Mediation usually have parties already in dispute not everyone wishes to piss Muslims comes and join in. --- ALM 14:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
A joke I thought better of While true, it's entirely irrelevent. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and as an editor acting in good faith you should welcome input from uninvolved editors - hell, you should be begging for it. In any event, even if this isn't clear, you have no grounds to tell other editors to leave because they have less involvement with the article. You don't own it, and they have as much of a right to edit it as you do, and as much of a right to be involved in a "content dispute" as you do. You don't gain any authority by editing the article, or even knowing more about the subject. WilyD 14:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In particular, I thought some of the pictures in the German and Spanish articles were very good. Tom Harrison Talk 14:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you Tom Harrison. I was actually a bit surprised to see the Danish article illustrated given all of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy hoopla. (→Netscott) 14:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
No, ALM, mediation is open to anyone who wants to be interested in the topic. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
In that case there are many people who are interested Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam. --- ALM 14:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but if they are interested they will come here. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Drawn by al-Biruni?

No, the picture some of you want to include was not drawn by al-Biruni. That's NUTS. The picture was found in a hand-lettered, hand-illustrated copy of one of al-Biruni's works. Unless we have solid info on the creation of that copy, all we can do is guess. 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. Zora 20:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I suppose you must be correct, given the date according to BNF (16th century.) Good call, Zora, and accept my apologies for not having noticed this discrepancy myself. Will you likewise agree that this is the only image proposed thusfar which shows him doing that for which he is most famous, and that it depicts (purports to depict) a real event in his life? What I've seen so far is that bad points are responded to, while good ones are met with a change of subject.Proabivouac 20:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Since the illustrated manuscripts show both veiled and unveiled figures (and there's no way of telling which are most common) I would prefer to use a veiled figure. Out of kindness. In this one particular context. I also support the right of cartoonists to mock Muhammad and Islam. In another context. Any religion is the better for a little mockery. (For a wry take on my religion, Zen Buddhism in the US, try the book Tofu Roshi.) Zora 20:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Why are we to value kindness to aniconistic Muslim editors over the informative mission of this encyclopedia? And why only on this page? That suggests to me that you would concede that they "own" Muhammad - in my opinion this remains the core principle of this mediation, that Muhammad must be "Islamic" in a way that Depictions of Muhammad, Jesus, Women, Pokemon, etc. are not.
I also would like to reiterate that objection to the provenance of Image:Maomé.jpg (unlike kindness to an arbitrarily-designated group of "owners"), like topicality (which it satisfies completely,) is in principle a completely legitimate objection to its inclusion; in this spirit let us remove Image:Muhammad callig.png, which appears to have been created by an editor to Wikipedia (unless you happen to know differently) forthwith.Proabivouac 20:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Patricia L. Baker talks about how in earlier Persian art (1300~) everyone was drawn the same and the 'holiest' wasn't apparent. However, over time you (1450~) in a gradient you got more of the fiery halos, veils and other means to explicitly mark the significance of the character. It seems to make sense with Maomé since the veneration is rather clear in the halo circling the head. If I had to judge I'd say the most important strains was probably in the ~1300s era under the Ilkhanate which stands to reason because after the Mongols settled in they became large patrons of the arts and they weren't nearly as firmly rooted in aniconistic tradition (you do, however, see their shift to accepting Islamic practice to a great extent because the Mongols, like the Arabs in 600s weren't exactly known for their vibrant culture; they were known for making war. This is why the art books talk about Chinese influence in some of the images).
Proab, you may also notice that Zora did not say 'over the informative mission'. She believes there are two equally acceptable ways of showing Muhammad and that within a range of acceptability you try to act kindly towards Muslims. That is not an argument for dumbing down the encyclopedia. I think we should all realize there is no one True way that will perfectly represent Muhammad and that we do have leeway. I don't think she is relinquishing control the the Moorish hordes which she hath so valiantly fought many a time before. ~_~ I tend to disagree that we can't know which is most prominent. I think the Ilkhanate patronage seems to be a major theme in the iconography from the sparse material in the books. Yet it still is not nearly as prevalent a tradition as calligraphy and... really remains rather marginal. gren グレン 22:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"I don't think she is relinquishing control the the Moorish hordes which she hath so valiantly fought many a time before." Somewhat off-topic, but it seems to me mainly Persian and Shi'a POV that Zora combats, not Islamic bias generally. Aniconism is rather consonant with this approach.
Gren, I appreciate the knowledge that you bring to this discussion. The policy-compliant compromise I'd proposed above was intended to acknowledge the validity of your approach in moderation. I find it acceptable so long as it remains practically, rather than only rhetorically, distinguishable from religiously-motivated censorship. Additionally we should recognize the inherent limitations of Arabic-language calligraphy, both in interpretability to English speakers and informational poverty relative to information-rich images, per Alecmconroy's excellent presentation above; all other things being equal, depictions are strongly preferred. Representativeness is only one of many valid criteria to consider, and the only reason calligraphy should be included at all. Again, the first step here is not to remove any depiction, or to arbitrarily limit their number, but to identify and add quality images of calligraphy.Proabivouac 23:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Given this new information that ALM was kind enough to provide us, a discussion as to a change in the citation is taking place on the main talk page. Since the page is protected right now a consensus will be waited upon for a little while before the change is made. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There is also no reason to give the name in French... gren グレン 22:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that is the name of the source. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Try this: Image:Maomé.jpg I'm not certain why we need two of them.Proabivouac 02:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Proabbivouac, that should be deleted and the one on the commons should be used. HighInBC, Le Prophète Mahomet is just "The Prophet Muhammad" and is the title the French museum gives it... no real relevance to anything in an English language article. It's just a label given by the French museum... I saw this image in some book, maybe it gives a title or what manuscript it was originally from. gren グレン 02:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It is from an illustrated manuscript of Al-Biruni's Vestiges of Centuries Past and has been labelled by the Bibliothèque nationale de France as "muhammad interdisant l'intercalation" (Muhammad prohibiting intercalation.) [7] Place the title under Légende and click "Chercher."Proabivouac 03:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The issue of the intercalation is an important point; in another article (Qur'an and Sunnah) I'm trying to work out [8] what calendar was used prior to Islam as the article states that "The Prophet Muhammad used to retreat annually to a cave at the top of a mountain near Mecca during the Month of Ramadan where he meditated in seclusion. In 610 AD he was visited in the cave during his sleep ....etc etc etc" but according to Ramadan article it was established in the year 638. An obvious discrepancy. Ttiotsw 06:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternating between the two versions while consensus is not achieved

Since we are still discussing this issue and no consensus has yet been achieved, it is reasonable to alternate between the version with image, and the one without image. The article was locked in the version with image for around 3 weeks. I suggest we remove the image for three weeks unless some consensus is achieved here. This idea also prevents edit-warring if everybody agrees with it. --Aminz 09:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sadly I don't think it works that way. The encyclopedia has decided on many other articles that we will include images of this type. Images of this type have been included included in many other language Wikipedias. One of the most fundadmental principle of Wikipedia is not censored, which prohibits us from deleting the images just because some people find them offensive. Another is NPOV, which requires us to treat Muhammad as another historical figure, rather than as one unique individual who cannot be pictured. Now, if there were a strong consensus to delete the images, then perhaps we might let that local consensus overrule these policies and take the unprecidented step of deleting all the images of the subject of a biography. On the other hand, perhap these are fundamental policies that require a consensus of Wikipedia as a whole in order to change-- not just a few editors on this article. But we're certainly not going to start going against policies and purging images from the encyclopedia without even a local consensus.
If we were just going to start changing the article without consensuses, I'd be inclined to add all the images from the German encyclopedia-- it seems like they have operated without religious objections, and so their entry is a good example of what the entry should look like if we were only concerned with writing an informative article. That said-- obviously, that would be a controversial change, so it's not one I'm going to make in the absence of a consensus. People who want to delete the images should likewise stop trying to do so without a consensus. --Alecmconroy 13:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you missed the point... there never was consensus for the images. It caused edit warring and this whole process. You are once again making the assumptions that no images is necessarily censorship which is just annoying at this point. You can disagree with me. You can say that tradition isn't an important matter. You can say that Islamic tradition warrants an image at the top. However, you cannot say that my view is censorship. But, back to the issue at hand. There was never consensus so neither images nor images is the consensus version. However, Aminz, we really have no precedent to engage in swapping of articles. I'm not sure it has ever been suggested nor do I think anyone will adopt it. Freezing the page by a neutral admin under whichever version they happened upon to stop edit warring is just how it goes... although, they normally don't expect a page to be protected for so long. gren グレン 13:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, we have a couple different POVs involved, so who I'm arguing against in any given post is a nebulous thing. It's clear that many (most?) of the people arguing for the deletion of all images are doing so strictly out of a personal religious objection to the images. Then there's a whole faction of people arguing for using images because "that's what we always do in a biography, and to do otherwise is censorship". Meanwhile, people like your and futurebird find yourselfs in the odd nether-region of partially agree with the iconoclasts, but presumably not out for the same reasons. So, when I pound the anti-censorship message, it's not really directed at you and future personally-- it's just clear that the major impetus for the "delete all pictures" proposals comes from some people's personal objections to them. I think it's clear that some of the editors here, if it were up to them, would delete all Muhammad images from Wikipedia and indeed from the internet. That they happens to find themselves in alliance with more reasonable individuals is just a complication i usually gloss over. :)
As far as swapping image positions around-- I still would recommend to people that they not edit the images in any controversial way, but I don't really consider that I could say there is a "right version", or that either side in an edit war over position would inherently be "more right". As far as deleting any images from the outright, however, I'm inclined to take a more severe stance-- by default, we use images in our biography articles-- I've never once heard of an exception. If you want there to be an exception, you should make a policy on it or at LEAST get a firm consensus on the talk page before you try to implement such a controversial change. If somebody doesnt' want to do that but tries to edit-war such a policy onto the page without a consensus-- I wouldn't just consider that "two equal sides in a content dispute where no one is right"-- I would start breaking out the links (WP:POINT, WP:SOAP, WP:CENSOR), and would call for reverts, warns, and blocks against someone blankings well-sourced useful parts of an article without consensus. --Alecmconroy 13:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


A side note Gren, one of the reasons I usually don't address your arguments is that I don't really understand them or know what to say about them exactly. Why would we want our articles to be "representative of the artistic styles"? Why not just draw from all the images we have available and use whichever images make the best article. It's a little like insisting that our article on the "Hudson River" have images which are representative of the "Hudson River school art movement". It's true there was an artistic tradiation in the Hudson river valley, but... what if those images don't do the best job of illustrating the Hudson River? There might be a certain logic to that if we were writing an article on artistic traditions-- but we're writing a historical biography.
Or I could use another analogy-- suppose we're talking about geometry and we're trying to teach our readers something about high school geometry using a diagram that's almost every geometry teacher in history has used. The "representative" image would be the kind typically drawn by a teacher on a board: The lines wouldn't be perfectly straight. The circles wouldn't be perfectly round. An angle marked "30 degrees" might actually be 40 degrees. A "represenative" image might be most prevalent, but it wouldn't necessarily by best. In contrast, the "most useful" image could be better than a represenative one-- it could be multicolored and 3D, with perfect lines and perfect circles and all the angles exactly the size they're supposed to be. The "most useful" image which will make the best article should never be an "average example" of an image-- it's the BEST example we can find of an image.
(Obviously, the analogies aren't perfect-- you wouldn't believe how long it took me to come up with those two!) --Alecmconroy 14:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
First off, whether you understand or agree with my view I think you (and others) should stop reducing it to censorship. It's unhelpful to the progress of conversation and is rather much like ignoring someone. I disagree with much of what you say, but I acknowledge it; I don't pretend like you haven't said it.
Proabivouac's argument has been kind of like your geometry example. There is the essential Muhammad whose physique was explained in the hadith and the goal of an image is to match hadith because that is the reality images should be approaching. My argument is that over the centuries Muhammad has been conceptualized in so many different ways (other than plain text that must be represented in an image--unlike plain Arabic or English). All of these ways that he has been represented tell us important things about how he has been viewed. What makes Muhammad so important (like all religious figures) is his legacy and not only how he changed the world, but how followers have viewed his life. When an Islamic scholar studies Muhammad they don't think "this is the essentially true Muhammad", they realize his life is filtered by tradition, mythology, and folklore. Some try to filter through that like Croke, Wansbrough, etc. but most accept the cultural package and try to see how people have viewed Muhammad. It is an incredibly important part of the subject of Muhammad. If we try to use an image to represent the essential Muhammad claiming that what matters is "it is true that he wore a blue hat" and ignoring the stylistic elements of the images brought by tradition and instead trying to portray it as a historical representation rather than a religious one then we are completely misrepresenting the image. The images are from a religious tradition and are thus making a religious point. Maomé doesn't have halos to represent reality. It is hagiography which can be important to understanding Muhammad. However, we cannot cherry pick images and present haloed views of Muhammad as the norm--they aren't. Calligraphy is the norm in tradition because it says a lot about how Muslims would often have the rhetoric (at least in imagery) of minimizing the Prophet as compared to God. However, you do get some more marginal and non-orthodox traditions like these images, and like Qadam Rasul which hold the prophet to a higher. I think this is a very important distinction that must be made in any scholarly article. Academics don't show images just for the sake of showing them. We all know none of these images are really what Muhammad looked like. Some of the Muslims thinks that makes them "fakes". They aren't fake because they are important to understanding how Muhammad was thought about. The only problem is you want to show the most important way in which he was viewed through imagery. That leads to the problem of users feeling that calligraphy is "just writing" but as scholars of Islamic art note it's really a lot more than that. I think in the scurry to get images into the article and fear of censorship any sense of academic integrity has been ignored. That is why this whole debate has always gone back to very basic issues rather than anyone exploring the subject of Islamic art and its methods of representing Muhammad. Wikipedia does privilege the masses especially on contentious issues, which makes it difficult to expect a base level of knowledge about a subject. That's just part of the model. gren グレン 15:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


Well, I am sorry if I argument more agains the blantant censorship argument, but honestly, that's why there's not a consensus on the issue. If the people who oppose any depiction of Muhammad being in Wikipedia ever suddenly changed their minds, what we'd have is 30 people in favor of images, and 1-2 people making a more subtle argument about represenatiationalize of art. It'd be a consensus-- maybe a wrong one, but a consensus. The reason we're still having this debate is because people trying to sanitize the encyclopedia so that it is purged of blasphemous depictions of Muhammad-- even if that isn't the point your tryign to make.
I have to say, I sincerely am trying to "get" what you're saying. Even if I don't agree with you, I want to "get" it. I feel like I have a basic understanding of why the other people have objected to the images, but you elude me. But maybe if I talk back to you about it enough, and you talk back to me about my talking back, and so on, the maybe I'll get it.
Your approach is sort of odd, which is just to say, very different than what I usually hear. It's almost as if you have given up even thinking about Muhammad as a living, breathing, historical individual, but instead our treating him more like a character in a work of fiction, who doesn't have an independent existence apart from the people who read the book. To me, Muhammad's life is a historical event-- like the Boston Tea Party or the Battle of Kadesh. What people in the intervening centuries think about him is almost tangetial, except insofar as it colors the modern understanding of Muhammad.
So, let me present you with a separate thought experiment: Suppose in 1997, every muslim in the world magically decided it was okay to make images of Muhammad. Now, throughout history, most images of muhammad were still caligraphy, but there is no longer anyone offended by the images of Muhammad, but they are still not represenative samples. Would you still have your objection?
Similarly, suppose we dug up an image of muhammad from a western culture that was just as useful as any of the other images we have. Obviously, images like that wouldn't be misrepresenting islamic art history, because they're not even examples of Islamic art. Would you have no objection to those?


I just have to keep coming back to the utility of images. Caligraphy has its place-- I don't think anyone has been trying to get the caligraphy image deleted-- I certainly am not. I mock it a little bit, because it doesn't really have anything to do with Muhammad, but it does have something to do with Muhammad's depictions, which is something that is covered in the article, so it has a place. There isn't anything in theory that would prevent us from adding more caligraphy, if we thought it would improve the article-- but I don't really know what more caligraphy would buy us-- it seems like one example is sufficient to convey what that sort of artwork is like-- but if a good argument can be made for how it would profit us to have more, I'm pretty receptive to the idea-- the caligraphy images are small enough, after all, to fit into the layout unobtrusively. Nor do I really oppose the idea of having a caligraphy at the top, so long as "caligraphy at the top" isn't being used as code for "and no Muhammad images anywhere near the top where people might see them". The caligraphy+painting solution that's been suggest here (and has been in use at German wikipedia) for example, seems fine. So, I do "get" why we want to include the caligraphy.
What I don't get is why would want to intentionally delete images from the article just because they're exceptional. I mean, whatever they are, they have to be more informative than blank space, right? We're not printing a book here-- we don't have a fixed space limit, we don't have to pay extra for color copies-- we can use as many pictures as would be helpful to the article. And sure, eventually a point would come where the need for brevity and layout clarity would give us an upperbound on how many images we can use-- but as the German article shows, we're no where near that limit. So looking at things from a purely utilitarian point of view, wouldn't it be good to use more pictures? It seems like each image contributes something unique. And if we're really scared that our readers will somehow get he wrong idea about Islamic art, why couldn't we just put something in the captions of each and every image that explicitly corrects any misunderstanding. If we really wanted to be absolutely positive that nobody got the wrong idea, we add a clause saying "Although Islamic traditions typically forbid depictions of Muhammad, this image by ...." . Heck, we could add it to every single image we include. I mean, even though it'd be annoying to have repetative captions warning people not to get the wrong idea about Islamic art, it would still be much more informative than not having the images at all! --Alecmconroy 17:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
While I agree with you on most points, I think including a caption on every image is a little bit redundent. If it is just on the first one or two, I think most people would get the message.--Sefringle 23:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Does the article John F. Kennedy autopsy feature photographs of same?

No. (Not when I checked it, at least.) Why not? Are we going to have mediation to ensure that they are included? Whose feelings are we protecting here, please? Why are we censoring the encyclopedia? The photos would be relevant. He's a historical figure. BYT 22:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think those photo's would be under a compatible license with Wikipedia. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Are they disallowed for religious reasons? Tom Harrison Talk 00:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. They were taken by Navy physicians, and are manifestly in the public domain. I'm a little unclear that anyone is seriously proposing a religious rationale here, either. Again: Are we going to have mediation over this? Does omitting them constitute censorship, or not? BYT 22:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Then go add them. What on earth can this have to do with what we're discussing?Proabivouac 23:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be pretending that making judicious, situational allowances for the sensibilities of a given group of readers constitutes censorship by definition, when in fact WP does it all the time without raising censorship concerns -- or inspiring inquisitions like this one. BYT 23:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone ever raised a debate over whether or not the pictures should be included? If not, then by all means, go start one. But just because the rule may be broken elsewhere doesn't mean that it does not exist. --Hojimachongtalk 23:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Looks to me like admins decided not to push it, and "suppressed" the images. Does that get anyone's hackles up? Or does it seem like a good way to avoid continual, pointless conflict on a controversial article? BYT 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)\

So go post your concerns at Talk:John F. Kennedy autopsy. This doesn't have anything to do with this discussion, at all. It's really chewbacca-ish. --Hojimachongtalk 23:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


Yes. Two totally different situations. Because here the sensibilities being harpooned here belong to, you know, Muslims. I'm thinking maybe we would find a way to avoid posting this picture at Virgin Mary. BYT 23:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Because more suitable alternatives exist? Most people associate the Virgin Mary without bloody breasts and a penis. As for Muhammad, nobody knows what he looked like. Therefore, we are trying to find something that is notable and verifiable to represent Muhammad. --Hojimachongtalk 23:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Mm. Quite a left turn you're executing with that word "suitable." Hold on tight. BYT 23:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

And we can't be sure of the copyright status of that image ;-). --Hojimachongtalk 23:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Completely irrevelant. If the images don't violate a copyright, add them there.--Sefringle 23:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hojimachong: Because more suitable alternatives exist? Most people associate the Virgin Mary without bloody breasts and a penis. As for Muhammad, nobody knows what he looked like. Therefore, we are trying to find something that is notable and verifiable to represent Muhammad.

How rediculous, you are stucked in your own net, or should I say you are dropped in the hole which you dug up for Muslims. Can you apply the same reasoning of 'suitability' and 'most of people' to the pictures in article of Muhammad (SAW)? Where are those 'Most' of people associating these cheap pictures to Muhammad? When comes the turn of Christianity then you use the 100% same reasoning which I was using to remove the Picture of Muhammad, But when comes Islam then you immediately frog-jump to the other side. VirtualEye 07:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot understand the point you are making. If you can find public domain pictures for the John F. Kennedy autopsy article, suggest them on the talk page. This whole thread is a little off topic on this talk page though. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
See the image at say, Piss Christ if your curious about where to find images that Christians might find offensive on Wikipedia. WilyD 14:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
VirtualEye, I was merely stating that the Virgin Mary has been extensively documented in artwork, and a solid image exists which people associate her with. The same is true with Muhammad. And WP:V is the issue here as well. --Hojimachongtalk 21:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This mediation is going nowhere

It seems clear to me that the question of whether an image be put at the top or not is settled. No valid reasons have been offered to censor the article. Here's how I'd have things: Keep the article semiprotected to guard against drive-by vandalism. Put a paragraph in a box at the top reading something like this: "Do not remove images from this page or clutter it up with 'pbuh' or 'saw'. This is an encylopedia, not a religious treatise. Violation is grounds for immediate suspension. Repeated violation is grounds for permanent suspension.". Perhaps it's time to explore creating protection templates that require a certain number of edits or an account of a certain age in order to edit. Frotz661 06:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

How about we don't do that and instead we actually compromise? - Merzbow 07:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Some of us have already compromised and it has not done any good; it has just become the basis from which further compromise is demanded. As long as there are any pictures of Muhammad on the page, some people will remove them, if only out of a sense of religious obligation. I do not expect any agreements to the contrary to be stable, and I do not think there is any use in further mediation. I think we should acknowledge that mediation has failed and move on from there, maybe opening it up to the wider community, or proposing a policy change. Tom Harrison Talk 14:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We do had reached a compromise/concensus when only people editing on Muhammad was involved but an admin decline to accept it. Furtheremore, may I ask what compromise you have accepted so far???? Secondly, according to CNN-polls/Fox-Poll which I hear on News few years ago most people have problem with Muslim/Islam (I will provide reference on request). Open to wider audiance and they without knowing Muhammad history or Islam will favor your side of views. Oh Muslims are asking to follow calligraphy picture instead of human picture. Time to piss them. --- ALM 14:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's highly plausible that the people deleting the image of Muhammad or inserting "pbuh" are doing so with the intention of improving the article as an encyclopedic article. Therefore, calling these edits "vandalism" is inaccurate. See WP:VAND and WP:AGF. --Coppertwig 12:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
No permanent solution is possible unless an admin with commonsense and courage makes a permanent policy to never censor anything from this article for any reason.--Matt57 12:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
admins are editors entrusted with a few maintenance tools, little else. ITAQALLAH 14:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What is commonsense and who will define it? If that commonsense has to be what is User:A defination of commonsense. Otherwise it will be non-sense?? --- ALM 12:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There already is an official policy not to censor images based on religion: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. It's not permanent policy though; if it is ever changed from images are not censored based on religion to images are censored whenever any religion so requires, then the situation will change. Weregerbil 14:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
How is censoring that? Where the policy says that not having picture on the top of page is censorship when the tradition for that personality to represent is not in picture. First prove that if someone say that he is mostly represented in calligraphy and not in picture hence we following that tradition is censorship. ---- ALM 14:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Those having picture is doing censorship of reality and pushing a POV (picture) to make a WP:POINT. Hence please do not censor. --- ALM 14:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree this mediation has failed. I also have yet to see a reason not to include the images. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes indeed this mediation has failed. When the difference between a Middle eastern view and Western view about images of Muhammad are so pronounced and there are a roughly equal number of editors supporing each view, I see little hope for a compromise. (→Netscott) 15:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility

After reading the posts above, I noticed that the Virgin Mary article has a well known image by Christians in the lead (this one), while the oldest known painting (this one, from the late second century) is below. Both by Christians, the older one should be more accurate because it was only painted about 150 years after the Assumption. However, the more commonly known one (from the 16th century) is used. Is there a way to find an image of Muhammad that is/was recently well-known? If so, I suggest adding it in the section just below the lead (to prevent vandalism and such; it was mentioned above that Muslims only became angry/removed the picture in the lead). · AO Talk 13:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Or, we could add it to the lead, but add a hidden message to please not remove it. I saw that in a frequently vandalized article, but I can't remember which. · AO Talk 14:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why you think it is a compromise or a solution. Or I have not understand what you are saying? --- ALM 14:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There is NO "well-known" image of Muslim that we can have in lead. Instead non-Muslim are pushing a non-well known image from our throat. Can you dare to ask Muslim of that what is there well-know image of Muhammad? --- ALM 14:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"Can you dare...?"Proabivouac 14:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
To ALM: Do you mean, "How can I dare..."?
To Pro: I'm sorry, what do you mean by that? · AO Talk 15:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I reject the increasingly belligerent and confrontational tone ALM has taken in recent days. It's not appropriate to "dare" one another to do anything vis-a-vis "Muslim[s]." This is a non-sectarian encyclopedia and not a battleground pitting non-Muslims against Muslims.Proabivouac 15:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you dare to ask ... means that you already know the answer and will not find a new answer from Muslims. It was not personal attach however, Proabivouac is welcome to use it in whatever way. --- ALM 15:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Review

I am going to attempt to review the arguments against the images, and my response to those arguments.

  1. It offends my religious beliefs, such images are forbidden.
    Wikipedia is not censored for the religious tastes of others. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored
  2. None of the images depict Muhammad accurately.
    The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. The image Image:Maome.jpg has been verified as a depiction of Muhammad by a reliable source. Wikipedia:Attribution
  3. Showing the image is a violation of WP:NPOV.
    NPOV does not mean leaving out information that is contrary to one set of beliefs, but instead should show all sides of the debate. The belief that these images should be prohibited is covered in the section Muhammad#Depictions_of_Muhammad and the article Depictions of Muhammad. NPOV ensures that we do represent the history of artistic representations.
  4. The image is not notable enough.
    The image Image:Maome.jpg is notable as it is featured at a museum.
  5. Showing a depiction of Muhammad gives undue weight to the practice of showing images
    Unless a claim is made then a claim cannot have undue weight. Unless a reliable source has interpreted those images as having that meaning, then attributing that meaning to the images is original research. The belief that the images are prohibited is mentioned in the article and leads to an article about the history of depictions itself, so this belief seems to be given plenty of credence.

Did I miss any arguments? I will gladly address them. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight

Lets answer your last point: Go to depiction of Muhammad page and also to zumbi-net (or whatever it is) and tell that do you agree or not that all images drawn by Muslim are from 1300 to 1600? Answer in Yes or Not? (Exclude image made by western because that you can find even today, in 17th centruy etc). Hence do the maths 300/1400=' ? Even if you do not wish to divide between western scholars and Muslim scholar then see it in general by Tom statement who is the biggest pusher of pictures since start. Hi ALM; From our discussion on my talk page, I visited the (western) library. Of eight biographies of Muhammad, three included pictures: Mohammad, by Tor Andre; Mohammad, by Maxime Rodinson; and Muhammad, by John Glubb. Tom Harrison Talk 13:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC). Is that minority or not? Need more prove we can find if you promise that in case I spend my time then you will change your stance provide enough proof. ---- ALM 15:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

ALM, I'm really not going to discuss this with you further, because there is no point, but it is inaccurate to say that I have been the biggest pusher of pictures since the start. At first I opposed including pictures, but later came to think that instituting religious censorship was worse than offending some of our editors. Tom Harrison Talk 15:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Tom harrison has been one of the more low key people about "picture pushing" imho. I wouldn't even use that language to describe Tom's involvement. (→Netscott) 15:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure which policy based argument you are making. Are you addressing an already existing argument, or are you presenting a new one? What is that argument? Maybe I misunderstand, but are you saying because other authors don't do this often we should not? Perhaps those authors did not work under a "not censored" policy. What is more, nowhere in the images or the captions is the idea that depictions are not commonplace challenged. Undue weight is about ideas that have been put forward, not ideas that people assume. If you can find a reliable source that interprets that image as making a claim that images are mainstream then I will accept that argument, till then the idea that the images put forth any idea is OR. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As a newcomer to the debate, I'll try and do the converse summary of the pro arguments in a minute. Just a note here: I think your discussion of number 2 above is a bit of a red herring. The question isn't, and cannot be, whether these images are "verified" to "be" him, or have a verified claim to being "accurate". That artist lived a millennium after Muhammad. No image of that kind could possibly ever have a claim to being accurate, that's a matter of common sense. Even if the artist had added a declaration next to the image: "this is Muhammad, and this is exactly what he looked like", it wouldn't make any difference, just as the absence of such a declaration doesn't make any difference. The question of authenticity with historic but non-contemporary images of this type is solely whether they reflect a cultural tradition that is central enough to the reception of Muhammad. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
But nobody is claiming it is accurate, just that it is a depiction. That is verified by a reliable source. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My reply was for your point Showing a depiction of Muhammad gives undue weight to practice of showing images HighInBC please be a little neutral because only then you can understand me. (sorry if you think it is a personal attack but I wish to speak what I feel) --- ALM 15:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • This reply doesn't make much sense the way I read it. Can you elaborate? WilyD 15:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how your examples have anything to do with undue weight. The point you are trying to make, is not being contradicted by any claim made by the images. Also, undue weight does not mean we match our editorial styles to other biography writers. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


If there are 10 images and 200 caligaphy pictures in real world. And your article gives ONE calligaphy picutre at the bottom and 3 images on the TOP then will it be giving undue weight or not. What is wrong with understanding here ? --- ALM 15:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Freaky? Do you have a citation for that, or is it just opinion? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is when I get frustrated. ;( ... Sorry. --- ALM 15:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone say that he is represented THREE times as compare to CALIGRAPHY in pictures then please justify this very wrong claim to me. In TOM USA library he find 3 picture in 8 books and I am sure even those 3 will have some caligraphy. And in my Pakistani library I find NO picture in all the book (dozen). Go check your library. STOP CENSORING THE REALITY. On the name of piss Muslims. --- ALM 15:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

But tell me, where is this claim being made? I don't see any claim in the article that imagery is more common that calligraphy. If it is there it should be removed, but I don't see that claim. If you look at pictures and assume this claim, then you are assuming too much. If you can find a reliable source that interprets these images as making this claim fine, but I don't see it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No need to make a claim. An article should represent the reality and should NOT exist in third dimention. The picture give the reader wrong information about reality. --- ALM 15:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion. I am a little confused as to how an idea can have undue weight if that idea is not being claimed at any point. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
If you can provide a citation to verify such, we could add "While normally shown in calligraphy, Muhammad was also depicted visually." to the caption HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


If someone have written an article about American people and give 10 black people picture and one white person people then you will understand. That the article is wrong. However, if can you change your stance if I will find a citation for you then I will try to find one. But I have lots of work to do and I really hope that time I will waste to find citation will really change something? Will you change your stance or not if I give you citation??? --- ALM 15:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, if you can find a reliable source to support the facts we can add "While normally shown in calligraphy, Muhammad was also depicted visually." to the caption. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I decline to waste my time for some caption. If based on citation you have right image ON TOP of the article (i.e. calligrpahy) then I will find few citation for you. Otherwise I do not care if you write whatever in caption. --- ALM 15:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Since your concern is undue weight I would think that you would care. Such an addition to the caption would clear up the whole undue weight issue. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Image say 1000 words and caption just few words. All people do not care to read caption. Hence I do not care about it. If I give you citation that he is mostly represented in calligrpahy and you change the image then my time is not waste. --- ALM 15:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That is an old saying, not a valid factual argument. For each person, the 1000 words are different. If people don't read the caption, well, I can't help them know what the image is about. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I can give you example if you are not able to realise it then there is no use to continue talking. Example: An article about American people has 20 black people picture (one on the top) and 1 white people picture. However, the caption of the top black person says "USA has 85% white people". If that what you wish to have and support then I doubt your fairness. bye --- ALM 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it would be more like the fictional country of "Bindimo", where black people are not photographed due to a superstition they hold. Then showing an image of one black person and saying in the caption "Black people are generally not photographed due to local taboos". A bit a ridiculous premise, but that is what you gave me to work with. Basically, not following a taboo is not tantamount to giving undue weight against that taboo. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Forget about Taboo etc. We are not talking about it. Hence if on the background you are thinking that then my arguments are waste. If there would be Taboo only then I would have remove pictures from Depiction of Muhammad, cartoon page and many other pages. So read following example again because that what exactly you are wishing to have. Only because you are afraid from Taboo. --- ALM 16:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Example: An article about American people has 20 black people picture (one on the top) and 1 white people picture. However, the caption of the top black person says "USA has 85% white people". --- ALM 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason I adjusted your comparison, is because I could not apply it to the current situation as it was. I still cannot, it is not an apt comparison. I don't see 20 visual depictions beside one calligraphy. I think my comparison was more apt because the cause of the disparity in the types of depictions is due to the taboo. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We claim that he is 90-99% represented only in caligraphy and will provide citation only if that citation will make any difference. Having said that you have 3 pictures and one caligraphy. Picture on the top too. --- ALM 16:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Hence you are supporting this Example: An article about American people has 20 black people picture (one on the top) and 1 white people picture. However, the caption of the top black person says "USA has 85% white people" --- ALM 16:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My "review" was for reasons against the picture. Are you know arguing that it is okay to have this picture, but that the position and prominence is the problem? I think I may have been confused for a while, as I thought you were still arguing that the image should not be present at all. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
ALM is saying here that say for example an image of a caucasian person was at the lead of the article on Senegal it would lead one to tend to think that the country of Senegal is primarily populated by caucasian folks (which is definitely not the case). Having a lead image of Muhammad on the article about him will easily lead a reader to view that such imagery is common and typical... which we know it is not. (→Netscott) 16:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think I may have been confused, not sure, waiting on his response to my last question. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
HighInBC look at my signature on all the above compromises. We are willing to compromise. Even to the extend that ONE faced image appear at the bottom on the page. However, it is the lack of compromise from other side that the mediation is in deadlock. --- ALM 16:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

(→Netscott) has said it wonderfully. I cannot said it bettr. Thanks (→Netscott) -- ALM 16:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

section break

Ok, how about this as a compromise. The calligraphy can be at the top, and the visual depiction can be directly below it. The captions can explain their relationship as best we can verify through reliable sources. Remember, this is not just the article about Muhammad the Muslim prophet, but Muhammad the historical figure. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
If the ratio of caligraphy and pictures were 50/60 then your above compromise was good enough. However, that is not true. Hence I support 3-4 caligraphies which we can find from sites like [9] and then a picture near the bottom. Even faced picture in which Muhammad is putting stone on Kaaba can be acceptable and vailed pictures ofcourse. --- ALM 16:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I just looked through that site, and there's not a single example of the word "Muhammad" on its own. The closest has "Allah" and "Muhammad" surrounded by the names of the first four Caliphs; the rest are all Qur'anic verses. Could it be that this storied tradition of "depicting Muhammad" via calligraphy isn't actually that notable outside of the rhetoric of this mediation? It hasn't been shown otherwise.Proabivouac 16:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
There are many other websites too. --- ALM 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It is very much against Hadith as compare to Kaaba image. Kaaba image is the OLDEST as far as I can think of. Kaaba image depict right event that actually happened and I can tell the date of that event etc. However, Image:Maome.jpg does not give us any useful information and is much much away from Hadith depiction of Muhammad. It is also less old. ALM 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Without original research we cannot tell the event depicted in Image:Maome.jpg however, in Kaaba image we can. --- ALM 16:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Who is claiming to know what is happening? How does the Kaaba image differ, is there a reliable source that explains it? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have been accepting that as a given, but I would like to see a citation or two for these claims. Remember this is an article about a historical figure and how he related to all cultures. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad before becoming prophet has resolved conflict about Kaaba black stone. [8] No such citation about Image:Maome.jpg exist. --- ALM 16:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We can be much more certain that Muhammad forbade intercalation in 631 than this dubious folk tale about him adding the black stone to the Kaaba in his youth (to say nothing about Isra and Mi'raj).Proabivouac 16:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
That article does not seem to mention that image, just events that could be interpreted as being what that image represents. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::But what about the citation showing that calligraphy is X times more important than visual depictions? You did a lot of math, but none of that has been verified yet. I think a calligraphic image with a visual depiction directly below it is fine. You say it is undue weight, then the burden of proof is on you. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I glanced through the discussion but I'll refer to #3 and #5 since... they are both part of NPOV. If a claim is not made it cannot have undue weight. I lose you after that. ALM tried to deal in ratios which are rather hard to source... I will try to do this in binary. You have calligraphy and (physiognomic) images. Calligraphy is very important mode of representation in art relating to Muhammad because that is how the tradition has developed. Images are relatively unimportant. To place images above calligraphy is giving them undue weight because it makes them seem more important as a means of representation that calligraphy which it isn't. The commonest way to disagree with this has been that "images are just different than calligraphy" since calligraphy is "just writing" or "squigglies that we can't understand". To agree that they are fundamentally different or that calligraphy is a form of art that cannot reasonably applied to a person you would need to justify that. I believe Oleg Grabar explains very well the importance of calligraphy as being more than just writing but as an important way to depict in the absense of an iconigraphic tradition. Mostly, we all acknowledge that the images are not Muhammad and we still believe they are not "fake" or "deceptions". They are ways to represent someone coming out of a tradition. Their importance is not in light of their claim to represent Muhammad (otherwise any image by anyone would be suitable) but their place within history. In this way we need to judge calligraphy on the same level as images as a means of depiction no 'more real' or 'less real' than images but more important as an historical fact. To not do that is what I believe violates NPOV. I don't think ratios work well because in an overview article you don't want to show 95% calligraphy to 5% image or whatever the case might be--you attempt to show important works from various traditions. This is why at least one piece of calligraphy should go above any image. To do otherwise is to delegitimize calligraphy as a means of representation just because the Western experience doesn't exactly understand it. gren グレン 16:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and this is in line with the compromise I offer. A calligraphic image with a visual depiction directly below and captions on both explaining their relative significance. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I've lost patience with this line of argument. It sounds totally reasonable a priori, which is why I included it as one of the points in my proposal (to which Gren has not responded) but after months of hearing about all these notable calligraphic reprentations of the name Muhammad, but only seeing one from early 20th century (just added from German wikipedia) compared to dozens of sourced/notable depictions viewed thusfar (on the depictions article, and in German and Spanish Muhammad articles), it's no longer credible. No more talk of calligraphy in the abstract, please. Produce specific images which you think should be included, or there's nothing more to discuss (and even so it's no argument for blanking depictions, unless we're running out of space.)Proabivouac 16:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Review (2)

Okay, I'll try to do the converse, summing up the arguments I can see here for inclusion of images.

  1. Every article about a person should include an image of the person, and there's no need to make an exception here.
    But we don't (or shouldn't) include images of people simply for the sake of it, or simply because other articles do it. We should do it because it provides interesting encyclopedic information. Either it shows what the person actually looked like (not in this case), or it shows something about the cultural reception of the person within their cultural tradition. Or it's mere decoration, but that's not a strong argument for inclusion.
  2. Wikipedia is not censored and shouldn't give in to religious pressure.
    True, Wikipedia can and should include images that some people find offensive. But it should be doing that only for a strong reason, i.e. if there's something that needs to be illustrated that couldn't be illustrated in a different way. Let's first establish the images really serve to convey something central enough so as to make them indispensable. Mere decoration (just because other articles do it) is okay in articles there is no contention and no cultural sensitivity, but not here.
  3. There's no issue of NPOV in deciding whether to include an image. If it's verifiably an image intended to be one of Mohammed, then it can be included.
    True, but there is an NPOV-related issue in editorial prioritising what to include where. We are dealing mostly with what to include at the top of the article, in the infobox. That position should be reserved to something that is undoubtedly and undisputably representative and central to the topic. I agree that the issue of depictions is important enough that these images should be included somewhere – simply to serve as illustrations of the exception to the rule of non-depiction. But that's what we have the dedicated Depictions of Mohammed article for, after all.
  4. The images illustrate other aspects of real historical information about Mohammed beside 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"). The main thing to be "illustrated" about Mohammed is and will always be the very fact that there is a cultural tradition that doesn't want him "illustrated". Therefore, a "non-image" (such as a calligraphy, or a veiled depiction) is actually more of an illustration, more informative and more encyclopedic, of what the article is about, and should therefore take pride of place at the top.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

    • Is there a strong contingent of editors who insist the image(s) should be at the top, over caligraphy? With all the arguments it's a little hard to keep track, but I'm not sure Opening Icon: Caligraphy vs Illustration is central to the overall issue. WilyD 15:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is one: The goal of Wikipedia is to build a free, open, encyclopedia, and not including that image confounds that mission by leaving out a portion of history. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Issue remains: Is it a central enough part of the history to be told, to warrant placement in a position where it will be perceived as representing a central, summary, symbolic place of the story? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
So would you be comfortable with an article that had a piece of caligraphy in the opening, and several historical illustrations further on? WilyD 16:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

When I look up Apricot, and I see an apricot, that does not tell me that there is a big long history of photographing apricots. Nowhere in the image or the caption is the claim put forth that this is a major part of history. Is it significant enough to mention? Yes, that image is known world wide. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not object to another image being shown as the lead image if that image is more topical, and I even concede that calligraphy may be more topical as a depiction. But the visual depiction is an important work that needs a prominent position, in other words if it is moved it should not be buried at the bottom. I would suggest directly below the calligraphy to give both sides credence. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with this. I think the motivating arguments for which is the Infobox illustration are all fairly week, so I don't much care if it's a painting or calligraphy or wa-wa. Whichever isn't in the infobox needs to be included somewhere, of course. WilyD 16:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd personally be okay with that. We should have the calligraphy in the infobox, then one of the veiled images, then the preaching miniature. With a series of captions making that sequence clear. Something like: "Islamic tradition has mostly avoided direct depictions of Mohammed. Islamic art prefers abstract representation through the calligraphic presentation of his name (above). When Mohammed is depicted in art, his face is often left blank or shown veiled. Below is one of the exceptions, in a miniature from the 15th century" Or something to that effect. By the way, the "apricot" analogy is a red herring. The apricot image is not there in order to represent the cultural tradition of photgraphing apricots. But to show what an apricot looks like. Which is exactly the thing that the Mohammed pictures do not do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Example: An article about American people has 20 black people picture (one on the top) and 1 white people picture. However, the caption of the top black person says "USA has 85% white people". --- ALM 16:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Source

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 in the image caption, if it is to be kept); and two, which meuseum featured this image? Was it an Islamic one? · AO Talk 15:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The reference for that image is: Le Prophète Mahomet Al-Bîrûnî, al-âthâr al-bâqiya (Vestiges des siècles passé). 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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
That citation has been with the image for weeks. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. · AO Talk 16:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the link should be added to the caption. Would that be fine, or is it against policy? · AO Talk 16:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

but doth suffer a sea change into something foul and strange

  • Has anyone stopped to address why this is a drop-everything issue NOW, when the article sailed along quite nicely for at least three or four years with a general (not unanimous, but general) consensus not to include images of the Prophet?
  • Is it possible the number of editors out for blood has simply increased?
  • For years, there was an understanding that including these images in this article needlessly crossed the line into "fighting talk" in a way that caused more trouble than the benefit of the images could conceivably have carried. Now: How do we define civility? Remember? "Personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." That's from WP:CIVIL. Not that such niceties matter in the current climate.
  • Believe it: Vast numbers of Muslims who view this page will, if the pro-blood folks have their way, feel themselves "personally targeted" ... and I think it's essential for us to acknowledge frankly here that that's not exactly a coincidence.
  • Why is this so important now? Because including the images steps on the toes of Muslims, that's why, and there are now more editors who want to do that. Exposing Muslims to an "atmosphere of greater conflict and stress," quite clearly, now constitutes a moral and institutional imperative for some editors.
  • The culture here has changed, and p***ing off Muslims in highly visible ways -- (witness Islamofascism,the permanent enshrining on our servers of the Danish cartoons image, the present controversy) -- p***ing off Muslims in highly visible ways, I say, is clearly a major strategic objective among some here, in way that wasn't the case in, say, 2004.
  • Lest we think the rough-and-tumble applies to all topics equally, though, we should check out King David Hotel Bombing, whose opening paragraphs has for some years constituted an ever-more-artful ballet around the historically mandated word "terrorist," or Zionism, which in its more surrealistic moments reads like a recruiting pamphlet, and until recently was able to segregate out the fact that Arabs, by and large, aren't particularly keen on the idea. (For all I know, that carefully sourced passage about Arab opposition may have already been deleted by the Thought Police, who made short work indeed of citations demonstrating Jewish opposition.)
  • We are now embracing systemic bias as a valid operating principle of this encyclopedia, I think. BYT 17:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to move that speculation on editors' motives ends here. Weregerbil 17:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This problem has been around since the beginning. I see no benefit to frame this debates as an attack on the Muslims. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Signing off. Peace, Thurgood Marshall, aka BYT 17:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Well said BYT -:) I agree all of it. Please contribute more often, I miss you a lot. The fact is that west is increasingly non-tolerant when it come to Muslim. They make sure to express freedom of speech when there is no need to express it. --- ALM 17:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
He is winding up the watch of his wit. By and by it will strike. Tom Harrison Talk 18:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, it's patent nonsense to suggest that something offensive to 1 out of 6 people (to assume an upper bound) is in any way a personal attack. It's the very definition of an impersonal attack. That said, I don't think it matters whether or not Muslims feel personally targeted by the article. What matters is whether tha article is neutral, sourced and verifiable, encyclopaedic and informative. If it's all of those things and it still offends people, all I can offer is the words of my classical mechanics professor Life is sometimes hard. Our purpose here is provide people with information, not hugs. WilyD 18:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not informative but anti-infromative. How you feel about giving a kick to other people and providing them false information too. --- ALM 18:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's informative, and how people react to verifiable, encyclopaedic information is their own concern. Look, how people choose to react to information is their own concern, but it's not our place to play pretend with them, and censor out information because a reader might not like it. If a reader doesn't want information about Muhammad, they shouldn't come here. But the mission we've charged ourselves with is to provide all the information we can to anyone who wants it - and let them make their own judgements on it. None of us have the mandate to impose our own judgements on readers - that's what WP:NPOV says. We simply present the information we've gathered, all of it, and give it away for people to do with as they like. No more, no less. WilyD 18:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It is against relality. Muhammad is not represented in images in reality at least most of the time. Hence an image near bottom will be more near reality. Otherwise cartoon images should be on the top because they are more informative one. --- ALM 18:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It's perfectly within reality. What we're talking about are depictions of the subject of the article that are verifiable as such. WilyD 18:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In reality he was depiction in this order 1) Mostly in calligraphy only 2) Some picture of veiled 3) Very few pictures with face. If the article is representing the reality correctly. I doubt that. I think just to make sure Muslim do not censor anything we are giving wrong information to the end users by putting faced picture on the top. --- ALM 18:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say here - can you elaborate? We all seem to agree that Muhammad is depicted both with a veil and with his face exposed (I'm not sure it's been shown how these balance, but it's a moot point). We all also agree that the Caligraphy belongs (grammatically, I'm not sure that's a depiction, but let's digress). We can all reasonably agree that all three of these formats should be included as visual aids to the article if possible (and it seems like it is). The ordering and relative quantity are fairly minor issues - and certainly have not been central to this debate over it's lifetime - I don't much care exactly how it's worked out (although attempts to bury one or another of the formats is clearly inappropriate) WilyD 19:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think order is all what they are not agreeing it. See Muhammad/images if they remove just first images in which Muhammad is wrongly shown wearing blue clothes and Sahabah wearing red dress from the TOP. Then we are fine and this mediation can ends. We will have calligraphy on the top and then a veiled image and then a un-veiled image. Nothing is censored. --- ALM 19:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That image has a citation verifying that it is a depiction of Muhammad from a manuscript, which is all that is being claimed. You are welcome to add any sourced information to the caption if a previously published source has found this image to be inaccurate. If this image was so wrong, then surely somebody of repute must have made this observation. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand if we are having both veiled and un-veiled images in the article then what is problem here? Why cannot we stop it here? When it will be enough? --- ALM 19:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think three is too many that is one thing, but it seems you are arguing not to have a depiction at the top. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes on the top is problem. Also they are too many given that we have ONLY one calligraphy picture. Lastly, the image on the top is very wrong one. Once again if we will have TWO images and one calligraphy picture at the end. Then you will have in the article one veiled, one un-veiled (at the bottom). No censorship is done. Why to fight on those very minor issues. I have already compromise and now you can agree to remove just one image and end the mediation. We can work on improving contents and each side will be happy. --- ALM 19:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want more calligraphy, find some and add it. But I still don't see a single reason to not have it as a lead image other than it is religiously offensive. You call it a minor issue, but you clearly do not see it as minor or you would not be so determined. You had a good point about undue weight, and we remedied that by putting calligraphy first. Since we both clearly disagree, I think we should wait for others to give their opinions on this matter. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
If the aniconistic argument has devolved into debate over what color robes Muhammad wore, it's pretty clear that the arguments are somewhat weak. It's not Muhammad {PBUH); It's Muhammad (note the lack of endearing term). In the guise of Wikipedia he is a historical figure, not a Muslim prophet. And please, stop making assumptions that we're all "out to offend Muslims". It's not the case at all. We are simply attempting to make the article the best we can in our interpretation of Wikipedia policies. --Hojimachong 19:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, if we're down to the colour of the robes, it may be a sign we'vealmost ironed out a comprimise. WilyD 20:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that compromise was there since long time. If they remove just one image from the lead and keep other TWO images. Then I am fine. Nothing is censored because we will still have two images. One veiled and other non-veiled. --- ALM 20:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
But what is the reason for having no image at the top? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


Results of a Survey

It is a fair Survey from [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/002-9954502-7835251?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Muhammad&Go.x=12&Go.y=15&Go=GoAmazon this search]. No book name is omitted and all books search are presented in original sequence. You are welcome to verify the results.

  1. Karen Armstrong, “Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time” [http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Prophet-Time-Eminent-Lives/dp/0060598972/sr=1-1/qid=1172536235/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books] (showing Muslims praying).
  2. Robert Spencer , “The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion”, [http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Muhammad-Intolerant-Religion/dp/1596980281/sr=1-2/qid=1172536235/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]. (Only title on the cover).
  3. Karen Armstrong, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, [http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Biography-Prophet-Karen-Armstrong/dp/0062508865/sr=1-3/qid=1172536235/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books] Calligraphy.
  4. Martin Lings, “Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources” [http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Life-Based-Earliest-Sources/dp/1594771537/sr=1-5/qid=1172536235/ref=sr_1_5/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books] Calligraphy
  5. Muhammad Asad, “The Message of The Qur'an”, [http://www.amazon.com/Message-Quran-Muhammad-Asad/dp/1904510000/sr=1-6/qid=1172536235/ref=sr_1_6/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books] Calligraphy
  6. I. Ishaq (Author), A. Guillaume (Translator), “The Life of Muhammad” [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Muhammad-I-Ishaq/dp/0196360331/sr=1-7/qid=1172536235/ref=sr_1_7/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books] (Text and sun picture)
  7. Carl W. Ernst, “Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World (Islamic Civilization and Muslim Networks)”, [http://www.amazon.com/Following-Muhammad-Rethinking-Contemporary-Civilization/dp/0807855774/sr=1-8/qid=1172536235/ref=sr_1_8/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books] (Painting of some old city)
  8. Mark A., Ph.D. Gabriel, Jesus and Muhammad: Profound Differences and Surprising Similarities, [http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Muhammad-Differences-Surprising-Similarities/dp/1591852919/sr=1-9/qid=1172536235/ref=sr_1_9/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books], Picture of a mosque
  9. W. Montgomery Watt “Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman” [http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Prophet-Statesman-Galaxy-Book/dp/0198810784/sr=1-10/qid=1172536235/ref=sr_1_10/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books] (picture of old building)
  10. Daniel Peterson, “Muhammad, Prophet of God” [http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Prophet-God-Daniel-Peterson/dp/0802807542/sr=1-12/qid=1172536235/ref=sr_1_12/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books], (Mosque picture)
  11. Irving Zeitlin , The Historical Muhammad [http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Muhammad-Irving-Zeitlin/dp/0745639992/sr=1-17/qid=1172536289/ref=sr_1_17/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books], Potrait with face shown.
  12. Imam Birgivi (Author), Shaykh Tosun Bayrak (Author), Vincent Cornell, The Path of Muhammad: A Book on Islamic Morals & Ethics by #Imam Birgivi ,[http://www.amazon.com/Path-Muhammad-Islamic-Spiritual-Classics/dp/0941532682/sr=1-20/qid=1172536289/ref=sr_1_20/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books] Potrait with face shown.
  13. Abbas Sadeghian, Sword and Seizure: Muhammad's Epilepsy & Creation of Islam [http://www.amazon.com/Sword-Seizure-Muhammads-Epilepsy-Creation/dp/1599770024/sr=1-22/qid=1172536289/ref=sr_1_22/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]. (Some Persian or Arabic text).
  14. Sayyid Muhammad Syeed (Foreword), Joey Green (Editor), Kenneth Atkinson , “Jesus and Muhammad: The Parallel Sayings” [http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Muhammad-Parallel-Sayyid-Syeed/dp/1569753261/sr=1-24/qid=1172536289/ref=sr_1_24/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]. Star and moon shown.
  15. Barnaby Rogerson, The Heirs of Muhammad [http://www.amazon.com/Heirs-Muhammad-Barnaby-Rogerson/dp/1585678961/sr=1-25/qid=1172536337/ref=sr_1_25/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books] a portrait is shown
  16. H. M. Balyuzi, Muhammad and the Course of Islam, [http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Course-Islam-H-Balyuzi/dp/0853984786/sr=1-28/qid=1172536337/ref=sr_1_28/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books] Mosque shown
  17. Bernard Lewis , Islam: From the Prophet Muhammad to the Capture of Constantinople Volume 2: Religion and Society [http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Prophet-Muhammad-Constantinople-Religion/dp/0195050886/sr=1-31/qid=1172536337/ref=sr_1_31/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books] Portrait shown
  18. Yahiya Emerick (Author), Yahiya J. Emerick (Author) , Muhammad (Critical Lives) [http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Critical-Lives-Yahiya-Emerick/dp/0028643712/sr=1-34/qid=1172536337/ref=sr_1_34/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books] Mosque shown.
  19. Timothy George, Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad?[ http://www.amazon.com/Father-Jesus-God-Muhammad/dp/0310247489/sr=1-37/qid=1172536391/ref=sr_1_37/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books] (some calligraphy but not written Muhammad)
  20. Annemarie Schimmel, Muhammad Is His Messenger: The Veneration of the Prophet in Islamic Piety [http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-His-Messenger-Veneration-Religion/dp/0807841285/sr=1-38/qid=1172536391/ref=sr_1_38/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books] Calligraphy shown.
  21. Barnaby Rogerson , The Prophet Muhammad [http://www.amazon.com/Prophet-Muhammad-Barnaby-Rogerson/dp/0349115869/sr=1-44/qid=1172536391/ref=sr_1_44/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books] Calligraphy
  22. Adil Salahi , Muhammad: Man and Prophet : A Complete Study of the Life of the Prophet of Islam [http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Prophet-Complete-Study-Islam/dp/186204290X/sr=1-49/qid=1172536428/ref=sr_1_49/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books] Caligraphy
  23. Hajjah Amina Adil (Author), Shaykh Nazim Adil Al-Haqqani (Author), Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani , Muhammad: The Messenger of Islam, [http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Messenger-Hajjah-Amina-Adil/dp/1930409117/sr=1-53/qid=1172536428/ref=sr_1_53/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books] Quran shown
  24. Faizul R. Khan, Prophet Muhammad: History and Character of His Life [http://www.amazon.com/Prophet-Muhammad-History-Character-Life/dp/0962785490/sr=1-54/qid=1172536428/ref=sr_1_54/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]Caligraphy
  25. Eliot Weinberger, Muhammad, [http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Eliot-Weinberger/dp/1844671186/sr=1-60/qid=1172536428/ref=sr_1_60/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]Some text + design
  26. Martin Forward, “Muhammad : A Short Biography”[http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Short-Biography-Martin-Forward/dp/1851681310/sr=1-61/qid=1172536458/ref=sr_1_61/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books] Temple mount show (mosque)
  27. Jaroslav Stetkevych, Muhammad and the Golden Bough: Reconstructing Arabian Myth,[http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Golden-Bough-Reconstructing-Arabian/dp/0253214130/sr=1-63/qid=1172536458/ref=sr_1_63/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]Camelshown.
  28. Maxime Rodinson, Muhammad (Paperback) [http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Maxime-Rodinson/dp/1860648274/sr=1-66/qid=1172536458/ref=sr_1_66/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books] Calligraphy
  29. Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad,[http://www.amazon.com/Life-Muhammad-Husayn-Haykal/dp/0892591374/sr=1-67/qid=1172536458/ref=sr_1_67/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]image not available at amazon.
  30. Maulana Muhammad Ali, Muhammad the Prophet, [http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Prophet-Maulana-Ali/dp/0913321079/sr=1-69/qid=1172536458/ref=sr_1_69/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]Shahadat Calligraphy.
  31. Kenneth Cragg, Muhammad and the Christian[http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Christian-Kenneth-Cragg/dp/1851681795/sr=1-71/qid=1172536458/ref=sr_1_71/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]start and moon and crescent sign shown.
  32. Maulana Muhammad Ali, The Living Thoughts of the Prophet Muhammad,[http://www.amazon.com/Living-Thoughts-Prophet-Muhammad/dp/0913321192/sr=1-73/qid=1172536629/ref=sr_1_73/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]BismillAllah in calligraphy.
  33. Betty Kelen, Muhammad: The Messenger of God,[http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Messenger-God-Betty-Kelen/dp/0929093127/sr=1-74/qid=1172536629/ref=sr_1_74/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]Caligraphy of Sahadah
  34. A. H Vidyarthi, Muhammad in world scriptures,[http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-world-scriptures-Vidyarthi/dp/8190053795/sr=1-79/qid=1172536629/ref=sr_1_79/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]No image available on amazon.
  35. Dr. David Bukay , “Muhammad's Monsters: A Comprehensive Guide to Radical Islam for Western Audiences”[http://www.amazon.com/Muhammads-Monsters-Comprehensive-Radical-Audiences/dp/0892215763/sr=1-83/qid=1172536629/ref=sr_1_83/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]Monster Muslim shown (not Muhammad).
  36. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, “Muhammad: Man of God”[http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Man-Seyyed-Hossein-Nasr/dp/1567445012/sr=1-86/qid=1172536682/ref=sr_1_86/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]Calligraphy
  37. A. Jeffrey , Islam Muhammad and His Religion[http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Muhammad-His-Religion-Jeffrey/dp/0672603489/sr=1-85/qid=1172536682/ref=sr_1_85/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]No image available on amazon
  38. Wilferd Madelung, Succession to Muhammad,[http://www.amazon.com/Succession-Muhammad-Wilferd-Madelung/dp/0521646960/sr=1-87/qid=1172536682/ref=sr_1_87/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]Caligraphy.
  39. Subhash C. Inamdar, Muhammad and the Rise of Islam: The Creation of Group Identity[http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Rise-Islam-Creation-Identity/dp/1887841288/sr=1-93/qid=1172536682/ref=sr_1_93/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]Text and a picture similar to half moon.
  40. M. Fethullah Gulen, The Messenger of God: Muhammad[http://www.amazon.com/Messenger-God-Muhammad-Fethullah-Gulen/dp/1932099832/sr=1-94/qid=1172536682/ref=sr_1_94/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]Some people from distance shown. Muhammad not shown
  41. Maulana Muhammad Ali, Muhammad and Christ [http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Christ-Maulana-Ali/dp/0913321206/sr=1-98/qid=1172536732/ref=sr_1_98/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]Calligraphy of BismillAllah.
  42. GlubbfJohn, “The Life and Times of Muhammad”,[http://www.amazon.com/Life-Times-Muhammad-GlubbfJohn/dp/0815411766/sr=1-99/qid=1172536732/ref=sr_1_99/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]Portrait shown.
  43. Leila Azzam , Aisha Gouverneur Mary Hampson Minifie, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad[http://www.amazon.com/Life-Prophet-Muhammad-Vitae-Islam/dp/1887752536/sr=1-103/qid=1172536732/ref=sr_1_103/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]Mosque shown
  44. Abdu I. Ahad Dawud , Muhammad in the Bible[http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Bible-Abdu-Ahad-Dawud/dp/8185265259/sr=1-109/qid=1172536773/ref=sr_1_109/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]image not available on Amazon.
  45. Harald Motzki, The Biography of Muhammad: The Issue of the Sources,[http://www.amazon.com/Biography-Muhammad-Sources-Islamic-Civilization/dp/9004115137/sr=1-110/qid=1172536773/ref=sr_1_110/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]Text shown.
  46. Frederick S. Colby, The Subtleties of the Ascension: Lata'if al-Miraj: Early Mystical Sayings on Muhammad's Heavenly Journey[http://www.amazon.com/Subtleties-Ascension-al-Miraj-Mystical-Muhammads/dp/1887752781/sr=1-114/qid=1172536773/ref=sr_1_114/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]A design shown.
  47. Marmaduke William Pickthall , The Life of the Prophet Muhammad: A Brief History[http://www.amazon.com/Life-Prophet-Muhammad-Brief-History/dp/0915957868/sr=1-115/qid=1172536773/ref=sr_1_115/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]a Mosque shown
  48. Bint, Al-Shati “The Wives of Prophet Muhammad”[http://www.amazon.com/Wives-Prophet-Muhammad-Bint-Al-Shati/dp/1593333986/sr=1-123/qid=1172536822/ref=sr_1_123/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]a design or may be calligraphy shown.
  49. Mustafa Zayed, “Muhammad Said”[http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Said-Mustafa-Zayed/dp/1420844458/sr=1-130/qid=1172536822/ref=sr_1_130/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books]hills shown

Results are following:

  • Potrait of Muhammad: 5
  • Calligrpahy of Muhammad, Sahadat, BismillAllah: 17
  • Mosques or old city of Mecca etc : 9
  • Text or Muslims or some design etc: 18

--- ALM 01:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is original research and is of no value to these mediations. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It tells the tradition of a western website with the help of survey. --- ALM 02:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
But my point is it is your survey. It is not previously published by a reliable source. It is to do with the WP:NOR policy. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying that you must reference it in the article. I am saying that it tell we (you and me) who are fair people (I think) that what tradition is. If it tell you the tradition or not? No one is going to refer it in the article. --- ALM 02:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
But you want it to influence the contents of the article. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
No sir. I wish to influence you and Tom. I wish to tell the tradition to people involve in the mediation. Do not wish to add a reference in the article. --- ALM 02:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
After your and my last discussion about this, and the outcome, I am not inclined to give your research much weight. Tom Harrison Talk 15:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You will not influence me with original research, I hold the same standards as Wikipedia when it comes to editing Wikipedia articles. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well sir, I think if someone shows me something like that then I will agree with him. The rules of wikipedia are not made by God. If we human agree on something then those rules can be changed. Human matter and not rules. However, if you wish not to agree then it okay. I cannot force anyone. --- ALM 02:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let me put it another way. We don't know what the limitations of the author, publisher, library etc where. This survey does not provide reliable information because such statistical analysis can lead to false conclusions. That is one of the reasons I would prefer information from previously published reliable source. I would like to have the information be verifiable, and attributable outside of Wikipedia. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I think unless there are many conflict like this one, people will not write in their books such information. Reason that someone should believe in above survey is that the books are order with respect to what Amazon search gives. Also one can verify my search results (it is reproducible at least for now).I think there search sort books with some importance criteria (may be selling index). You can also visit your local library and find all the books. Based on your library books you can also see above result is valid. These are the only method available. Other than that I can only give citation to you that say majority of Muslim tradition are against pictures. I have already given BBC citation for that thing too. --- ALM 03:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You have chosen a position that is difficult to verify. Your position that images are so rare in history that showing them at the top would be undue weight is a bold one. I do insist of some sort of proper citation that actually backs up the claims you are making if you want to use that claim as justification for not having an image at the top. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I will continue finding. But once again it is very difficult to find such reference unless Muslim continue to have such conflicts again and again. However, why something on following line is not acceptable. ""Islamic tradition or Hadith, the stories of the words and actions of Muhammad and his Companions, explicitly prohibits images of Allah, Muhammad and all the major prophets of the Christian and Jewish traditions. More widely, Islamic tradition has discouraged the figurative depiction of living creatures, especially human beings. Islamic art has therefore tended to be abstract or decorative. Shia Islamic tradition is far less strict on this ban. Reproductions of images of the Prophet, mainly produced in the 7th Century in Persian, can be found." BBC Q&A: Depicting the Prophet Muhammad. It is possible to find more on those lines more easily. --- ALM 03:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I think what ALM has done here has lots of value (and kind of what I was saying before when talking about percentages). If you turn the numbers above into percentages and multiply by 11 (i.e. how many photos in Jesus or the mid-mediation Muhammad article) then we would have bit over 1 head, 2 mosques, 4 misc designs, bit under 4 Calligraphy.
In our previous poll I was happy to have a Calligraphy as the top image and won't revert that (though would revert plain old blanking). Given that a word-is-a-word-is-a-word but pictures paint a 1000 words I'd round down the calligraphy to 3 images and go with a veiled and non-veiled image. I do feel that there is a degree of self-censorship in avoiding images of Muhammad in the real world that biases our results but that's what consensus is anyway. Ttiotsw 07:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is necessarily OR, as it is just a combination (no speculation) of previously published results. I'd like to point to #11, however; "The Historical Muhammad" sums up what we're supposed to be doing here. Most of the other books seem to be either vehemently pro-Muslim (Muhammad, Man of God) or vehemently anti-Muslim (anything by Robert Spencer). --Hojimachongtalk 15:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Combining previously published results to advance a new position is exactly OR, see WP:OR#Unpublished_synthesis_of_published_material. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess I missed that part :-\. --Hojimachongtalk 15:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It is one of the more subtle aspects of our original research policy, one that is often overlooked. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree: How is the consensus for undue weight arrived at ?. To even start thinking about undue weight we must have numbers to juggle; where do those numbers come from ? Either someone notable publishes a meta-study which we can simply use or we try and work it out ourself as ALM has done. Identifying what is the majority view for consensus and undue weight is not synthesis from the point of view of the OR policy as we are not creating artefacts but counting artefacts. Unless it is proposing a new artefact or concept e.g. "original calligraphy as graffiti" or "Islamic tattoos" it is not synthesis in the spirit of which the OR policy would have been created. We're just arguing over which image goes first. Ttiotsw 20:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Unforetunately for you, this is not something you can disagree with - it's a basic, indisputable fact. WP:OR forbids this sort of thing in no uncertain terms. Trying to develop a novel conclusion for specific examples is original research. WilyD 20:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Wrong IMHO - please read WP:OR#What_is_not_original_research.3F where it says that,
"Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions."
...and so far all I have done is simply add up and get a percentage. What exactly is the problem with that "straightforward mathematical calculation" unless adding numbers up and getting percentages is now not straightforward. Ttiotsw 20:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
That's completely unrelated to what actually happened here. The data comes from ALM's original research. He (or she) compiled a dataset of book covers based on come criterion or criterion of his (or her) own design. What ALM then did with the data isn't original research, of course, but it's not what's problematic. That what ALM did is original research is still not something you can disagree with - it's strictly impossible given the facts. WilyD 21:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
And, of course, trying to draw a conclusion about usual portrayals from books covers is a novel thesis that consitutes original research as well. I almost figured it went without saying ... WilyD 21:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Book covers are of no relevance here, as they offer no reasonable analogy to Wikipedia articles. As a digital resource, we are uniquely situated to offer quality depictions, as there is no cost to publish them. Additionally, Wikipedia has policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOT which do not apply to the decisions of third party publishers. For example Bismilallah ("in the name of God") would be wildly inappropriate here per NPOV, while a picture of a Mosque would be completely off-topic. Similarly, it is certainly possible that in some instances a portrait of Muhammad was avoided for fear of exposing the publisher to controversy, while in others it might have been incompatible with the author or publisher's own religious sensibilities.Proabivouac 20:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The calligraphy myth?

I appreciate the difficulty with which Gren and others must have struggled behind the scenes when I tried searching for the calligraphic Muhammad myself. There are indeed many sites with images of this variety, but they are all contemporary. For example, here is the (uncredited) source for the image we had previously. There are many more that sound promising until you click through to them and discover that they are all contemporary popular art. Following the link to the Library of Congress collections turned up nothing at all.

In contrast, a search for "muhammad depictions" search turned up a whole host of notable images of considerable antiquity.

There is of course a tradition of inscribing Qur'anic verses, and these are very easy to find; however Muhammad is mentioned by name hardly at all in the Qur'an. The few examples I could find involved the Shahada, not merely "Muhammad."Calligraphy, then, appears to serve the exact same function as it did in the West, and as fonts do today: the beautification of text, not for the creation of non-representational iconography (at least not involving Muhammad.) The article Islamic calligraphy doesn't say anything about this subject, which from the way it's been presented here, one would think a very salient and central component of the calligrapher's art.

I've seen no evidence that the word "Muhammad" on its own is anything more than a contemporary trend. We all took claims that this was a real and significant historical phenomenon at face value, but at this point, I'm inclined to consider it an unfounded assumption, an impression supported by the failure of anyone to produce anything beyond the 20th century image moved from German article. If so, it's actually calligraphy, not visual depictions, which would be subject to objections from undue weight.

I'm open to changing my mind, but it will have to be demonstrated to me by producing notable examples.Proabivouac 02:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Easiest way to find Islamic caligraphy is to visit mosque and old building and take pictures. However, we cannot do that in a minute or two and will required few months to try this thing. --- ALM 02:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You would think the easiest way would be to scour the wealth of academic information on the subject, and provide a citation. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. One can also use book covers with refernces. If that can come under fair use rational? --- ALM 02:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean using book covers as references? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Caligraphy from book cover with reference to that book. --- ALM 02:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The first criterion for fair use here is that the image not be replaceable from another source. I don't think it would qualify for copyright reasons. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes but we have multiple of book covers on wikipedia under fair use rational. For example Image:In_The_Line_Of_Fire.jpg I have uploaded one too. --- ALM 02:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well a rather exemplary case would be found in the Sultan Ahmed Mosque (The Blue Mosque) found in Istanbul, Turkey. Have a look at the calligraphy found in its interior. (→Netscott) 02:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It is beautiful. I can read two out of four that is Abu-Bakr, Caliph Omar but cannot read properly other text. Need some more arabic expert. --- ALM 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I have read other both too now. They are Quranic Ayats. btw Similar text can be find in many many mosque. I have seen Muhammad written many times in mosques. Good search (→Netscott) --- ALM 02:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
If this were an article on the book fine. But if the subject is calligraphy and you can find calligraphy elsewhere then it fails WP:FUC. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Flikr is a cool source. These say Allah, Muhammad and some other text [10], [11], I think on the centre it has Muhammad and on the sides all the 4 first caliphs, Sahadah, beautiful but not Muhammad, This is Muhammad written and beautiful. I will send emails to them if they allow to release their picture to public domain. --- ALM 03:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Muhammad in Kufi style Desighned by me"?Proabivouac 04:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

More calligraphy picture from flikr. [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. However, have to ask those people to allow us using those pictures. :( --- ALM 04:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Out of dozen of pictures why you have selected this one only? --- ALM 04:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool and another[17]. Both say Allah and Muhammad. --- ALM 04:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
From Esposito - "Islam: The Straight Path" - p.5: "In addition, Prophetic traditions... give us a picture of his meaning and significance in early Islam as do Islamic calligraphy and art, where the names of Allah and Muhammad often occur side by side..." From p.9 - "Many Arab Muslims extended this ban to any representation in art of the human form... This attitude resulted in the use of calligraphy... and arabesque... as dominant forms in Islamic art." I'm sure I can find more sources that emphasize the calligraphic representations of the words Allah and Muhammad. Note Esposito's phrase "early Islam". We don't have to show that a Google search turns up an appropriate percentage of different kinds of art of the appropriate ages, we just have to show reliable sources saying so, as here. - Merzbow 04:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Merzbow. --- ALM 04:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree. :) --- ALM 04:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but unfortunately that wouldn't give us images that we can use. The way to represent the calligraphic tradition is to include examples of it, not to remove something else. They're not quite the standalone logos they were made out to be (such as the one currently on the page, but some look pretty good, so please do keep them coming, and thank you (both of you) for this hard work.Proabivouac 05:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome Proabivouac. I am contecting people on flikr and hoping that someone will reply. Hence hardwork is not finish yet. It is just a start of hard work. --- ALM 05:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The two that looked the best to me turned out upon closer inspection to be the same panel at Wazir Khan Mosque; of these, the first is clearly superior for our purposes here:[18], [19]. I'd venture to guess that there are many photos of this panel in existence.Proabivouac 06:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have already send an email to that person and looking for reply. I am also from Lahore and this mosque is from my city -:) (although I am currently in Germany) --- ALM 06:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Ideally we'd have a flat image to focus on the treatment of "Muhammad" rather than the architecture and imaging event. A test in photoshop shows this to be quite easy (rotate, perspective, crop,) but I'm not certain about the rules on this.Proabivouac 06:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Wait for couple of days for his reply. I have just sent him another email. --- ALM 06:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


It is by no means a myth. The reason it is difficult to find "Muhammad calligraphy" is because while calligraphy is the most prominent way to represent Muhamamad most of it is not just about Muhammad. It is in various contexts, suras, hayli, etc. Images are easy to grab a hold of because they are clear and without much effort you can see that they are attempting to represent Muhammad and use them. Most of them are taking out of semio-pious histories and texts. Calligraphy is often not just the word Muhammad but depictions in context. This is the problem. Since under orthodoxy Muhammad is not supposed to be revered you don't get so much just about him it is in a context so as not to appear heterodox. It's not that Muslims don't quasi-worship him. They often have but because of a certain fear (I suppose?) of the orthodox they have often had their praise in traditions that were not always physically written. I suppose my opinion comes down to this is a rather difficult subject to deal with on Wikipedia because we have no real way to privilege expertise. Since the history of depicting Muhammad is complex people will tend to grab onto whatever seems the most tangible and that is what has happened. I believe it does a poor because it lacks any understanding of context. The best way to depict Muhammad is putting him in context and not just plain things of only him. You will note that most of the images also aren't just Muhammad... even though some have been very misleadingly cropped to appear that way. Jesus is important. Muhammad is contextually important. Different art forms have grown up around those differences. So, you're right in a sense what you said at the beginning... but you seem to think the only way to depict Muhammad is things that set out to depict solely him. Wikipedia is very poor at dealing with this. I was struck by that when looking at "calligraphy of Muhammad". It isn't the most common thing... but the images aren't images of Muhammad either. They're times in history where we choose to single Muhammad out of. I must say, even though this mediation has been one of the most futile experiences of my life I have personally learned quite a lot. gren グレン 00:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Images obtain from galexa20

I am still communication with other people to get more images of caligraphy. All of these picture are from Hagia Sophia, Istanbul. I am working very hard to get more better images. In the hope that we will have no image near lead showing Muhammad face. --- ALM 09:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"I am working very hard to get more better images. In the hope that we will have no image near lead showing Muhammad face"
See, I'm afraid that says it all-- it's not that multiple caligraphy images would help the article, it's that multiple caligraphy images might have the effect of censoring Muhammad's face from the lead. By all means, go on procuring more images for the encyclopedia-- every free-licensed image uploaded to the project is a good thing. Just don't be under any illusions that doing so will allow you to delete the images from the article that you find objectionable, or allow you to bury them in the bottom of the article.
It seems to me, there's a growing support for the "german encyclopedia solution"-- putting a caligraphy at top, followed immmediated by a visual depiction, with several other visual depictions sprinkle throughout the article, and perhaps a caption clarifying that caligraphy is the most prevalent in Islamic art. Too soon to say for sure, but that's the form I think we'll find the article finally taking when this is all over. --Alecmconroy 10:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I am in conversation with three to four more people. If they reply then I will have lots of cool images of calligraphy. I might also ask my relative to visit local really mosques and send me pictures. It is a prove that having faced picture on the top is WRONG. Because Muslim have such a major culture of caligraphy that get lesser weight by having some picture on the top. This Undue weight thing should not be killed because of some non-existing and non-real things fears. No one is censorsing the article but we only wish things to be in right proportional as they appear in real life. (Bold again with excuse to User:Netscott) --- ALM 11:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, getting images is a good thing. Upload them to Commons. If we find one that we like more than the current caligraphy used in the article, we can replace it. But let me head you off at the pass-- don't plan on spamming the article with them as a way to justify burying/deleting the pictures you find objectionabe. --Alecmconroy 12:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You are doing a great job showing the Muslim's prefer calligraphy. But this isn't the article Muslim views of Muhammad, it is a more general article about Muhammad the historical figure. I find the calligraphy wonderful and beautifully but this is not justification for not having a lead image of the subject. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Most of these images aren't remotely intepretable as calligraphic stand-ins for depictions, but are beautified text. Most don't even include the word "Muhammad." While I think a single notable example of the Shahada is justified (ideally replacing the flag of Saudi Arabia which is for whatever reason being used to illustrate this) generally the sort of image that is topical will be like this:[20].Proabivouac 19:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Another proposal

What about adding one veiled image to the lead or one of the first few sections, and adding a caption similar to this: "Muhammad has been depicted several times, both by Muslims and non-Muslims, but is often considered sacrilage if not veiled. For more images of Muhammad, see Depictions of Muhammad." I believe this is similar to the compromise that was previously in place, though a little more NPOV. It shows respect for Islam, but also allows for those who do not understand caligraphy to view an image, and follow the link if they wish. Any comments? · AO Talk 15:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the current version of the page. Are you suggesting adding another depiction, or removing the existing one's? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Removing most of the existing ones, and leaving the one where Muhammad is veiled. · AO Talk 18:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Such censorship violates policy.Proabivouac 18:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. However for them the Dutch Muhammad page is censored and German is right. For me it is vica versa. the Dutch Muhammad page is written in cool way and I am impressed from it. --- ALM 10:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Who created that image, and when?Proabivouac 10:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I like their format not the picture. It does not matter that who created that calligraphy because we have much better images as compare to this one. TWO other flickr people are agreed to give away there images and that includes your favourite one too Proabivouac. Furthermore, I am talking with an good artist too. --- ALM 11:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A possible combination to end this

Although it has been discussed on the various image discussions, I haven't seen this particular combination concretely proposed so I'll make it myself: Based upon a similar logic shared by User:ALM scientist, I earlier explained an equivalent logic thusly: If on the lead of the article about Senegal there was an image of a caucasian person, a reader not familiar with Senegal would have the distinct impression that Senegal was a country likely to have a heavy population of caucasian folks. This is obviously very much not the case. Well this same logic can be applied here. Having an image of Muhammad in the lead can lead a casual reader to have the impression that images of Muhammad have been common throughout history both Western and otherwise (possibly even common in Islam). We know this couldn't be further from the truth... so in that sense it is logical to not have an image of Muhammad in the lead at all.

  • 1. The lead image will be a sole Arabic Calligraphy image of Muhammad's name.
  • 2. The Isra and Miraj seciton will have the one veiled face Persian miniature image because such miniature imagery had a notable epoch in Islamic history.
  • 3. The depictions of Muhammad section will have a non-veiled face image of Muhammad corresponding to the fact that there is an established history of such imagery.

Now I know this isn't going to please all parties but in the interest of moving beyond this ongoing disquieting vibe I would ask folks to kindly seriously consider this solution. Thanks. (→Netscott) 15:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Senegal" argument you use is like comparing apples to oranges; Muhammad was an Arab, I think we can agree on that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Maomé image depicts an Arab man in a turban and robes. And as for undue weight, as it stands (according to Islam), Islam has 1.4 billion adherents. That is about 21.2% of the world population. Let's be generous and say that 25% of the human population may be offended by the picture; The other 75% have no taboos about depicting Muhammad. Indeed, they have created images like Maomé. --Hojimachongtalk 01:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It has yet to be demonstrated that depictions of Muhammad are so unusual that simply showing one at the top will constitute undue weight. Unless the claim is being made that depiction is common, I just don't understand this argument. When I look up a historical figure and see a picture, I don't assume that picture is there due to a tradition, but because this is an encyclopedia and images of the subject are to be expected. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, let's talk about moving beyond debates and actually arriving at a solution. (→Netscott) 16:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well how about a solution that does not involve compromising the encyclopedic value of the article to appeal to religious concerns. I try to argue based on policy and I get implored for compromise. I have yet to see one valid reason not to show the image at the top. I think we are close to settling this by simply saying that no valid argument for removal of these images has been presented. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
as a participant in the mediation, you may well believe that the 'other side' has "no valid argument for removal," but numerous people have argued convincingly upon the basis of WP:NPOV. sure, you may think the contention is invalid, but that remains only your opinion. Netscott's proposal is reasonable and sensible. ITAQALLAH 18:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I concur with HighInBC, as do, it seems, a great number of participants here, who have declined to go even so far as my proposal above. See the German and Spanish articles for examples of what articles look like when they are not censored. No image trolling, no Baphomet, no cartoons, only notable depictions of Muhammad appropriate to a serious academic resource which aims only to inform. If the undue weight/calligraphy argument is to be taken at face value, their only shortcoming is the failure to include more examples of these, which we can remedy here.Proabivouac 18:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree also. I don't think the "compromise" of Wikipedia is not censored and Wikipedias is censored is Wikipedia is censored. NOT + IS = IS. As long as it is official policy that Wikipedia is not censored to cater for religious sensibilities, well, then, Wikipedia is not censored. I think if this article is to be dictated by the rules of a specific religion, the way is first to change the official policy, and only after that change the article. We shouldn't have secret laws: Wikipedia is not censored except that in reality matters relating to some religions are censored whenever required by those religions. But we don't say this out loud. We just pretend Wikipedia is not censored and don't say out loud what the reality is. Let's hope nobody notices. I think the way the policy is, this whole thing is a non-question. Weregerbil 20:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly.
What's so daft about such proposed compromises is they are between an extreme position (no depictions) with no basis in policy and a moderate and principled one (images where they are sourced, notable and topical) based firmly in policy. Were one camp saying, "let us add whatever images we like!" the compromise we would reach might look very much like the current policy.
It is as if some demanded that an article be extremely biased against its subject, others insisted that it be studiously neutral, and the first party offered to "compromise" by splitting the difference.
I should add that I do accept that these offers, though misguided, are put forth in a good-faith effort to put the issue to rest. In and of itself, that is a good goal. They stem from the acknowledgments that 1) some editors are opposed to these images as a matter of religious conviction and 2) such conviction is unlikely to change based on policy or upon on anything we say here 3) some editors have been willing to disrupt Wikipedia accordingly and 4) there has lacked the communal will to block them; from these facts is derived that it is in this instance impractical to maintain policy.Proabivouac 21:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. If the article is to be censored we may as well plaster a bold face inscription at top reading "This article is being censored in contravention of Wikipedia and general encyclopedic policies to cater to the demands of a disruptive group of editors." There is no sensible, secular, and encyclopedic argument for excluding the images. "Compromise" with extremists does not result in the middle ground. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
For serious? gren グレン 00:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that may have been a usage of irony to demonstrate that if such a compromise were reasonable, then it would follow that the resulting description of that compromise would seem a bit ridiculous. Though, that is just my interpretation, I could be wrong. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac's proposal again

Reproducing this proposal from here:

"I'm inclined to propose, "Multiple images, some unveiled images, not in the lead" with the added provisions that they be 1) carefully selected, 2) moderate in number relative to articles for religious figures of comparable significance 3) accompanied by notable calligraphic representations of the name "Muhammad" to fairly represent the practices of aniconistic Muslims 4) captioned to specify "an artist's depiction" or the equivalent, and 5) a message will be placed atop the talk page acknowledging the sensitivity of the issue and asking that editors verify the notability and topic-appropriateness of depictions on talk before adding them."

Since Pro has not disavowed this proposal, I assume he's still OK with it. I am OK as long as the lead contains a calligraphic image over a veiled image, and that the article contain at least as many calligraphics as pictorials. - Merzbow 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with the lead image being veiled, as long as this is not done to reduce the number of unveiled depictions. In other words, switching places with the existing veiled images is fine with me. As for the number of calligraphic images surpassing the number of visual depictions, that is fine as long as you do not use this to reduce the number of depictions. It would more appropriate to add more calligraphy, which should be easy if this tradition is really so much more prevalent than visual depictions.
The crux of my point is: Having a veiled image at the lead is fine, having more calligraphy than depictions is fine. But not at the expense of removing existing content. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
If consensus points in this direction, there is another problem to resolve. Given the current dispute on the talk page, I would like to see citations confirming that any image purportedly representing Muhammad is verified as having been accepted as doing so during the period of its creation. As it stands, we may to be opening a can of worms here because of a lack of citations connecting the image (contemporaneously) to the historical figure. BYT 00:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
At the very least, Image:Maome.jpg has such a citation, and if needed I am sure the others can be dug up. These aren't just scribbles made up by users, they are historical art works and will have documentation by scholarly organizations such as museums and libraries. Not sure what you mean "during the period of it's creation", if a modern source says it is a depiction of Muhammad then that satisfies our policies. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I am also fine with having no absolute limit on the number of images of any type. - Merzbow 02:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

16th Century: Thing of Beauty (More calligraphies)

Thanks goes to razanoor's [21].

More to come .... --- ALM 13:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Lovely images, on topic, great. But that does not justify replacing the lead image of the depiction with a second calligraphy in the lead. You have not demonstrated that having a depiction at the top constitutes undue weight. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 13:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think is necessary to show that? gren グレン 14:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
For my part, i don't think representativeness enters into it as much as usefulness to the reader. I can't imagine the caligraphy conveys much information about Muhammad himself. To arabic-speaking readers, it's simply a handwritten name. For those that don't ready arabic, it is just an indecipherable script. By all means, there's nothing stopping us from using one. But if we're actually trying to teach people about Muhammmad, the historical figure, it's never going to be a substitute for pictures. It's not even close. Pictures are way, way, way more informative. Don't blame me-- blame the human visual cortex. --Alecmconroy 16:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Picture are informative if they are real or at least drawn to what person used to be. Otherwise what extra information you get. I have no idea. --- ALM 16:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it is necessary to show that because it is on topic, sourced, and looks lovely. I want to show that because it is the subject of the article portrayed. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If your argument is the job of an encyclopedia is to represent all relevant forms of art not be representative then I'll buy that as legitimate. But you were asking for evidence calligraphy is the most important. What do you want to see to show that... I thought [[what I had found plus other things made it pretty clear that it was. But, this is a lot more than about it being portrayed... there's how, where, etc. gren グレン 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Read User:Grenavitar/mimages. I mean, there aren't going to be any sources that way calligraphy is more useful. It is your a priori assumption that images are representing some historical reality rather than part of a tradition. That image is no more realistic than the one created in your mind from the text--probably less so (unless your imagination lacks perspective). I don't think that is a very sound argument and although people tended to like your post showing "what you can learn from these images", I found it to be incredibly simplistic. The images teach us nothing about the historical reality of Muhammad that texts don't unlike the sat portrait of George Washington or the photograph of George Washington Carver which gives us nuance about his historical reality that words can't. This is how non-contemporaneous art is. To present them as representing historical realities is really misleading. So, they are informative, but not about a historical reality of Muhammad. They are informative about tradition, art, depictions of Muhammad. gren グレン 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not being compared to the images at George Washington but to those at Cleopatra and Socrates WilyD 16:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think debates about the historical realtiy really enter into it. I mean-- even if we supposed there wasn't ANY historical reality behind Muhammad-- there is, at least, the "fictional character Muhammad". And I dare say that visual depictions are just as useful for telling us about fictional charactes as they are for telling us about historical figures. Just as our biography pages invariable feature portraits in the lead, I suspect the best examples of our articles on fictional characters feature similar portraits-- Prince Hamlet and Perseus for example. If our goal is really to communicate information about Muhammad (be that information historical or fictional), there's no reason to delete or bury the images. --Alecmconroy 17:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The only reason the importance of calligraphy is being challenged at all, is because of the claim that it is so important, and visual depiction are so obscure, that it constitutes undue weight to show a depiction at the top. I have nothing against the calligraphy, I think it is great. But the argument that somehow neutrality dictates we don't show a depiction at the top will require some impressive proof. The way I see it, this can be resolved by finding a citation, and adding information to the caption of the appropriate image, I think this would clear up any undue weight just fine. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Of these four, only the first two even use the word "Muhammad," so far as I can discern. The front of the Wazir Khan Mosque, though quite beautiful, is not really appropriate here. The first of these, however, is appropriate. Perhaps this would provide an good occasion to mention in the caption that it has always been forbidden to depict Muhammad in Mosques.Proabivouac 22:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

New (present century) Picture from Artist Salmaa Rastu

File:Mohammad Rasul Allah.jpg It says "Muhammad, The Prophet of God". --- ALM 18:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

ALM, Salmaa Rastu makes Islamic greeting cards.Proabivouac 20:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the site more, perhaps my dismissive characterization above is unfair, as it appears that she is also a legitimate artist. Nevertheless, this only supports the impression I'd had earlier, that the quasi-"depiction" of Muhammad using his name as a logo, is only a contemporary trend. I like it well enough, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to a historical biography. We should be applying the same standards to images of calligraphy as we do for depictions (or any other image, for that matter.) Additionally, do we have the right to use it?Proabivouac 21:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

She do not wish to give away rights (because those images are for sale I guess). She asked question like who I am and what I contribute etc. However, when I told about this mediation and the problem of POV pushing by potrait on the lead, we are facing then we immediately said use it as you wish. I asked her to contribute on this mediation but do not know if she will. --- ALM 09:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
You might want to be sure that she understands what she's doing, or that you are accurately reflecting her position when you say that " the copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution of the author, as if in the public domain." If that's correct, then absolutely anyone could sell copies of the image-- not just her. In any case, I don't think the image has much utilty here. --Alecmconroy 10:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to create an article on her. She has very impressive and notable bio. There are many News paper articles on her and her work is displayed in galeries around world (Germany, USA, middle east) etc. Furthermore, she do not have figures in her hand but she still works. I think there should be an article. -- ALM 10:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the article creation idea. I too would prefer to see more historical (and preferrably recognized) examples of Muhammad's name written in calligraphy. (→Netscott) 13:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to buy a digital-camera to take pictures from the old mosques at least in my home city Lahore. I am talking with another person ZAK [22] and he has some wonderful picture. Not in calligraphy but in buildings for example Muhammad court, Mosque where Muhammad change Qibla, First mosque build by Muhammad, and many more. We can also use Muhammad Roza (tomb)[23], Muhammad mosque and many other historical pictures in the article because many books have them too. The last email I have got from ZAK was

Dear ALM!
you can use my images of Islam and Pakistan.
And please tell me how can i link my images to wikipedia pages?
ZAK

I have not heard since from him and will try to send another message to him. Wassalam. --- ALM 14:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: Even building are most commonly used on the books covers as compare to Potrait (see amazon results for more details). However, obviously this argument is not acceptable, just like all other arguments. --- ALM 14:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

She could create a copy in a reduced resolution e.g. 800x600 + a thumbnail or something and then license that single set of PNG files under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike - i.e. {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. This version permits free use, including commercial use but requires that she be attributed as the creator; and requires that any derivative creator or redistributor of her work use the same license. From a "marketing" point of view giving away the rights to this one digital image can create a lot of low-cost advertising for her other images AND the original (which can obviously still be sold assuming its a painting or something tangible). IANAL - See Wikipedia:Licenses#For_image_creators. Ttiotsw 17:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That what is called old and valuable (800AD - 1000AD)

File:Fig40 c lg.jpg


Decription: Kufic Calligrpahy Style: (Translation) In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Praise be to God, Who created the Heavens and the earth. Prayers and blessings on Gabrael, and the angels on your servants on the Prophets Ibrahim and Ismael and on Mohammad, the last Messenger and (oh God) forgive Zainab daughter of Ibrahim bin Qasim bin Ibrahim bin Ismael bin Ibrahim bin Hasan bin Hasan bin Ali bin Abi Talib, God have mercy on her May God be pleased with her and honor her the company of her Grandfather Mohammad Peace be Upon Him. Many more at the website at there. --- ALM 14:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many more older than above. Select one that you feel good for the article and have better translation. --- ALM 14:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an excellent illustration for the articles Arabic language or Arabic alphabet. --FOo 18:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It might also be appropriate to Islam#History.Proabivouac 22:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

May be the last voting

I think it is time that we officially end this mediation and seek other solutions (arbitration/RFC etc). Hence please vote if you think that mediation is not able to reach to any solution. Yes (not any solution reached).

comment - you can also vote if you think that mediation WAS able to reach a solution too ? Thus vote "No" but state if you means mean "Yes mediation over and a solution was reached (thus No to mediation failed claim)." or "No because mediation is not over yet because a solution has not been reached.". I give editors permission to reword this comment as they see fit. Ttiotsw 22:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The voting is NOT to tell if you are happy with the current state of the article. But if you think that any consensus has been established by mediation (which obviously is false). Or if it is possible to establish any consensus in future using this same mediation where apparently there is no active mediator and it is running since November. --- ALM 09:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes (Mediation failed)

  • --- ALM 17:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • ---130.113.128.11 19:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • (→Netscott) 20:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC) I'm afraid so... this has dragged on for months now.. and I honestly don't see any solid progress towards a consensus about this (the edit history of Muhammad/images seems particularly indicative of this). At the start of this mediation the previous consensus had been to have one veiled image of Muhammad towards the bottom of the article. In my previous experience with mediation it was standard practice that the previous consensus version was left in place while a new mediated version was determined. Due to an edit war by the disruptive User:Bbarnett and User:Aatif.haider the article was locked in an image displaying state from January 30 to February 21. What I have seen is that despite concerns regarding undue weight and despite this mediation a group of editors have seized the article and intend to ensure that an image of Muhammad occupies the lead of the article regardless of a very evident lack of consensus to do so. While it is true that there are no binding decisions on Wikipedia, this does not mean that we as editors throw out the old and start from scratch. The previous consensus version was that there would be one image of Muhammad veiled towards the bottom of the article. With few exceptions it is typical on Wikipedia that in order to change a given aspect of Wikipedia (especially in the case of a previously existing consensus) a clear consensus for the change needs to be established. Why are we not following this rule of thumb? (→Netscott) 20:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    "No 'Do-Overs'!". --Alecmconroy 04:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    It occurs to me that many people here may not know what a 'Do Over' is: American kids who have a dispute often go through some decision making process like Eeny, meeny, miny, moe to resolve the conflict. Children unhappy with the results of the process may petition that the resolution be voided by requesting a "Do Over". If, however, other children feel the resolution process had validity, they can veto the request by loudly shouting "No 'Do-Overs'".
    Or to put it another way-- I'm sure there was never a point in time where there was a consensus on Wikipedia that it was okay to delete all images of Muhammad from this article-- that would be an extremely major departure from the way we run things. If people in the past had experienced a measure of success in deleting the images, it's just because the wider community's attention was never brought to bear on the issue. --Alecmconroy 04:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    No body is pushing to delete all the picture. Hence it is your assumption. Please cast your vote so that we can file an RFC or arbitration. Thank you --- ALM 09:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not exactly sure what I'd be voting on. I wasn't part of any mediation, since I got here this has just be a subpage for the article talk. Was the discussion worthless? No-- for example, we seem to have independently stumbled upon the same solution as the German encyclopedia is putting caligraphy atop a visual depiction, which is a good compromise for most of the people. A lot has gone on with the captionings and such to try to further alleviate any confusion that visual depictions are the norm in Islamic art. The current article page has stronger support than any page since the debate got going. So, "no", the discussion here hasn't been a failure or waste of time.
    Assuming we define mediation as everyone coming to an agreement, then "yes", the mediation was a failure, and it was doomed to be. There is a group of people on earth who consider it their duty to God to try to get these images removed-- once they believe that, it's their moral duty to try to take them down or bury them, and they'd be a bad person if they didn't try to follow those convictions. Some issues aren't people aren't going to agree on, this is one.
    I can explain, in words, what I think you should do if you want to try to change the solution that's currently be arrived at. Doing a RFC isn't going to solve the problem, although it won't hurt anything if you want to put up a notice on one of the RFC pages. We've had lots and lots of opinions expressed on this. RFCs are best when you've got 2 editors having a dispute and a few more people can step in and solve the problem. WE've probably had 60 people express opinions on this--- a few more isn't going to change the situation, but
    Arbitration usually doesn't deal with issues like this, but again, it won't hurt anything if you want to ask them to. Typically, however, they won't decide issues like this, they'll just ban specific individuals who disrupt, with the understanding that when the problematic editors have been weeded out, the situation will resolve itself.
    Now, if I were in your shoes and wanted a definitive vote on a solution that would be enforcable, I think the only thing that would get that done would be going the policy route-- writing up a proposed policy that says "Wikipedia shouldn't use images of Muhammad in its articles" (or specifying that they must not be in lead, must not be unveiled, etc). Lots of people read proposed policies, so you'd get a good sampling. If it passed, then it'd be enforcable, and that would settle it. Obviously, I personally don't think it would pass, but I can't think of any other way that the issue could be resolved in your favore once and for all. --Alecmconroy
  • I have not followed the mediation closely but it seems to me that everybody has projected his/her voice so far. It doesn't seem to be a bad idea to present the arguments to a third party to decide. It is even to everybody. If an argument can convince some of us, it could certainly convince the arbitration committee. And it is probably faster and more efficient. So, I would say let's get rid of this time-consuming discussions and spend our energy in other articles. --Aminz 12:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    Sure, the trouble is just: this being Wikipedia, there is no "third party" willing or competent to decide this. The Arbitration Committee doesn't take content disputes. An RfC will just bring in a random assortment of new voices that will have no more and no less authority than those we've already heard. If we (the present participants of the debate) cannot come up with a compromise that at least a core group of us will then adopt and defend, then nobody will. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No (Tell the solution reached?)

  • --- I am willing to compromise on where it is today - one calligraphy in the lead, one veiled below, one veiled elswhere, and one unveiled elsewhere, balanced by at least an equal number of calligraphics. I think if this compromise fails, then I'll move my vote to the Yes column. - Merzbow 21:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • --- A solution hasn't been reached, but ... it is definitely my impression that progress is being made, and that a solution is possible. Sure, this mediation is slow and painful, but any other method is likely to be too ... today's version isn't terrible, although I could definitely make a page I like more, it's shaping up. WilyD 22:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • We are here since November and you are since only last month or so. I wish you were here since November because then you will have same feeling that mediation has failed. --- ALM 09:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • There has definitely been progress since I became involved, and as part of my involvement I've spent a lot of time going over the editing history of the article. Look, I realise perfect consensus will never be reached - this isn't a big deal. There will always be a hardheaded editor hanging around who has no real interest in improving the article, but will want to degrade it for some reason or another. POV warriors are easy enough to handle, you just keep butting heads with them until they get bored and leave. Some articles just get this - Muhammad, George W Bush, Evolution and so on and so forth (I'm constantly surprised at people's ability to care so adamantly about far less important articles). It's unfortunate, but it's the cost of the wiki. WilyD 14:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
        • In the start of mediation we have NO picture in the lead. Mediation was started to get rid of Maome.jpg. Now Maome.jpg is still there and we have MORE picture then we had at starting time. Furthermore, we also have picture in the lead which was never there. What progress we have made? Please elaborate. --- ALM 14:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
          • The level of dialogue is much higher than it appears to be historically, furthermore the level of co-operation among interested parties seriously trying to find a solution is much higher (i.e. the rate of insert-delete-insert-delete-insert-delete without productive discussion is down). I could, of course, be wrong. I only claimed I had this impression - I haven't measured it. WilyD 14:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • --- The article looks fine with mixture of generic Islamic photos, calligraphy, veiled and an unveiled image. Any POV or blanking edits have been handled quite fine by reverts and what little edit warring is handled by 3RR and/or blocks or protection just like any other high traffic or topical article (e.g. Taiwan articles anybody ?). The article doesn't need protection any more than any other article and I suspect the issue it has dragged on was that the previous mediator left. Ttiotsw 22:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The article might look fine but if that was the decision of mediation? If that has done by reaching concensus. No one is asking that if you are happy with the current state of article or not. --- ALM 09:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Well sorry I spoke out. I apologise if I can't tug my forelocks as I do rather cut my hair short. I must have missed the edit that made you the mediator or is this some self-appointment ? Ttiotsw 18:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
You have no reason to be sorry, your opinion is plenty valid, and welcome. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Drat. I pop in to look, and find it looks close to what I would have asked for, but it was by accident, not by design? :( Shenme 10:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      Yes that is why vote for Yes so that we can solve it. --- ALM 10:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There clearly is progress towards a compromise supported by at least a number of moderate participants. But we still have a few outliers supporting the extreme positions (either "no unveiled images at all" or "use all images with no concern for cultural sensitivities whatsoever") As long as those individuals persist, no full consensus will emerge. But what else can be done? I'm not sure that the Arbcom will ever agree to hearing this case, as long as it's a content dispute. The only way to open up Arbcom is if you convince them this is an issue of individual disruptive behaviour by some people. So, who's being disruptive? Well, the natural candidates for that would be those who are supporing the intransigent extreme positions. So, ALM, I hate to say it, but if you want this case to be decided by Arbcom, you will basically just have to turn yourself in as a troublemaker asking to be banned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    What we need is not to prosecute users, but to solicit opinions from the Wikipedia community as a whole. If done in a neutral manner, I believe this will yield a consensus.
    As for extreme positions, I proposed a compromise above which is pretty much square in the center of opinions expressed in FutureBird's poll, but hardly anyone from either "extreme" viewpoint (never mind that no censorship at all is policy) has endorsed it.Proabivouac 11:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    I think your compromise was good one. However, now you are once again working against your own compromise. May be RFC could be the next step instead of arbitration? I wish to fight for things I feel right according to wikipedia polices. Hence if they ban me for it then so be it. I will not wish myself to be a person who stop fighting for good. -- ALM 11:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, then why didn't you endorse it? Keep in mind though, it sets no limit on the number or type ("veiled") of depictions, because that is censorship.
Yes, an RfC is the way to go.Proabivouac 11:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think an RfC is a good idea. We have had plenty of "comment", we don't need to "request" more of the same. At least right now you have here a group of editors who know and understand each other's positions, and who have made an effort at coming to a solution, and who will hopefully be prepared to defend a compromise once one has been reached. With an RfC, if it gets any feedback at all, you'll just have a new bunch of contributors unfamiliar with the debate coming in and starting the same discussion all over again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Who will enforce decission here. Can you enforce that we will have veiled image on top and two pictures in the article at most. or no image at top etc If you can then we can close this thing? However, otherwise we are going in loop and need some editors who can force a decission. --- ALM 11:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Two depictions at most? Where did you come up with that?
As for an RfC, FuturePerfect, I think there is not much here to understand. Nearly every editor who has shown up "at random" has supported policy against religiously-motivated censorship. It's only the regulars who either subscribe to the relevant taboos or have a good reason to ingratiate themselves with those who do. The vast majority of drop-in opinions have been unequivocal.Proabivouac 11:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Which might just signify that "drop-in opinions" who believe that "policy" would unambiguously dictate a certain outcome here just happen to have a shallow understanding of the issues, because they haven't taken part in the debate? I must say I'm quite disappointed at this extremely shallow summary of yours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I gave you an insightful summary: some editors who hang around these parts have a good reason to ingratiate themselves with others they'll have to deal with tomorrow, while still more others nurture religious convictions which aren't typical of Wikipedia editors in general. I'm not sure why you'd call such realism shallow.Proabivouac 13:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Your posting shows an unwillingness to take seriously both the personal motives and the arguments of people such as Grenavitar, Zora, and (if I may say so) myself. Honestly, I resent that. The only person currently around who is genuinely arguing on the basis of the religious taboo is ALM. And some of your own recent comments (such as [24]) show that you have just been closing your eyes and ears to the very substantial weight of opinion and evidency by people like Gren. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I am also not arguing on the basis of the religious taboo. WP:NPOV#Undue_weight is policy. --- ALM 14:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Future Perfect, if depictions give undue weight vis-a-vis calligraphy, then 'let us find notable examples of calligraphy and add them to the article, as I've encouraged and continue to encourage. No one is stopping that. I gave Gren's argument a good deal of weight, as seen in my own Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Proposal proposal. What I reject is that this argument in any way supports an upper limit of three depictions.Proabivouac 23:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
NOTE ALM has removed the comment here to which I'd responded.[25]
I tried to put Maome.jpg in the overview, not the lead, but the transclusion kept putting it in the wrong place. Even when I placed it directly into the article it didn't work. Not my fault.Proabivouac 13:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No Not yet at least. Consensus has not yet been reached, but it appears we are reaching consensus. At least the edit wars have stopped.--Sefringle 21:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A Solution: The End?

Right now after User:Alecmconroy edit we have a compromise. Please vote for it at Compromise Found --- ALM 17:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ About silk/golden clothes, The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: I do not ride on purple, or wear a garment dyed with saffron*, or wear shirt hemmed with silk, Hadith - Sunan of Abu Dawood #4037, Narrated Imran ibn Husayn
  2. ^ About colored clothes, Hadith - Sunan of Abu Dawood #4055, Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-'As, We came down with the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) from a turning of a valley. He turned his attention to me and I was wearing a garment dyed with a reddish yellow dye. He asked: What is this garment over you? I recognised what he disliked. I then came to my family who were burning their oven. I threw it (the garment) in it and came to him the next day. He asked: Abdullah, what have you done with the garment? I informed him about it. He said: Why did you not give it to one of your family to wear, for there is no harm in it for women.
  3. ^ Hadith - Sunan of Abu Dawood, #4041, Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin, r.a. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) once prayed wearing a garment having marks. He looked at its marks. When he saluted, he said: Take this garment of mine to AbuJahm, for it turned my attention just now in my prayer, and bring a simple garment without marks.
  4. ^ Wearing white clothes: Hadith - Al-Tirmidhi 4623, Narrated 'Aisha, r.a., Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) was questioned about Waraqah and Khadijah said to him, "He believed in you, but died before you appeared as a prophet." Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) then said, "I was shown him in a dream, wearing white clothes, and if he had been one of the inhabitants of Hell he would have been wearing different clothing."[Ahmad and Tirmidhi transmitted it]
  5. ^ RED and silk Clothes are forbidden, From al-Baraa’ ibn ‘Aazib (may Allah be pleased with him): "The Prophet (saaws) forbade us to use soft red mattresses and qasiy – garments with woven stripes of silk." (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 5390)"
  6. ^ About Moustaches, Hadith - Bukhari 7:781, Narrated Ibn 'Umar, Allah's Apostle said, "Cut the moustaches short and leave the beard (as it is). "
  7. ^ About Moustaches Narrated Nafi' (Radhiallaahu Án) "Ibn Umar (Radhiallaahu Án) said, The Prophet (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) said, "Do the opposite of what the pagans do. Keep the beards and cut the moustaches short." Whenever Ibn 'Umar performed the Hajj or 'Umra, he used to hold his beard with his hand and cut whatever moustaches. Ibn Umar used to cut his moustache so short that the whiteness of his skin (above the upper lip) was visible, and he used to cut (the hair) between his moustaches and his beard
  8. ^ Early chroniclers say that the Kaaba was rebuilt during Muhammad's youth, and that there was some contention among the Quraysh, Mecca's ruling clan, as to who should have the honor of raising the Black Stone to its place in the new structure. Muhammad is said to have suggested that the Stone be placed on a cloak and that the various clan heads jointly lift the cloak and put the Stone into place.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad/Mediation_Archive_8&oldid=1137024935"