Talk:Muhammad/images: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:08, 30 March 2011

Important notice:

This page is solely for constructive discussion of how best to integrate images in the Muhammad page, within Wikipedia talkpage guidelines.

If you have come here to protest against the presence of images depicting Muhammad, please don't post here. Such objections have been raised before, and been given our consideration.
If you have come here to protest against how Muslims are trying to remove images of Muhammad from Wikipedia, please don't post here. That is not new either.
If you have come here to respond to those who have ignored point 1 and 2 above, please Do not feed the trolls and post a simple link to the FAQ instead.

A summary of the current consensus regarding pictures of Muhammad can be found at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. If you personally want to avoid seeing the images, you might want to read How to set your browser to not see images of Muhammad.

Suggestions are expected to be informed by Wikipedia guidelines, in particular Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Suggestions for an adaptation of standing guidelines are offtopic on this page and belong on Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers in articles or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).

Because of disruption and trolling, the Muhammad page can be edited only by established Wikipedia users. Please be polite and calm. Trolling or aggressive rhetoric either for or against the use of images will not be tolerated.

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad are allowed and will not be removed from this article. Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images. Removal of pictures without discussion will be reverted. If you find Muhammad images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser or use your personal Wikipedia settings not to display them, see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ.

The FAQ addresses some common points of argument, including the use of images and honorifics such as "peace be upon him". The FAQ represents prior consensus of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read the FAQ first.

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by .

Credibility

I question the credibility of this article since it does not follow the Islamic rules of depicting the prophets own image. By displaying an image of the prophet then you have discredited this entire article all together. comment added by HShaltout747

Please read: Wikipedia is not censored and the FAQ on Muhammad about why the pictures will not be removed. Jarkeld (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia is not bound by the rules of Islam. The article would have less credibility if it adhered only to an Islamic point of view. ~Amatulić (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amatulic, I'd say that these images reduce the credibility/quality of this article even from non-Muslim perspectives. Just compare if someone plastered images like this one all over the Mozart article. Wouldn't you agree that such images would reduce the quality of the Mozart article? I'm sure that most Mozart fans would find that unencyclopedic or even offensive. Similarly, one wonders why there are images from an obscure Children book that was drawn almost a 1000-years after the fact, like Siyer-i Nebi, all over the Muhammad article. Wiqixtalk 15:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That comparison might have merit if this article contained images from the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, but it doesn't. Siyer-i Nebi is a classic 16th century Ottoman manuscript (not a child's cartoon like the Mozart example) and the image provides a fascinating and informative view which couldn't be conveyed by text alone. What lacks credibility is complaints about historical images in an article about a historical person. Doc Tropics 16:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Tropics, actually Siyer-i Nebi is an obscure children book that was produced almost a 1000 years after the fact. Historical, yes, but still historically insignificant and irrelevant to the study of Muhammad himself. Also, since you claim that these images are informative, could you please explain in what sense (considering that they contain errors by showing Muhammad in Ottoman settings), and, more importantly, your positive assertion is based on which authority? Wiqixtalk 16:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a non-Muslim, I would say you could not possibly be more wrong. As an objective viewer interested in historical people, I would expect to see such depictions on this article, same as I would for any other significant person in history. To remove the images would destroy any expectation of reliability and neutrality, as I would immediately question what else has been changed, omitted or censored. I would therefore have no choice but to believe the article carries a biased point of view in that scenario. Reso lute 16:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolute, so you consider *all* articles about historical figures that lack images to be biased or censored? Is this for all articles or just a special treatment reserved for Muhammad? If it's a special treatment, then try to be neutral please, and remember that images conveying false information are being removed all the time. Also, your argument suffers from WP:Recentism because it assumes that a typical reader would think of censorship while reading this article. Why would they? Moreover, you're a heavily-involved editor in this battle, so by definition you're anything but "objective" (assuming that objectivity actually exists).

On the other hand, a typical reader, being not part of any battles, will think that such images are here because they were deemed notable (which is false), they effectively illustrate an event (false), historically significant (false), drawn by a Muslim (partly true/disputed/false), etc. This is what I thought when I first read this article a couple of months ago, which all turned out to be false or original research. I think for now it would be best to add a couple of tags to this article (and FAQ) just to warn readers of the high dosage of misinformation awaiting them. Wiqixtalk 22:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through this repeatedly with you, and as per usual, your personal POV is not supported by policy, logic, consensus or neutrality. I realize that you are simply going to try and re-fight the same lost battle every time a new thread is created on this talk page, so at this point I am going to deny you the opportunity by simply ignoring your arguments until you have something new to say. Hopefully others will too. Reso lute 22:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "personal POV", for I have already referred to 2-3 sources that support my claims. Here is another one. It's a book by Thomas Walker Arnold (full reference below). Arnold asserts that "pictures of Muhammad are so rare that some writers have even doubted the existence of any." (p.91) This supports my claim that these images are obscure. Arnold also describes the lack of pictorial religious art throughout Islamic history, which is a well-established historical fact. So despite the fact that Muhammad's history spans 1400-years that were overwhelmingly lacking in pictorial depictions of him, we see plenty in this article -- to the point of using multiple pages from the same obscure books and periods (a perfect example of giving undue space). Also contrary to what the FAQ claims that these images were drawn by Muslims, Arnold notes concerning the illustrators of Jami' al-Tawarikh that "we have no indications as to their nationality or religion". (p.94) Full reference below. Wiqixtalk 14:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold, Thomas W. (2002-11). Painting in Islam, a Study of the Place of Pictorial Art in Muslim Culture. Gorgias Press LLC. ISBN 9781931956918. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Referencing the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy problem, which means you have not understood the core of the crisis. Displaying an image of any of the 3 prophets is harmful to the islamic ways, what the Jyllands-Posten did was adding harm to misery. Again, i repeat my questioning, the writers have no background about islam, nor its traditions and have no respect whatsoever for the readers. I ask you to remove the entire post because of continued illiteracy regarding the topic. comment added by HShaltout747 —Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Around and around we go. Wikipedia isn't bound by Islam's rules. Islam-specific articles aren't bound by islam's rules, nor is any article bound by the rules of its subject (we are allowed, for example, to have an article on the Amish, with images, who frown on the use of computers and dislike having their picture taken.)

The pictures stay. --King Öomie 16:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think i diverted off and was replying somewhere else, I went to the Muhammad/Discussions (Edit request from 180.149.48.51, 26 October 2010). Keep the page and the images, but please understand, their incomplete unless you say the full truth about them, making it your responsibility in keeping them that way. Thank you for your time and your patience. PEACE!! HShaltout747 (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the "full truth" is that some people here are adamant that the "full truth" as should be printed on wikipedia reads "This hateful, awful image, created by an enemy of Islam, characterizes the sheer ignorance of the unfaithful". I think you can see why really any description along these lines isn't acceptable. We're not trying to discredit artists- the purpose of the pictures is to display how Mohammad has been portrayed in the past. --King Öomie 14:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kingoomieiii, I agree with your last point. That's why we have a "depiction of" article, which is perfectly appropriate for an encyclopedia. But adding images to the main article of Muhammad is not always appropriate. For instance, it's rather unencyclopedic to use images found in a children's book from a 1000 years after the fact to represent an influential historical battle like the conquest of Mecca. I've never seen such an awful editorial judgment in any other article on Wikipedia. Wiqixtalk 20:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the relevance of how long after Mohammad's death the painting was made. If you're making the argument that the source isn't notable enough to pull an image from, good luck, but otherwise I don't see your point, especially if you're trying to argue that the point of view of the author isn't 'correct'. Historical depictions aren't always picture-perfect (for example, anthropologically speaking, there is little to no chance that the historical Jesus was a white man, despite what nearly 100% of depictions would have you believe). --King Öomie 21:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kingoomieiii, the date of this specific book is relevant because it shows Muhammad in 16th-century Ottoman settings (i.e., as a person from 1000-years after the fact). Not very useful or informative in the context of this article. So I'm not arguing on the basis of "correctness", but appropriateness (encyclopedic or not, informative or not, given due space or not). Also, the Jesus comparison is not valid considering that, unlike the Jesus images, images of Muhammad were obscure and generally not influential. Wiqixtalk 15:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this argument entirely too many times, so let me be plainly clear.

It doesn't matter how long after the fact the images were made.
It doesn't matter that the images likely don't reflect what Mohammad actually looked like (and no one is saying they do).
Their lack of photorealism does not hurt their credibility as Historical Depictions of Mohammad in any way.
They will not be removed on the basis of this argument, or any form of this argument. Really.

I'd like to put a pin in this topic now, as it's entirely fruitless. --King Öomie 15:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These Images are extremely offensive.

Islam strictly prohibits any photography or drawing faces of a human and leads to the worse punishments in Hell. Even more if you are drawing the images of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). This is extremely offensive to us Muslims. We said many times to people do not draw any pictures of the Holy prophet yet you throw this regard over your shoulder and post it unto your profile. The Ottoman empire wasn't even considered a caliphate empire of Islam rather an empire of it own. Whoever has done this must have done this in secret and who ever shows this isn't improving any details of the life and message of our Holy Prophet(pbuh). If you want you can take pictures of Mosques or sceneries of Battles or even Maps showing how where and how Islam spread you may do so but posting up pictures showing nothing of significance besides the bodies of Gabriel(pbuh) and our Holy Prophet(pbuh) is strictly prohibited and offensive to Islam and the followers of that faith. We do not own wikipedia and we don't operate it but the most we can do it talk in this page. Please remove these pictures. Thousands of Muslims watching this are in stress!

P.S A troll is someone who is offensive regardlessly. Any Muslim trying to express on this certain page isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul3basid (talk • contribs) 01:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. You're not a troll, as you're obviously sincere. And thank you for being polite. That said, you haven't really given a good reason why the images should be removed. Everything stresses or offends somebody; if we were to remove things on those grounds, there'd be nothing left.—Chowbok ☠ 01:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you haven't read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Please do so. The images aren't "extremely offensive", they are offensive only to you, because you decided it was so, or were told it was so. We all have a choice about what offends us. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Koran does not prohibit such images (though it does prohibit worshiping them). The Koran also clearly states that what is not prohibited is permitted. So - these images are permitted here - and you are not permitted to worship them. OK? And if it makes you feel any better, I promise not to worship any of these images, either. Rklawton (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?

"Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit 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 law of the U.S. state of Florida, where most of Wikipedia's servers are hosted" - So if the laws of U.S. said that you cannot depict some one, then you would abide by, but not if the laws of Islam says so? NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.220.164 (talk) 06:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, what that means is that the only laws Wikipedia abides by are those that govern its servers. That's not optional, Wikipedia has no choice in the matter if it doesn't want to be sued. It doesn't follow any other laws, religious or secular. NPOV doesn't apply. Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, beyond sued. If the Foundation started hosting child pornography or some similarly illegal content, they'd be arrested and the server hardware seized. But, for the record, there are no Florida laws forbidding the depiction of particular historical figures, so we're in the clear of your hypothetical "gotcha" question. Doug is correct, by the way- NPOV refers to editorial decisions, not legal ones (WHAT we print, not what we're ALLOWED to print). --King Öomie 07:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew if I monitored this page for enough years that someone would someday come up with an original argument for removing the images. Thanks for that. Yes, if Wikipedia were hosted in another country, the legal content would be different, but that isn't the same thing as editorial policy. I note that the Persian Wikipedia has no problem showing images of Muhammad. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite see how this is an original argument. Of course if our servers were in Iran, things would be different, but it would also be a sign of rather questionable judgement on Wikimedia's part to put its servers in under the jurisdiction of a theocratic regime. It is no coincidence that the concept of an encyclopedia is connected with the Age of Enlightenment. We should not forget that in spite of all cultural relativism, there are places where free thought is possible, and other places where it is repressed, and Wikipedia as well as all of the internet is a product of the former. If you don't like the godless libertarian west, what on earth are you doing on the internet in the first place? And I am not just talking about Islam. conservapedia is just as ironic a project. --dab (𒁳) 21:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the argument is "original" in the sense that I hadn't seen it before, whereas all other requests to remove the images have been based on the same tired old arguments already addressed in the FAQ. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wowsers, it's amazing that after all these years, editors are still popping in, calling for the deletion of the images. GoodDay (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong. I am not asking for removal of the pictures. I do agree that knowledge and art should be shared and recorded without restrictions, and if laws are to be violated for that reason then they should be violated. I am just asking for clarification whether Wikipedia should be claiming that they are completely neutral while they do not adhere to Muslim laws but adhere to U.S. laws. Muslim laws are valid anywhere in the world as long as the person being subjected to adheres to it, even in Florida. Since, Wikipedia is actively deciding not to adhere certain laws, and to adhere other ones, it should be made clear in the policies what counts as an acceptable law to wikipedia and what does not. For example, (despiting being from a Muslim family and a largely Muslim society) my mother does not adhere to laws regarding 'acceptable Muslim women clothing' because she think that law is wrong and unacceptable; but this means she am making a decision of "good or bad" and wikipedia is doing the same. My question is, what's Wikipedia's "good or bad" policy in regards to the laws they abide by? Who and how made the decision to not abide by Muslim laws, but abide by Florida laws? [for clarification, I am the same anonymous user above]

And, by the way, before you start throwing big phrase like 'godless libertarian west' and "age of enlightenment" without knowing anything about other cultures, United States prohibited images of dead united states soldiers throughout the wars in the last ten years and web sites have been shut down for violating that law in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.220.161 (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The decision to abide by US and Florida law is a practical not a ethical or moral choice. Breach of US law could result in real world repercussions including the seizure of the servers themselves. The only thing that I know of that Wikipedia really censors because of the location of the servers is child pornography. It is theoretically possible that there might be a location for the servers that would allow more freedom of speech, but I don't know where that would be. There are no laws in the US forbidding sharing pictures of dead US soldiers and they are all over the internet including websites with servers located in the US. --Leivick (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My information on the images of soldiers was slightly wrong. the law was revoked in 2004 : http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/apr/23/Iraqandthemedia.pressandpublishing

Would wikipedia have published images of dead U.S. soldiers before 2004? Probably not. But why so? What if U.S. got involved in another war and revived the ban? Would wikipedia remove the images? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.220.161 (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows if Wikipedia would have published the images if they had been leaked? We certainly would have discussed it and I actually think we probably would have, if there was an encyclopedic purpose. There was never a law against showing these images, there was a DOD policy against releasing them which which actually happened to violate US law and the DOD was forced to share pictures taken by its own photographers. In any case showing pictures of Muhammad is both legal in the US and serves an encyclopedic purpose, so I see zero problem using them. --Leivick (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that Wikipedia "chooses" to follow some laws and not others, rather WP follows ALL laws which can be legally enforced against it, and no others. After all, you don't expect Italians living in Italy to follow French law do you? Or expect Canadians at home to abide by Japanese law? Or Jews in Israel to live by Sharia law? The laws of the U.S. and Florida can be enforced because our servers are located there; Florida is our "home" so to speak, so we abide by those laws, but no others. Doc Tropics 01:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the point is Wikipedia isn't neutral because it must follow US laws. Point taken. Wikipedia is neutral when neutrality doesn't conflict with US (and Florida) laws. We aren't going to start violating US laws or move our servers to a lawless country in order to maintain some sort of global neutrality. Make a note of that on the relevant Five Pillars page and move on. Rklawton (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message from 175.106.60.185

Come-on dear! there is a big difference between a Christian and Christianity and big difference between a Muslim and Islam. If you want to know the position of any religion about anything you have to refer to the Scriptures. Now according to the Quran and Hadith(Teachings of the Prophet P.B.U.H) we cannot draw the pictures of our Prophet and the prominent companions of the Prophet P.B.U.H.

There are many wrong things that some Muslims are doing, but we cannot associate it to Islam.

My request is that If wikipedia can bring any quotation from Quran or Teachings of our Prophet P.B.U.H, then you can put any pictures, but there is no quotation that allows those pictures on that page. For us Muslims to draw picture of Prophets is a Bigger Sin.

Please wikipedians, Anything in Wikipedia is brought through a reference. You guys cannot put pictures of people without their permission. Do you guys have any reference from our Quran and Hadith that gives you permission to put fake pictures of our Prophet?

I like wikipedia, I have tried my best to help wikipedia not by posting or editing here but some other ways, It is all because Wikipedia's policy is neutral, so does neutral mean putting fake pictures of our Prophet P.B.U.H. I am very sorry, why are you hurting our feelings and Ideology.

To put the picture of an actor or actress, you have to get permission or find free pictures of him or her, but Muhammad P.B.U.H is the Prophet of a more than Billion muslims, almost all muslims are protesting, but can you please give a reference to prove posting such fake pictures.

Thanks with a hope that wikipedians will not hurt our feelings anymore.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.106.60.185 (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your message down here. Since you made a lot of lines, I assumed it was meant to be a separate entry. Sorry if it was indeed meant to be attached to the text it was posted below.

Anyway, this is an article about Muhammed as a person, with a lot of details on the religious aspect of him as a historical figure, though there is a page that deals with the Islamic account of Muhammed. All pages on Wikipedia must be written from a secular point of view, that is to say that you will not find critical information on cults/religions or other kinds of businesses censored on behalf of the people/organisation that the article is about. We simply don't need their permission, because if we did, then Wikipedia would be worthless as each article would be what the subjects of the article wanted it to be. An article on Scientology ould be exclusively about the crimes of psychiatry and all the good things about L Ron Hubbard, an article on slavery would conform to the viewpoint of Neo-Confederates, and so on, so on. As such, Wikipedia is not subject to social norms, religious dogma, or censorship on behalf of the subject of the article. Now, that is not to say in the least that Muslims cannot edit Islamic articles, or Scientologists Scientilogy-related articles. The whole idea is to source the info to reliable third-party sources. If the images' origins were unknown, their authors unknown, and the pictures not historically/culturally significant, then you would be well within your right to question their inclusion.

In this particular case, neutrality means that we can't submit to religious pressure because Wikipedia is a secular project; religious norms and values have no power here. It doesn't matter if the paintings are not accurate, because they tell a lot about how Muhammed was viewed artistically by the Ottomans, the Persians, and even the Russians(drawing on origins of the pictures in this article). The Jesus article has images of Jesus, too, and we know Jesus was not white as he's portrayed, and yet, those images still have cultural and historical value. As far as getting permission goes -- Paintings are not copyrighted as far as I understand. The images in this article have been obtained from their respective sources with legal permission. Other than that, there's something called fair use that applies here -- Images can be used to illustrate the subject matter, but I'm not very knowledgeable on this particular subject; I try to stay out of anything copyright-related. I hope I answered your question or at least clarified things a bit. Eik Corell (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Quran does not prohibit making images of Muhammad, so I find it sad that someone who is passionate about their faith would dare change even a word of their holy book. The Quran does say very clearly "that which is not forbidden is permitted". So yes, it's permitted to make images - especially for teaching. Isn't that what Muhammad wanted - teaching? It is, of course, forbidden to worship images - any images, so please take care not to worship any of the images you might see here (if you're Muslim). And the Hadith? No one should give a hadith precedence over the Quran. Also note that not all Muslim sects follow all hadiths - they pick and choose. Rklawton (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Singling out Muhammad for special treatment is a form of idolatry. And to my understanding, idolatry is prohibited by the Qur'an. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the Quran does single out Muhammad for special treatment in a couple of places. For example, unlike any other man, the Quran made it clear that absolutely no one was permitted to marry one of his wives after he died. So in that sense, the Quran elevated Muhammad to something above a man. Rklawton (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amatulić, the only special treatment I see is maintaining images that convey wrong information and violate WP:DUE, and it's only happening in this article. Otherwise, could you name one other article about an important historical figure that contains multiple and historically insignificant images that show him/her as a person from 1000 years after the fact? Wiqixtalk 19:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How are the images historically insignificant? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest Blasphamy against Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) on Wikipedia

the images shown in this article come in the issue of blasphemy please remove the images which is someones imagination not the reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahadaziz85 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a link at the top of the page that explains why those pictures are there--also, there is a very helpful explanation there about how you can change a setting in your preferences so that you will not need to see the images. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wikipedians, what is going on.. Please remove the pictures of the cartoon guy on this article. They are not our beloved Prophet P.B.U.H. Why do you guys want the muslim countries to ban Wikipedia. Please remove the pictures, please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warsaji (talk • contribs) 18:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no cartoons on this pag, only historical images, some of which were made by muslims. Jarkeld (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that calling the paintings "cartoons" is the new talking point of those who wish to force Wikipedia to remove the pictures of Muhammad. In the past month or two there have been multiple individuals using almost identical language to put forth a lame new "cartoon" angle to this whole brouhaha. Referring to the the painted representations of Muhammad that are featured in this article as cartoons is akin to claiming South Park's depiction of Jesus Christ is no different than Rembrandt's "The Storm on the Sea of Galilee"; a "Bart Simpson as Mozart" picture linked above is used in a particularly stupid attempt to make such an asinine comparison. Of course it should come as no surprise that Muslims are trying to force everyone else to adhere to the norms of their religion. After all that is THE hallmark of modern-day Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.97 (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are illustrations, not paintings. Comparing them to famous paintings is rather off mark. Furthermore, Siyer-i Nebi was a book that was written for didactic purposes, using a simple and direct language, and with the intention of emphasizing basic values, like honesty and courage. It was probably intended for a younger audience, perhaps for teaching young and prospective Sultans (a very important factor in Ottoman court). We also know that the team of painters who illustrated the book (although their individual identities have been disputed) were famous for illustrating simple romances. Now, considering the target audience of this book, and other low-quality features, like showing Muhammad in contemporary Ottoman settings, it doesn't seem far fetched to compare them to cartoons, and certainly they are not useful or informative in the context of this article (which is the main point that others have continually failed to address). Wiqixtalk 09:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come-on dear! there is a big difference between a Christian and Christianity and big difference between a Muslim and Islam. If you want to know the position of any religion about anything you have to refer to the Scriptures. Now according to the Quran and Hadith(Teachings of the Prophet P.B.U.H) we cannot draw the pictures of our Prophet and the prominent companions of the Prophet P.B.U.H.

There are many wrong things that some Muslims are doing, but we cannot associate it to Islam.

My request is that If wikipedia can bring any quotation from Quran or Teachings of our Prophet P.B.U.H, then you can put any pictures, but there is no quotation that allows those pictures on that page. For us Muslims to draw picture of Prophets is a Bigger Sin.

Please wikipedians, Anything in Wikipedia is brought through a reference. You guys cannot put pictures of people without their permission. Do you guys have any reference from our Quran and Hadith that gives you permission to put fake pictures of our Prophet?

I like wikipedia, I have tried my best to help wikipedia not by posting or editing here but some other ways, It is all because Wikipedia's policy is neutral, so does neutral mean putting fake pictures of our Prophet P.B.U.H. I am very sorry, why are you hurting our feelings and Ideology.

To put the picture of an actor or actress, you have to get permission or find free pictures of him or her, but Muhammad P.B.U.H is the Prophet of a more than Billion muslims, almost all muslims are protesting, but can you please give a reference to prove posting such fake pictures.

Thanks with a hope that wikipedians will not hurt our feelings anymore.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.106.60.185 (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...if as you say, you are a regular Wikipedia user, you will already know the answer and should not be surprised. DeCausa (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any "blasphemy against Islam" here, it is on the part of the "Muslims" who are turning Muhammad into an object of religious taboo and worship. If you know anything about Islam and Muhammad's teachings, you would realize that he did not want to be worshipped as a deity. That honour was to be reserved for God alone. The entire reason depictions of Muhammad were discouraged was to prevent people from creating idols of the prophet and worshipping them.

All this prancing about with the worship of Muhammad and the religious taboos associated with him is simply poor Islam. You want to be a Muslim, please go and do your homework and learn what the message of Muhammad was in the first place. --dab (𒁳) 11:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That echoes something I've been wanting to say for a while. The prohibition against images is, as I understand it, intended to prevent idolatry. However, by singling out Muhammad for special treatment, Muslims are, in fact, practicing idolatry already, so the presence of these images has nothing to do with the "idolatry" argument.. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the Muslim argument goes like this: if you're not allowed to spread false information about Muhammad in verbal form, then you shouldn't be allowed to do it in image form. The keyword here is conveying false information about Muhammad, and almost every image in this article testifies to this (e.g., angles being female contrary to the teachings of Qur'an, Muhammad belonging to Chinese-Mongolian tradition contrary to primary sources stating he was an Arab, Kaaba and surroundings shown in Ottoman settings as opposed to 7th-century Arabia, etc). It is thus blasphemy because the closer you examine those images the less you learn about Muhammad and his teachings. Wiqixtalk 21:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument can be made about any image of Jesus (e.g. false information, always portrayed as Caucasian, etc.). And yet, there's a fundamental difference: Christians seem to recognize that depictions of Jesus are simply depictions, and they recognize depictions that are intended as respectful. The Muslims that come here to complain evidently don't have that understanding. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't really presenting an argument. I was only stating that some Muslims think blasphemy is a form of misinformation, which was not considered by you or dab (to put it bluntly, your claims that the prohibition "just" intended to prevent idolatry is false). As for the Jesus comparison, you shouldn't ignore the fact the images of Jesus are notable, had religious functions, and used to decorate churches throughout history. These facts should explain why Christians are more used to seeing images in Jesus. Conversely, images of Muhammad are neither notable nor historically significant. According to a source I cited, they were extremely rare throughout history that some historians thought they did not even exist. If you ignore notability, ignore reliable sources, and keep repeating false claims about blasphemy in Islam, people will complain and ask for those images to be removed or reduced. Also, most of them were drawn by artists not known to have been Muslims (contrary to what the FAQ claims). So the FAQ needs to change too. All in all, these are valid reasons to complain about, and none of which are applicable to other articles. Wiqixtalk 00:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone against pictures of Muhammad...sign here

Here's an idea. Rather than continually getting new threads from those opposed to pictures of Muhammad appearing in this article, why don't those opposed to the pictures just put their request here. It can then just be archived regularly. For these people...the answer is 'no'. For the reasons why, please look at the box at the top of this page with this in it: DeCausa (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SIGN HERE:

That won't stop them from making requests. There's already a number of online petitions about Muhammad images in this article. We ignore them too. It would be simpler just to direct people there. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and consensus can always change. There may be a valid reason someone has for removing them.--Adam in MO Talk 03:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. Images have been removed from this article in the past for valid reasons. See, for example, Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 17#Proposed removal of deliberately provocative images. Most of the time, however, invalid reasons are proposed, over and over ad nauseam, by Muslims who are personally offended because they were taught to be offended. WP:IDONTLIKEIT and other arguments are amply addressed in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree with you but, if the disclaimer at the top won't stop them than neither will this. This talk page, the disclaimer and the FAQ are as good as it will get.--Adam in MO Talk 00:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complain

Muhammad's (PBUH) Pictures should be removed as these are not allowed According to Islam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.74.25 (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above, thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 2.120.26.236, 3 February 2011

remove these pictures now {{edit semi-protected}} The article about Muhammad has images where he is shown in the pictures. This is blasphemy and in Islam we are strictly against any images to be made about our Prophet. We find it extremely offensive and such acts cannot be tolerated therefore dear respected user, please take off these images immediately and change it to images of Masjid al-Haram (situated in Makkah), or even Masjid al-Aqsa instead of fake images of our beloved Prophet. Thank you for your sincere attention.

2.120.26.236 (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Discussed at length in past. See notice at top of this page. DeCausa (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an organized campaign to fill up this page with these requests? These editors seem unwilling to read the notices before posting. It's as if they are blindly following orders.- Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it - it's not very 'organized' if it is. I think it's just a strongly held view. They have prompted me to think about the choice/no. of images in the article. The focus has been on why the pics should not be removed rather why they are there. I've skimmed through the archives and couldn't track down why these particular choices were made. Does anyone who was involved at the time remember? It does occur to me that the choice of the 5 Ilkhanid and Ottoman pictures and the Russian painting may be a little... problematic. It seems to me that, as a generality, there would be three reasons to chose an image: to show what the person actually looked like (not applicable); to show what they might have looked like - typical style of dress etc (not applicable to most, as Ottoman/Ilkhanid styles are shown - perhaps applies to the Russian paninting); and to show what the prevalent cultural image of that person is, eg as with Jesus (mostly not applicable - since by definition there is no cultural image in general. The images shown are representative of 2 relatively narror cultural sources). It's made me wonder whether it should be reduced to say one Ilkhanid or Ottoman picture and the Russian picture, otherwise it's making me think it is a little 'undue'. But I'd be interested if someone could point out where this is discussed in the archive. Thanks. 14:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to see links to the discussion. Sometimes it feels like we keep them just to to prove we're not censored. I'm not saying we should take them down, but I'd like to here the justification for keeping them specifically in this article, especially since, as DeCausa notes, they don't all seem necessary. On the other hand, as long as we have even a single picture here, I imagine we'll get the same complaints, so it's not like taking some down will solve the problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple depictions in the article for the same reason there are multiple depictions of Jesus in the article about him. No one sat down with Muhammad or Jesus, drew his portrait then had him sign off on it. None of the images of either are considered to be completely faithful physical depictions. They do however give us important information as to how he has been represented by a variety of different cultures in different time periods.

The only reason images should ever be removed of either is if they are giving a misleadingly disproportionate weight to a particular artist or culture's representation. There are thousands of pictures of Jesus. If you picked all of the pictures of him drawn as a Native American from some obscure American artist in the 20th Century, that would be misleading and clearly not an accurate portrayal of how he has been represented over the course of history. There aren't many images of Muhammad, so there is more justification in taking them from a limited number of sources. If anything could improve the article it would actually be more pictures giving a broader view of how he has been portrayed in various significant populations.

One thing that seems to be getting ignored here is that the number of protests against the inclusion of these images indicates that they are considered representative of Muhammad to even the current Muslim community. None of the captions say "This is Muhammad." They say this is a depiction of him in such and such painting from such and such culture. Given that, the only possible argument for blasphemy is that the images actually do represent him in the view of the offended, which is their purpose.. to show how he has been typically represented.

Of course see also Talk:Muhammad/FAQ which covers most of this in more detail.

--184.232.188.80 (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forget 'blasphemy', that's irrelevant to my point - and, no, the FAQ doesn't cover this in any sort of detail. And I think you've missed the point entirely - this issue isn't about whether the images actualy look like Muhammad. Regarding Jesus, you say "They do however give us important information as to how he has been represented by a variety of different cultures in different time periods." This is NOT what the images of Muhammad in this article give us. The analogy you give of pictures of Jesus "as a Native American from some obscure American artist in the 20th Century" is actually, ironically, quite close I think to what we have here. A much more representative selection of 'images' of Muhammad would actually be his name in calligraphy, as in the infobox. DeCausa (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

images

dont you think that you should have an image of Muhammad at the top? every other biography page has one. --27.3.102.174 (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Do you have a photo you can share? Rklawton (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use one of the pictures that are at the bottom of the page. --27.3.102.174 (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical articles use an image at the top of the article when a likeness exists. In this case, no likeness exists. Rklawton (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true the why did you say "Absolutely. Do You have a photo you can share?" and now you come up with another stupid reason... --27.3.102.174 (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a sarcastic was of saying "Only photos go at the top of a biography". I highly doubt you (or anyone) has a photograph of Muhammad. --King Öomie 14:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, we put drawings and other depictions at the top wherever we have them. In short, just about everyone who predates the age of photography. The only reason there is no such depiction at the top of this article is as a small nod to Muslims who oppose using images of Muhammad. We won't censor the article by removing all such depictions, but it was decided some time ago to editorially arrange them in this fashion. Reso lute 15:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'It offends people', is a weak excuse for not having a picture at the top. Check the Jesus article, that subject's got a picture at the top. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is (or should be) more than a "nod to Muslims". I'm increasingly coming to the view that these images are somewhat problematic and that focusing the argument on WP:NOTCENSORED (bacause of the Muslim reaction) has stunted a "normal" discussion on the images value. I posted on this in an earlier thread but that didn't really go anywhere. I'll cut and paste the main point: "It seems to me that, as a generality, there would be three reasons to chose an image: to show what the person actually looked like (not applicable); to show what they might have looked like - typical style of dress etc (not applicable to most, as Ottoman/Ilkhanid styles are shown - perhaps applies to the Russian paninting); and to show what the prevalent cultural image of that person is, eg as with Jesus (mostly not applicable - since by definition there is no cultural image in general. The images shown are representative of 2 relatively narror cultural sources)." I think the representation of Muhammad in calligraphy in the infobox actually satisfies the third justification of an "image" since that is the overwhelmingly preponderent way of representing him. There's a real discussion to be had on this but it's been drowned out by the "Islamic" v. "not censored" positions. DeCausa (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-posted this on the main Talk pageDeCausa (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it doesn't belong there. Image discussions belong on this page, so cross posting will serve only to split the discussion unnecessarily. And sorry, but we have had a "normal" discussion on the value of the images. We have, in fact, had several that are littered throughout the archives. In fact, every single point you have raised has been discussed repeatedly, and rejected repeatedly. Reso lute 16:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly,no need to be so aggressive. I'm asking the question more than anything. Secondly, I posted above asking where in archives this was discussed (having looked and found only a handful of brief superficial postings on that particular aspect), and no one (including you) had the courtesy to reply. Thirdly, I don't know why you bothered to post such a message without identifying where in the archive that discussion was held - your posting was pointless. Fourthly, I don't care how many times it was discussed before, it's not been discussed lately and consensus can change. So, all in all your reply was a waste of your time to write and my time to read. DeCausa (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'It might offend people', is never a good reason for any type of censurship. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is ...? The article has images of Muhammad. There is no representative image of Muhammad in existence that would be appropriate for the top of the article, because historical images of Muhammad are rare. It makes sense for the most common pictorial representation (in this case, calligraphic) be shown at the top of the article. The fact that Muslims would be somehow less offended by showing pictures of Muhammad further down the article is really irrelevant. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There should be an image at the top. William the Conquerer, Jesus, Pope Leo I etc etc, have theirs at the top of their respective articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument. And this article does have an image at the top. See my previous comment. If you want an actual depiction of Muhammad there, you should offer a better reason than "other articles have it". ~Amatulić (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that "it might offend", is a poor excuse. GoodDay (talk)

05:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The picture at the top of any biographical article should be a symbol people use to the person with. In George Washington's case, the picture used is an accurate portrait of him. In Jesus' case, the picture is a symbolic image that is not accurate, but still relevant since it is an extremely common image of Jesus. Unlike with Jesus, there is no common image people associate Mohammed with, except for perhaps his name. At least, that calligraphy of Mohammed's name is much more recognizable than any of the relatively unknown caricatures in this article. And by the way, WP:NOTCENSORED exists so that no content is removed for the sole reason of being offensive. The purpose of that rule is to make sure information is preserved, not to deliberately offend people. Everyone already knows offensive stuff is allowed on Wikipedia; you don't need to explain that. Instead give actual reasons why changing the image to one of Mohammed would be helpful. Parthian Scribe 21:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parthian scribe is right: if the calligraphy is the most common image, it's usable as an image at the top of the page. None of the other images fit the bill in that regard. Jarkeld (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are these Muhammad's(pbuh) pictures?

Whats the proof that this image is Muhammad's(pbuh)? Are everyone sure that he looked like this? As long as I know, no picture of him was drawn and there were also no sculpture. So, as this are not authentic and has a lot of chance of getting mislead-ed. Wrong information should not be given to a place like this. e.g. No one is sure that if Muhammad (pbuh)was a person of light skin tone or a dark one. But the pictures given here indicate him to be slightly white. And this is surely misleading. So, I am requesting these pictures to be removed as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnab1996 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. No one is saying these are photographs. These are historical depictions of Muhammad, and like the depictions over at Jesus, they're probably not accurate. They're not going anywhere, and certainly not for that reason. --King Öomie 17:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images (but not the "Muslim" or "WP:NOTCENSORED" viewpoints)

I know this should go on the Images Talk page but it's difficult to get a discussion going there because it's pretty much ignored (due to postings of the usual requests). I hope thius can be left here for a short while anyway because I wanted to raise a different point. Here is a post I made on that page:

"I'm increasingly coming to the view that these images are somewhat problematic and that focusing the argument on WP:NOTCENSORED (bacause of the Muslim reaction) has stunted a "normal" discussion on the images value. I posted on this in an earlier thread but that didn't really go anywhere. I'll cut and paste the main point: "It seems to me that, as a generality, there would be three reasons to chose an image: to show what the person actually looked like (not applicable); to show what they might have looked like - typical style of dress etc (not applicable to most, as Ottoman/Ilkhanid styles are shown - perhaps applies to the Russian paninting); and to show what the prevalent cultural image of that person is, eg as with Jesus (mostly not applicable - since by definition there is no cultural image in general. The images shown are representative of 2 relatively narror cultural sources)." I think the representation of Muhammad in calligraphy in the infobox actually satisfies the third justification of an "image" since that is the overwhelmingly preponderent way of representing him. There's a real discussion to be had on this but it's been drowned out by the "Islamic" v. "not censored" positions."

It's slightly expanded in this thread. Any thoughts? DeCausa (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't just three reasons to choose an image. A fourth reason would be to provide an illustration of an historical event. A fifth reason would be to create a visual break-up of a monotonous flow of text with an image that has relevance to that text. Both of these purposes add value to an article, they are valid, and applicable to this article.

The only reason the images generate controversy is because some Muslims choose to be offended by them — for which the counterargument is WP:NOTCENSORED. Take all that discussion out of the talk page archives and you have almost nothing left. The real question is, do the images add value to the article? From my point of view, when I read through the article from my non-Muslim perspective, I would give a resounding "yes". ~Amatulić (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh...> I don't want to get involved in this debate at the moment, but I have to point out the NOTCENSORED is intended to preserve the ability of the encyclopedia to present necessary information in articles. It is not carte blanche for indulging every little bit of prurience and crapulence that wikipedia editors might enjoy (because - unfortunately - wikipedia by its open nature is a bottomless pit of petty prurience and crapulence). there is no necessary reason to show an image of the prophet in this article, and any argument one might give for doing so will ultimately boil down to ILIKEIT, and do I really need to comment on the poverty of common sense that puts an ILIKEIT rationale ahead of offense to hundreds of thousands of other people? like I said: petty crapulence. --Ludwigs2 18:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said for any image on Wikipedia. WP:NOTCENSORED says nothing whatsoever about including only "necessary" information. That would violate the purpose of a project intended to be encyclopedic, useful, and interesting. Including relevant information is what WP:NOTCENSORED is all about (read it). Furthermore, let's stick to the topic. WP:NOTCENSORED is a side issue in this thread. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've added two further reasons to my three. ("A fourth reason would be to provide an illustration of an historical event. A fifth reason would be to create a visual break-up of a monotonous flow of text with an image that has relevance to that text.") On the illustration of a historical event, by the nature of the stylistic approach (the paintings are art not journalism) I think it's difficult, again with the exception of the Russian painting, to argue that they are very informative depictions of an event. With regard to your fifth reason, I think that has always to be a minor one and I think that it is reasonable to say that this reason must be subject to not giving offence (since it is so minor in an encyclopedia). I notice that you didn't argue that the pictures are acceptable under the three reasons I give. I'm left feeling a little uncomfortable with our rationale for having these pictures. Is it just about defying a POV and defending WP:NOTCENSORED? You say you give a "resounding yes" to "do they add value". I'm not really seeing it at the moment. DeCausa (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings of historical events are never journalism. I'm surprised you would make that argument. Go to any royal palace in Europe and look at the ceiling murals depicting key battles in the country's history. They are artwork, intended to glorify a specific subject. Nobody ever claims they adhere to any standard of journalistic accuracy. And they need not do so (one particular ceiling of the royal palaces in France and Sweden, for example, depict the same battle scene between Sweden and France, commissioned by the same artist, but with different emphasis to please the customer). The point is that they depict an historical event. My fourth reason was "to provide an illustration of an historical event". The images serve that purpose, and they serve that purpose very well.

Don't belittle the value of creating a break in the monotony of lengthy text. You may regard this as minor, but it isn't. Just seeing an image or two in a section can make a person more willing to read the section. Even if I don't look at the images, the visual effect keeps the interest up. Like many other human beings, I tend to skip over walls o' text. An article's ability to inform a reader should not be overridden by the fact that some readers may find an image offensive. The images are not disrespectful, many Muslims have no problem with them, and we have mechanisms for readers to avoid seeing them, so "it might offend someone" is a bogus argument.

I felt no need to argue the reasons you presented because I don't agree with them. The two reasons I proposed boil down to "are they pertinent and encyclopedic in nature" (see WP:IMAGES) and "do they make the article interesting". To the images here, I would give a resounding "yes". This is my benchmark to weigh the value of any image in any article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point on "art not journalism" wasn't a general one (of course works of art, as in the one's you mention, give a particular perspective). I was pointing out that these ones specifically are highly stylized and it's difficult to actually see what's happening in them. I agree with your other point about "walls of text" - but that's not what I was suggesting. There's no reason to have that - other pictures could be included. Because they don't satisfy any of the three reasons I first mentioned, I'm having difficulty seeing that they add much to the reader's understanding of the subject. DeCausa (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel the same way about the depiction of Jesus on the Jesus page? thx1138 (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No (a point I've already made in my first post). DeCausa (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is an illustrated article better than a wall of text? Yes. Do these pictures represent events discussed in the text? Yes. Will the article be better without them? No. No reason to remove except "I dont like" IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but that seems to ignore (or suggest you haven't read) the above points. DeCausa (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and do not agree with to your arguments. Illustrated articles are better than non-illustrated articles, these illustrationas are relevant, and removing them does not improve the article. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't say that this article shouldn't have illustrations. I agree illustrated articles are better than non-illustrated. DeCausa (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that everyone move away from the horse. It's dead, and it's not rising again. We have a big blurb at the top of the page and a separate talk page for this anyway. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the archives on the image question and cannot find where this has been properly discussed. It's all bogged down in Islamic view v Notcensored (both of which are irrelevant to the point I'm raising). I've also asked anyone involved at the time where in the archive this is discussed - no one has. If you know, point it out. The blurb at the top also doesn't address the point I'm raising. DeCausa (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already addressed it, but not directly. Pardon me for speaking in a roundabout way. I contend that the illustrations add exactly as much to this article as the illustrations on Jesus add to that article. This is an article about Mohamed. The images in this article are images of Mohamed created by Muslims, just as the images in the Jesus article are images of Jesus created by Christians. The images don't tell us anything about the men themselves, but they do tell us something about the people who created them. thx1138 (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the reliable source we have, 3 or 4 of the images in this article are not known to have been drawn by Muslims. It is disputed, and the article as it stands gives the wrong impression. Wiqi55 (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this is EXACTLY my point of concern. What you say is correct about Jesus. That is a culturally relevant image, reflective of a widespread Christian view. The paintings of Muhammad are rare examples of depictions of him reflective of only a very narrow cultural background (Ilkhanid/Ottoman - and then only a sub-strain within those cultures). DeCausa (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this page is rife with wp:IDHT, isn't it? Just in the spirit of fun, allow me to demolish your arguments:

Many images on wikipedia contribute meaningful information to articles that cannot be adequately captured in words: Images of people show their likeness; images of events give a sense of realism; images of objects help identify them and show functional relationships. none of these points apply to images of Muhammed, since no one knows what he looks like and depictions of the events of his life are at best fanciful.
- images of Muhammed have no intrinsic encyclopedic value, like the way an image of a corkscrew or a photo of Hiroshima after the bombing do - these pictures are just aesthetic additions.
The images of Jesus on the Jesus article are perfectly fine because no one really cares whether one makes an image of Jesus. Images of Muhammed, by contrast, are objectionable to may people.
One can easily find images to break up the text and beautify this page that do not feature the prophet, and the page will not suffer any loss of information or attractiveness.

In other words, these images are not needed, other images could be easily found that would fulfill their beautification function perfectly well, and people are offended by them - so why are we keeping them on the article? the only conceivable reason to keep them on the article is so that some editors can get their rocks off by pissing off Muslim readers - pure crapulence. no need to say more on the issue. --Ludwigs2 01:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of the editors is basically the exact opposite of what you said. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

consensus is not majority rule, and one can never use consensus to overturn common sense and reason. If you think that any of my reasoning is wrong, say why you think it's wrong. But if your entire argument is that 'most people' think differently, well then... I have an earful for you about the way 'most people' think. particularly true on articles like this, where you get lots of people editing hormonally. --Ludwigs2 05:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I distinctly read above "I don't want to get involved in this debate" followed by a rather trollish comment, yet here you are still, fortunately no longer trollish.

I think your reasoning is wrong.

no one knows what he looks like -- applies to Jesus and most any other historical figure before the age of renaissance painting or photography. So?
depictions of the events of his life are at best fanciful. As are depictions of events in the lives of Jesus or Moses. The images portray events relevant to the article and described in the article. If an artist felt that an event from Muhammad's life was worthy of portrayal in a painting, that's a rather noteworthy fact considering that so few portrayals of Muhammad exist from those ancient times.
images of Muhammad have no intrinsic encyclopedic value -- yes, they do. It is valuable to see how Muhammad has been portrayed throughout the ages.
These pictures are just aesthetic additions. Seems like a case of WP:IDHT on your part; see the discussion above. They serve multiple purposes, one of which is aesthetic.
The images of Jesus are perfectly fine. Really? Even though they are not accurate portrayals? (Hint: Jesus was likely not caucasian).
Images of Muhammed... are objectionable to may people. WP:IDHT again? As has been discussed ad nauseam, that is not an argument to remove them.
One can easily find images to break up the text and beautify this page that do not feature the prophet — perhaps so. And oddly, none have been proposed. The burden is on you to do so, and to demonstrate that the images you select are adequate replacements.

If you want the images removed, please come up with some compelling arguments to remove them. Thus far, I see none. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I've been thinking about this on and off for a while, and I'm inclined to believe that Ludwigs and DeCause may have a good point here. If these images are not actually the "standard" depiction of Muhammad (and I think it's pretty clear that, at least at present, they're not), and if they only represent a certain historical subset of Islamic "images" of Muhammad, then, in fact, they don't seem to be providing encyclopedic value to this article. Note that I emphasize that last point--it is certainly acceptable for these images to appear elsewhere on Wikipedia where appropriate. For instance, the image currently in "Sources for Muhammad's life" by Nakkaş Osman could certainly go into Osman's article, or into the article on the book it's in (Siyer-i Nebi). But what is it doing here? Does it really help the reader understand anything about Muhammad? In a certain sense, we should measure the value pictures by the same standard that we measure pictures of a sexual/nudity nature--are they contributing something necessary to the article, or are they just titillating/provocative? Ohnotitsjamie says that this is a dead horse, but I'm not so sure that it is--I think that DeCausa is right at the very beginning to say that it's not really dead, it's that the argument has been conducted under only 2 very narrow lines that don't even really intersect, and don't get to the heart of the matter--deciding what is most beneficial for an encyclopedic treatment of this subject. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Qwyrxian: yes, that's exactly the point. it's reasonably clear to me that these images are kept on this page mostly because they are provocative than because of any particular value they have

@ Amatulić: You've managed to miss my main points. to repeat:

The fact that portrayals of Jesus are inaccurate is of no consequence, because there is no significant Christian belief that prohibits depicting Jesus. Christians don't care.
The fact that many Muslims don't mind depictions of Muhammed is of no consequence, because there are significant Muslim sects that find it deeply offensive. Some Muslims clearly do care. You may not care that they care, but that lack of sensitivity is not something that the project should support or indulge.

The burden is on you to show that these images are needed on the article. I can remove these images at any time simply on the grounds that they are offensive to some people and not required for any particular encyclopedic purpose; I simply don't want the headache of dealing with the freak-out that would cause right at the moment. You have to show that they have a needed encyclopedic purpose - that the images inform in some way that is not feasible by other means - otherwise their noted offensiveness dictates they should be removed. Breaking up text is not informative; inaccurate illustration of historical events explained in text is not informative; color and spacing are not informative. Give a reason to keep these images that justifies pissing off hundreds of thousands of Muslims; if you can't, the pictures go (because there's no sense pissing off hundreds of thousands of people for no good reason).

And please don't pull that NOTCENSORED literalism on me - I have no problem IARing NOTCENSORED when I see people applying it just because they want to use Wikipedia to annoy people. --Ludwigs2 07:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with Ludwigs2, that's not why I'm questioning the images. I think offence given to Muslims is not relevant (with one minor exception). I opened this thread and gave it this heading specifically so as not to re-hash Muslim sensitivity v. Notcensored. I'm looking at this from solely the point of view of how you would judge any images in a WP article. What concerns me is they tick none of the usual criteria for choosing images (with the possible exception of the Russian painting):

They don't represent accurate depictions of Muhammad (obviously)
They don't represent an informative representation of what the events or Muhammad might have looked like (with the exception of the Russian painting) because they are in an Ilkhanid/Ottoman setting not 7th century Arabia
They don't illustrate events in the text effectively, with the exception of the Russian painting; because of the stylistic nature of the depictions it's difficult to actually see what's happening in them
They don't represent a culturally relevant representation of Muhammad (The "Jesus argument"). These are rare examples of depictions from a very narrow cultural source. It's as if all the images of Jesus in the Jesus article were taken from Inuit art. The equivalent of the mainstream representations of Jesus used in that article is the various calligraphy represenations of Muhammad. (Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that the illustrations be replaced just by calligraphy.) Perhaps if only one of the Ilkhanid/Ottoman pictures were present this argument would be of less concern.
They are decorative - but to my mind this is the one minor instance when offence should be taken into account, since this reason is trivial givenn that other images can be chosen to fulfil the decorative requirement.

I agree very much with the excellent points made by Qwyrxian. There are other articles where these images could well be included. DeCausa (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. A good example of my point is found in two of the pictures: Muhammad at the Ka'aba and the Destruction of the Idols. As far as the latter is concerned, I personally can't make any sense of it. What is going on? You can't see anything. How does this add anything to the article? As far as the former picture is concerned, it would be much more interesting and informative to see a photograph of the Ka'aba. You don't get any sense of what the Ka'aba is, let alone any sense of Muhammad, from the picture. On the other hand, there may be a case for leaving in the picture of Gabriel and Muhammad because it does arguably clearly illustrate an important event in his life. Perhaps that would be the one Ilkhanis picture to stay. DeCausa (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeCausa, I don't think we're disagreeing that much, I just tend to be a bit salty in discussions like this (personality flaw, probably). At any rate, I think we've made good cases, so the next step is to remove the images (possibly replacing them with different images, as appropriate), and let people present arguments for their reinclusion. --Ludwigs2 17:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's likely to go far. I suspect it would be immediately reverted and per WP:BRD it would just go back to where we are now. It may be better to make a proposal here identifying what's wrong with each pic (or not) and propose an alternative where necessary. Fundamentally, the rationale for each individual picture is weak and difficult to defend on a pic-by-pic basis. DeCausa (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Discussion Archives

We keep getting arguments here along the lines of A: "The images should be removed/changed because of X." B: "Read the archives. This has already been discussed 9000 times." A: "I looked at the archives and they stink. Debate with me instead."

What's a good way to deal with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorx0079 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. You're getting the argument that these points haven't been covered in the archives. If you disagree, provide diffs (since you're asking "what's a good way to deal with this".) DeCausa (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's wrong with repeating arguments, as long as they stay on a sub-page (ahem). Consensus can change, after all. If you don't feel like getting involved, you don't have to.—Chowbok ☠ 23:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I and at least one other editor object to this thread being on the sub-page because it is almost entirely devoted to complaints from the Muslim perspective. As a result, rightly or wrongly, it does not get visiblity. I'm raising issues quite different from the Muslim concerns and which were not in the archives to any great extent - it's not an issue of "repeating" arguments. DeCausa (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's not getting "visibility", too bad. If people don't feel like discussing it, the answer isn't to shove it in their faces. What if not enough people (to your mind) responded to you on the main talk page? Would you then feel justified in spamming user talk pages?—Chowbok ☠ 23:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]