Talk:Muhammad: Difference between revisions
Moving image-related discussion to sub-page |
→Images: new section |
||
Line 185: | Line 185: | ||
can we have a section about the caricature controversy? especially with images. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/109.66.17.64|109.66.17.64]] ([[User talk:109.66.17.64|talk]]) 17:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
can we have a section about the caricature controversy? especially with images. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/109.66.17.64|109.66.17.64]] ([[User talk:109.66.17.64|talk]]) 17:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:No. This is the wrong article. There is extensive coverage in [[Depictions of Muhammad]]. <b>[[User:RaseaC|<span style="font-family:Eras Demi ITC; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">raseaC]]</span><sup>[[User talk:RaseaC|talk to me]]</sup></b> 17:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC) |
:No. This is the wrong article. There is extensive coverage in [[Depictions of Muhammad]]. <b>[[User:RaseaC|<span style="font-family:Eras Demi ITC; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">raseaC]]</span><sup>[[User talk:RaseaC|talk to me]]</sup></b> 17:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Images == |
|||
{{reqphoto}} |
|||
I dont see why we can't have images of muammid. wikipedia is not censored |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/82.25.130.155|82.25.130.155]] ([[User talk:82.25.130.155|talk]]) 07:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:01, 11 May 2010
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Muhammad article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 3 days |
Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad are allowed and will not be removed from this article, and removal of pictures without discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images will be reverted. If you find these images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display them. Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images. The FAQ below addresses some common points of argument, including the use of images and honorifics such as "peace be upon him". The FAQ represents the consensus of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read the FAQ first. |
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Muhammad. To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
Q1: Shouldn't all the images of Muhammad be removed because they might offend Muslims?
A1:
There is a prohibition of depicting Muhammad in certain Muslim communities. This prohibition is not universal among Muslim communities. For a discussion, see Depictions of Muhammad and Aniconism in Islam. Wikipedia is not bound by any religious prohibitions, and it is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view, and therefore Wikipedia is not censored for the sake of any particular group. So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the laws of locations where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Wikipedia because people find them objectionable or offensive. (See also: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.) Wikipedia does not single out Islam in this. There is content that may be equally offensive to other religious people, such as the 1868 photograph shown at Bahá'u'lláh (offensive to adherents of the Bahá'í Faith), or the account of Scientology's "secret doctrine" at Xenu (offensive to adherents of Scientology), or the account at Timeline of human evolution (offensive to adherents of young Earth creationism). Submitting to all these various sensitivities would make writing a neutral encyclopedia impossible.
Q2: Aren't the images of Muhammad false?
A2: No claim is made about the accuracy of the depictions of Muhammad. The artists who painted these images lived hundreds of years after Muhammad and could not have seen him themselves. This fact is made absolutely clear in the image captions. The images are duly presented as notable 14th- to 17th-century Muslim artwork depicting Muhammad, not as contemporary portraits. See Depictions of Muhammad for a more detailed discussion of Muslim artwork depicting Muhammad.
Similar artistic interpretations are used in articles for Homer, Charlemagne, Paul of Tarsus, and many other historical figures. When no accurate images (i.e. painted after life, or photographs) exist, it is a longstanding practice on Wikipedia to incorporate images that are historically significant artwork and/or typical examples of popular depictions. Using images that readers understand to be artistic representations, so long as those images illustrate the topic effectively, is considered to be more instructive than using no image at all. Random recent depictions may be removed as undue in terms of notability, while historical artwork (in this case, of the Late Medieval or Ottoman period) adds significantly to the presentation of how Muhammad was being topicalized throughout history. These depictions are not intended as factual representations of Muhammad's face; rather, they are merely artists' conceptions. Such portrayals generally convey a certain aspect of a particular incident, most commonly the event itself, or maybe the act, akin to the Western genre of history painting. The depictions are, thus, not meant to be accurate in the sense of a modern photograph, and are presented here for what they are: yet another form in which Muhammad was depicted. None of these pictures hold a central position in the article, as evident by their placement, nor are they an attempt to insult the subject. Several factions of Christianity oppose the use of hagiographic imagery (even to the point of fighting over it), but the images are still on Wikipedia, exactly for what they are—i.e. artistic renditions of said people.
Q3: How can I hide the images using my personal Wikipedia settings?
A3: If you do not wish to view Muhammad images, you can hide the depictions in this article from your personal account by following these steps:
Please note that this will not hide the images for other users, or from yourself if you log out of your account. Alternatives: If you do not have an account, and do not wish to register an account, you can disable all images on Wikipedia by going to the mobile version of the website (en.m.wikipedia.org), then going to "settings" and choosing "images off". You may also block a list of specified images, following the format of this example. Experienced JavaScript programmers can hide depictions of Muhammad on the desktop site using Greasemonkey or a similar tool.
Q4: Why does the infobox at the top of the article contain a stylized logo and not a picture of Muhammad?
A4: This has been discussed many times on Talk:Muhammad and many debates can be found in the archives. Because calligraphic depictions of Muhammad are the most common and recognizable worldwide, the current consensus is to include a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox and artists' depictions further down in the article. An RFC discussion confirmed this consensus.
Q5: Why is Muhammad's name not followed by (pbuh) or (saw) in the article?
A5: biography style guidelines recommend omitting all honorifics, such as The Prophet, (The) Holy Prophet, (pbuh), or (saw), that precede or follow Muhammad's name. This is because many editors consider such honorifics as promoting an Islamic point of view instead of a neutral point of view which Wikipedia is required to maintain. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) also recommends against the use of titles or honorifics, such as Prophet, unless it is the simplest and most neutral way to deal with disambiguation. When disambiguation is necessary, the recommended form is the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
Wikipedia's
Q6: Why does the article say that Muhammad is the "founder" of Islam?
A6: While the Muslim viewpoint about Muhammad is already presented in the article, a Wikipedia biography article should emphasize historical and scholarly viewpoints. The contention that Islam has always existed is a religious belief, grounded in faith, and Wikipedia cannot promote religious beliefs as facts. Because no religion known as "Islam" exists in any recorded history prior to Muhammad, and Muhammad created the conditions for Islam to spread by unifying Arabia into a single religious polity, he effectively founded the establishment of Islam as the dominant religion in the region. The word "founder" is used in that context, and not intended to imply that Muhammad invented the religion he introduced to Arabia.
Q7: Why does it look like the article is biased toward secular or "Western" references?
A7:
Accusations of bias toward Western references are often made when an objection is raised against the display of pictures of Muhammad or lack of honorifics when mentioning Muhammad. All articles on Wikipedia are required to present a neutral point of view. This neutrality is sometimes mistaken for hostility. Note that exactly the same guidelines apply to articles about Christianity or any other religion. In addition, this article is hosted on the English-language Wikipedia. While references in languages other than English are not automatically inappropriate, English-language references are preferred, because they are of the most use to the typical reader. This therefore predisposes the material used in this article to some degree (see WP:NONENG).
Q8: Why can't I edit this article as a new or anonymous user?
A8: Persistent disruption of the page has forced us to disable editing by anonymous editors and new accounts, while still allowing edits by more experienced users who are familiar with Wikipedia's editorial policies and guidelines. This is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future.
In any case, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License grants everybody the right to republish this article elsewhere, and even to modify it themselves, so long as the original authors (Wikipedia contributors) are also credited and the derivative work is distributed under the same license.
Q9: Can censorship be employed on Wikipedia?
A9: No. The official policy is that Wikipedia is not censored.
Q10: Because Muhammad married an underage girl, should the article say he was a pedophile?
A10:
This question has been actively discussed in Talk:Muhammad, and those discussions are archived. According to most traditional sources, Muhammad consummated his marriage to his third wife Aisha when she was nine years old. This was not considered unusual in Muhammad's culture and time period; therefore, there is no reason for the article to refer to Muhammad in the context of pedophilia.[1] Even today, in parts of the world, the legal age of consent is as young as eleven years old, or any age inside of a marriage. In any case, any modern controversy about Aisha's age is not best dealt with in a biography about Muhammad. See the articles on Aisha and Criticism of Muhammad § Aisha for further information.
|
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Muhammad has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 2, 2004, June 8, 2005, and June 8, 2006. |
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Muhammad article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 3 days |
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Problems With Introduction
Is it necessary to list Arabic text, Arabic translations, transliterations, so frequently? The first paragraph has so many things going on that it's unreadable. Look at the first sentence: "Mohammed was the founder of Islam." Do we really need 36 words to convey one simple thought? The Arabic text for "Mecca" and "Islam" are certainly not needed.
I would also argue that "He was also active as a diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, reformer, military general, and, according to Muslim belief, an agent of divine action[10]" isn't a good description of Mo. First, the writings of a 19th century French poet shouldn't be considered reliable sources for an encyclopedic article on a historical religious figure. Second, the author of the citation, Lamartine, didn't write "diplomat," or "mechant." Third, Laratine doesn't call Mo "an agent of divine action," so the supertext footnote should be moved, so that it follows "military general." And fourth, Laratime doesn't write that Mo was a general (I've never seen anyone bestow rank upon him); Laratine calls Mo a "guerrier," which I don't think translates to "military general." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.46.213 (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Correction Required in Article Regarding how to write paternity
Hi.. Please note I like to draw your attention that while writing paternity for muslim names there is an error which is as follows:
In article about Prophet Muhammad it writes Muhammad ibn Abdullah it should read Muhammad Bin Abdullah. It totally changes the whole relationship. Bin means Son Of and ibn means Father of. Like Abdullah ibn Muhammad..is correct..
I hope Iam able to convey my point. Similarly I have noticed when they write the names in arabic language same error is there. I do not know how to go to arabic letters and can explain how it effects with replacing a letter.. I know the letters but do not how to find in wikipedia.
I will be glad if some one can fix this error and others like imam abu hanifa article I am sure the same error is there.
Thanks
____
Abdullah ibn Muhammad is correct?? .. NO, ibn and bin or ben , are the same , they mean " son ", however , ben and bin are familiar, like slang... about, imam abu hanifa , means imam father of hanifa, not son of hanifa
if we say Abullah ibn Muhammad, that means, Abdullah is the son of Muhaùmmad
abu أبو = father
ibnu ابن , bin , ben بن = son
محمد ابن عبد الله = Muhammad ibn Abdellah
الإامام أبو حنيفة = imam abu hanifa
--- Correct, I concur, Ibn = ben = son Thanks
Correction required concerning Shahada
The First Half of The Shahada is missing, where Shahada is "I testify that there is no God but Allah, and I testify that Muhammad is a messenger of Allah" please add the missing part
- Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Archives missing?
When I go to archive 23, the newest I see above, I get discussions from 2008. Is there some error in the archiving function? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hrm, it seems to be dumping everything into Archive 22, and now that archive is massive. I'm not familiar with the archive settings, but I'll take a look and see what this involves. Tarc (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, seems that when miszabot was first added to this page, it was hard-set to archive to #22, which is now over 700k. It is easy enough to set the configs right, but it will take me a few steps to size down the super-sized #22 so things will be readable. Tarc (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Should be all set now. The most recent archives are in #23, and from this point forward it should create #24 and so on as needed. Tarc (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that was quick. Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Caricatures
can we have a section about the caricature controversy? especially with images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.17.64 (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- No. This is the wrong article. There is extensive coverage in Depictions of Muhammad. raseaCtalk to me 17:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Images
It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I dont see why we can't have images of muammid. wikipedia is not censored 82.25.130.155 (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia objectionable content
- Wikipedia good articles
- Philosophy and religion good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- GA-Class biography articles
- GA-Class biography (core) articles
- Core biography articles
- Top-importance biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class Islam-related articles
- Top-importance Islam-related articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- GA-Class Arab world articles
- Top-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles
- GA-Class Middle Ages articles
- Top-importance Middle Ages articles
- GA-Class history articles
- All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class biography (military) articles
- Military biography work group articles
- GA-Class Medieval warfare articles
- Medieval warfare task force articles
- GA-Class early Muslim military history articles
- Early Muslim military history task force articles
- Selected anniversaries (May 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2006)
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Wikipedia requested photographs