User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Financing of Wikipedia

Hello Mr Wales,

This question is a little private, but I am curious. Should you prefer to answer somewhere else than on Wikipedia, please feel free to email me at pierre (at) pierrepaquette (dot) net.

I am always happy to send my financial contribution to Wikipedia each year around this time of the year, when we see the appeals to send some money to finance Wikipedia. As I am not rich, I do not contribute much, but it comes from the heart. Should I ever be able to afford a larger contribution, I will be happy to add a few zeroes to the amount!

However, I was wondering about the contributions of the owners and staff of Wikipedia. Can you please inform me about that?

Best regards, CielProfond (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have owners. It is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation whose highest authority is the Board of Directors, who are not the owners and who are not compensated for their work. The Board has a tradition that everyone contributes, but specific donor amounts are generally kept private at the option of the donor. You'll probably find this an interesting read.

Similarly, for staff contributions, I'm sure many of them do donate, but I don't know how much.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo, I like the tone of your appeal of this years. It's less "Give 5$ or the knowledge of humanity will collapse !¡1!" and more "give 5$ so we can keep it free of publicity and such". It's factual, accurate... Really more in the tone of wikipedia than what I saw in the past few years. It might not be as much appealing, but at least it's much more coherent with the beliefs you pretend to protect. Thanks for all. Iluvalar (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"Pretend"? Is there any particular reason you are being rude to me?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy, I doubt he meant to offend. He most likely meant to say 'intend to protect' or 'claim to protect'. English is not his first language - see User:Iluvalar. Now go enjoy the rest of your day. :-) 75.59.227.116 (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I am sorry I misunderstood.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Neutrality in Religion?

My understanding of "Neutrality" with respect to religion is that it means Wikipedia should not make any attempt to tell readers of any widespread religious persuasion that their beliefs are correct or incorrect, true or false. "Neutrality" to me means describing their beliefs impartially, using language letting the readers decide what religion to follow if any, instead of trying to decide for them, or worse yet, demonizing them for their beliefs.

Unfortunately there is a certain type of editor attracted to wikipedia that can never be satisfied with this understanding of neutrality. They are never satisfied and strive relentlessly to make wikipedia correspond with their own view of reality or spirituality. There are many competing views of reality in the world (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism have all had official state approval in various countries, not to mention China's current official view of reality, "Scientific Development Concept") No two religions in the world have the same view of reality or spirituality, and nobody yet to my knowledge has determined to everyone's satisfaction that his own view of reality and spirituality is what everyone else must be forced to subscribe to. It seems trivial to point these facts out, yet again despite the compromise on "Genesis Creation Narrative", leaving this compromise alone could never be good enough for editors who militantly feel that the article title needs to reflect their POV that Genesis is a "MYTH" and they are back now militating to abandon the previous compromise and retitle it "Genesis Creation Myth" to back up their POV.

No other word beside "myth" will ever be acceptable to them, until Wikipedia officially declares that their POV is correct and Genesis is a MYTH, and all other POVs are wrong. Any amount of reliable sources demonstrating that "MYTH" has always been seen as a polemical and prejudiced term when applied to the Quran, Bible, Book of Mormon, or Mahabharata, etc. are summarily dismissed by these bigots. Because in their circular view, only the sources that agree with their POV are correct and reliable, and all sources no matter how prominent, that suggest any other POV might exist on what "myth" means besides their POV, are inadmissible to them, says them. This is the kind of orchestrated anti-religious attack I see on Wikipedia that makes me want to throw up and never use it again. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how describing something a myth is necessarily an attack on any system of beliefs: it merely means something held to be true by tradition, but placed in doubt by a philosophy/a science. To say that a traditional narrative is in doubt is accurate: after all, not even the most committed proponents of, say, the Book of Genesis will tell you that everything in there is literal (not if they're reasonable, at least). To say that some points are metaphors or require a special understanding of the text is a recurrent type of argument in religious literature; scientific or philosophical literature tends not to use that kind of justification, simply because it doesn't and cannot operate with belief (or at least shouldn't). "Myth" is another one of those words that have a clear and self-evident purpose, actually resulting from a dialogue between religion and science, and it is hijacked in entrenched communities to make it sound like it's an attack on something (like the word "liberal" or the word "conservative").

It is those communities which proceed to push their (often sciolistic) interpretation on the rest of the world, attempting to reuse an old tactic of the politically correct left of the 1980s and '90s - that is, to pollute words that are at worst stupid until they become offensive buzzwords in the mind of John Q. Public. Whether we are or aren't religious, that kind of sophistry doesn't help anyone make sense of the complexities of the world. Your crusade against the very use of the word "myth" is part of that simplification process, and I hope no one here takes it seriously.

And let me add an essential point that you seem to be missing: the description of ideas as "mythical" can in no way be limited to religion. It has been used by the same scholarly communities to refer to most lay ideologies (notoriously so for fascism and communism), to advertising, to modern (wo)manhood, to life on other planets etc. What this means is that the critical mind, which we all supposedly possess, needs to differentiate between what is certain, what is probable, and what is esoteric. In the public sphere, these need to be distinguished for everybody's benefit, but privately you can believe in whatever you want to believe. From Cthulhu to phrenology, from the Immaculate Conception to From each according to his ability... Regards, Dahn (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but 'myth' to me implies something about an account not being 'Truth'. This comes across oddly to many people of belief who do not contend that the Genesis story is a historical account. It would be like calling The Rime of the Ancient Mariner a myth - the label just doesn't make sense. Christians will no doubt hold other beliefs about what the story means, in terms of the character of God or humanity, but that is a philosophical/theological point of view not a historical one. Polequant (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The contrast between the dynamics at Talk:Muhammad/images and those at Talk:Genesis creation narrative is striking. On a central article for the topic of Islam we are using numerous culturally inappropriate semi-relevant pictures in spite of significant protest from Muslims, whereas at a somewhat more peripheral article for the topic of Christianity and Judaism we have already censored the title because of fringe sensibilities and are now supposed to censor the lead as well, removing the actual classification of the text. Meanwhile, the Islamic version of the myth remains located at Islamic mythology#Islamic creation belief without any opposition. Looks like a significant pro-Christian, anti-Muslim bias to me. Hans Adler 13:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, "culturally inappropriate semi-relevant pictures" is a product of your own opinion, not fact. Second, "significant protests from Muslims" against the Wikipedia's portrayal of Muhammad? Would you care to point out just where this happened? Tarc (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, I think your views on those pictures being anything other than "culturally inappropriate semi-relevant pictures" is the mere opinion here. And if you aren't aware of the ongoing protests against how we handle this issue, you've just not been paying attention. (That doesn't mean the protesters are right, of course, but putting our heads in the sands and pretending that objections don't exist isn't right at all.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The images aren't "culturally inappropriate". They are "inappropriate within a single culture" - and not everyone within that culture (which is never monolithic) can access the images or will be offended by them if they can. Wikipedia aims to educate and inform all cultures as neutrally as possible. By refusing to host these images because it might offend a minority of the world's population, the much greater majority of the world has their ability to learn about a topic substantially impaired. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That isn't what I mean. I mean I am persuaded by the argument that we have chosen very fringe images to illustrate Muhammad giving the reader an absolutely false impression of an important cultural issue. By "culturally inappropriate" I am not using coded language to refer to people's potential offense, but rather meaning those words quite literally. If we chose to illustrate our article on Wagner's ring cycle with images from a particular famous performance of parts of it, that would be culturally inappropriate, not least of which because they would misinform and mislead the reader.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, do you mean the present image selection on that article might lead the reader to think depictions of Muhammad are common, not exceptional? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"Very fringe" is highly inappropriate language and should be avoided in this discussion - such images, and their modern equivalents, which we don't cover because there are none uploaded, are part of Shia iconography, as the 5 images on the Farsi WP article on Muhammad show. Shias are a minority in Islam, but the majority in Iran, Iraq, Bahrein, Lebanon, Azerbaijan etc, and a significant minority in Pakistan, India, the Gulf states, Afghanistan and Turkey. The images are especially objected to by Sunni Muslims from the Arabic-speaking world, and form an issue in Sunni-Shia tensions and conflict. We should avoid appearing to take sides on this. No doubt the illustrations to our Christian articles might give Muslim readers the impression that evangelical churches are decorated with paintings of Madonnas and saints. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding "ongoing protests", I will ask again; where? I certainly hope you can point to something better than the waxing and waning IPs and WP:SPAs that show up form time to time to demand removal, the anonymous and uncertifiable petition from Petition-Online.com in 2009, or waving a vague hand at general protesting in the world, e.g. the Danish cartoon protesters. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If I can take a stab at the more general point here, we have a significant confusion on project about the definition of the word 'Neutral'. Roughly it put, many editors confound 'neutrality' with 'truth'. In other words, you get this split in understanding:

Neutrality as Truth

Wikipedia's purpose is to seek out and present what is true while removing or minimizing what is false. All information can be compared to objective reality (generally through skeptical methods), and the encyclopedia must actively oppose influences which seem to promote 'non-true' positions.

Neutrality as Balance

Wikipedia's purpose is to accurately portray topics in their proper real-world contexts. All information is valuable in its own right without regard to its objective facticity, and the encyclopedia must balance viewpoints to achieve a fair and unprejudiced description of the topic.

The oddest thing about this confusion is that it's not a problem on big issues: 'Neutrality as Truth' and 'Neutrality as Balance' are perfectly aligned when we're discussing, say, the theory of gravity. But the distinction becomes deadly on little issues. Skeptical methods, unfortunately, have a strong tendency to inject truth into vague areas, producing a kind of synthesis that's very difficult to deal with, because the editors actually think they are defending the truth. For a few examples (chosen from both current and past debates):

• the Muhammad images, where editors assert that Wikipedia is a 'secular' encyclopedia, injecting an anti-religious perspective as 'truth' and actively denying any religious participation on religious articles
• alternative medicine articles, where editors consistently insist that articles need to be written from the perspective of modern medicine - because modern medicine is 'true' - and as much as possible only allow the inclusion of critical sources in order to paint a negative picture of the topic
• fringe articles (like creationism), where the main goal of many editors is to debunk the topic rather than describe it
• religious minority articles (like Messianic Judaism, or the Myth issue that Til raised above) where editors take pains to inject the idea the mainstream ideas are 'proper' and the minority is 'abnormal'

In short, we end up with a sort of 'Tyranny of the Mainstream', in which off-beat topics are actively trounced rather than properly contextualized. It produces some very embarrassing articles, and a whole lot of pointless conflict.

In my view we should not be engaging in this kind of 'skeptical synthesis' - which boils down to the odd assertion that anything not proven by science is false and must be opposed - anywhere on project. But I've never been able to get this argument across anywhere I've tried. it's a problem. --Ludwigs2 16:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason the argument doesn't get across is the fact that an encyclopedia is an epistemological context in which it doesn't make sense? "Neutrality as balance" as you define it is entirely incompatible with the idea of constructing a collection of knowledge. By definition, anything that is known to not be true has no place in any sort of balance; neutrality is reporting on the existence of the belief (and its prevalence, or social context, and so on) but not in pretending that it holds credence it does not in order to assuage (a subset of) readers. — Coren ^(talk) 16:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What defines a fringe image? Muhammad is a historical figure for more than just Muslims, selecting only images from a particular slice if time and culture is inappropriate, but selecting multiple images is (particularly if they illustrate different slices of time and culture). In the "Ring Cycle" metaphor, it would be inappropriate to lead with images of Bugs Bunny dressed as a Valkyrie, but it would be appropriate to include such an image in the "cultural impact" section; however if Wagner disliked pictures of his opera being shown, we would still, within the limits of copyright, include such images on our pages despite his dislike.

"Neutrality" means "as represented in appropriate sources." Images are not sources, making it tricky to conclude about their use in terms of neutrality. For the most part, regarding images we are limited to whatever pool we can draw from and must make choices based on that. While the most "culturally appropriate" image makes sense for {{Muhammad}} (a calligraphy of Muhammad's name) because it represents the majority of the faithful within the culture, we should not be limited to solely that image for the entire article. Images should be educational and relevant, "neutrality" doesn't really apply.

The distinction isn't between "big" and "little" issues, it's actually a distinction between scientific and nonscientific issues. While all articles should describe the topic, when it comes to effectiveness of medical topics or the historical accuracy of the bible the description should clearly and immediately be followed by an indication that science doesn't support it. This is particularly exacerbated when political movements like creationism and complementary and alternative medicine, which assert based on antiquity or subjective appeal without testing or proving. These articles should cite scientific research when discussing whether it works, and whether there is any scientific validity to its premises. Arguments about scientific theories can not be compared to arguments about religion - science is predicated on seeking an objective truth which does exist and is supported by data. Skepticism is irrelevant to religion. Religion lacks objective truth, pays little attention to empirical evidence, and is little more than opinion within a specific cultural framework (and sometimes within a logical one if you're talking about theology). The issue of images in Muhammad isn't one of skepticisms/atheism versus faith/religion. I don't think images of Muhammad should be included in the page because I am an atheist. I think images of Muhammad should be used because they are educational and illustrative. Ludwigs2's statements may apply to other areas I have disagreed with him in such as acupuncture and astrology, but they don't apply to Muhammad.

As far as "tyranny of the mainstream" goes, even in articles on minority viewpoints the mainstream viewpoint should be clearly expressed. Wikipedia is based on the tyranny of the mainstream, as demonstrated in reliable sources. That's what NPOV means.

This is expanding beyond the ostensibly religious subject that heads the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I think Ludwigs2 goes a bit too far occasionally and I don't agree with him abstractly on how Wikipedia should be neutral, but in practice he usually puts his finger on real problems even if he often overstates things a bit. To stay in his framework, I think we need to find the right balance between neutrality as truth and neutrality as balance. We want neither walled gardens that describe religious or fringe topics as if the outside world didn't exist, nor debunking pieces that impart no information about a religious or fringe topic other than the various ways in which it is objectively false. A good encyclopedia article on such a topic looks as if written by a non-believing scholar on the topic. It is not necessary to believe in Islam, alternative medicine, creationism or messianic Judaism to become an expert on such a topic, but any real expert will love his or her field of speciality with all its quirks. An expert may say very explicitly that transubstantiation or homeopathy has no shred of evidence for it, but will then proceed to share and explain all the interesting cultural constructs that have been built around it. This is what distinguishes sceptical experts from assembly line sceptics, who don't even want to know more about all the rubbish they are debunking.

As a practical example, if adherents of pseudoscience A practise rituals B, C, D, E and F for no good reason but consider them of the utmost importance, then it is our job to document rituals B, C, D, E and F in detail in our article on A, even if there isn't much intelligent that we can write by way of debunking them -- as is usually the case due to lack of sources. A small, sometimes tiny, amount of framing as pseudoscience is enough. (As some old Arbcom case said: It's enough to describe someone as a medium (spirituality). This makes the pseudoscience context amply clear, and any debunking that isn't related specifically to the person should happen at the main article.) Hans Adler 17:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. A perhaps more topical example might be Christianity: there is no question that it has been one of the primary shaper of most of Western culture for the past two millennia; its institutions and beliefs have had tremendous influence in every sphere of endeavour, in our laws, in our societal constructs, as well as arts and intellectual pursuits. I don't think you will find anyone to argue that it should not be covered in detail. This does not translate to any kind of necessity for "neutrality's" sake that that coverage presupposes the "correctness" of any of those beliefs, or that article contents should obey the tenets of that religion.

Likewise, parts of Islam have a prohibition against showing images of Mohammed. It would be stupid (and more than a little ridiculous) to go out of our way to offend those who hold that belief, but neither should religious dogma dictate the contents of our articles. Avoiding those illustrations because of the religious rule against them makes no more sense than rewriting the lede of psychiatry to describe it as false and evil to conform to other beliefs. — Coren ^(talk) 17:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The argument is indeed not that we should let dogma dictate the content of our article, but that images which are against the "dogma" (to the extent that one can be said to exist) are entirely overrepresented. Cf. [1] / [2], also [3] / [4] (and note that the latter, despite its humorous title, is written by a top religious scholar). --JN466 01:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality to me means using logic. Logic trains us to view things impartially and to eschew emotional arguments which are not neutral. Lack of neutrality can generally be traced to emotional arguments that fit the pattern of logical fallacies. I see a logical fallacy being promoted known as 'slippery slope' which is common in questions of ethics: "if it's ok to offend Muslims who object to depictions of Muhammad, then therefore it is equally ok and neutral to antagonize adherents of any other belief system for the same reason, without having to remember what that reason is". That is not a logical argument at all; that is a fallacy of emotion. Logic and neutrality both demand impartiality. I wasn't asking for help with the Muhammad image problem, and I don't see wisdom in turning to that dispute for authoritative answers on how a distinst dispute should be handled. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

On wikipedia, neutrality is demonstrated with sources, not asserted by editors. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Two separate comments.

Firstly, I would agree that there are differences in the way in which we treat different religions on Wikipedia which might be considered unfair. But my take would be that the problem lies in us being too tolerant of material that represents a Judeo-Christian worldview. We carry quite a lot of material, for example, which treats the Bible as a legitimate source for historical fact. That's a semi-legitimate function of the way we work, because there are intermediary reliable source which do the same thing, and we have an inescapable editorial bias (we are overwhelmingly from a Christian or Jewish background). I don't think the answer to that is to lower our standards in terms of incorporation of religious viewpoints generally. "Creation myth" is just a standard academic term for religious stories about how it all began ([5]). What's happened recently is that we have taken a decision that this terminology is unacceptable regarding only one religious worldview - the one we are most familiar with. IMO this is highly problematic. Is the logical extension for us to decide that there is no such thing as a "myth" and that each one is instead rightfully a "narrative"?

Regarding the controversies over images of Mohammed, I would note that Muslim wikipedians have do not seem to have taken part in recent discussions, for whatever reason. I worry that some editors may be taking for granted the idea that Muslims generally find the current situation with the article intolerable and will not be able to appreciate different shades of opinion on the matter. I think this may be based on stereotyping. I wonder if the idea that we need to treat Muslims with kid gloves may be as problematic to many Muslims as the images. --FormerIP (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed re: FIP's statement about Muslims taking offence, I've made this very point part of my analysis here.

Hans, how does one "debunk" a religion? Or a ritual? A specific religious belief that contradicts what is scientifically know, this can be debunked (because it's an empirical claim) and any article discussing it should point out that it is, to the best of our knowledge, wrong. I would agree that an article about a "psychic" such as John Edwards doesn't need an extensive discussion about how all mediums are frauds - but it would warrant a discussion of specific predictions or claims that this medium has made that turned out to be wrong, or that James Randi has pointed out is an example of cold reading.

The bible (or the Iliad for that matter) can be used as a historical document when discussing topics like ancient Jewish peoples and cities, though any corroboration or contradiction within archeology should be present as well. It can't be used as a factual document for empirical claims regarding the creation of the world, or the origin of species. The bible and other religious texts would be starting points for discussions like these, and would play a far less prominent role than the relevant archaeological papers.

This discussion seems to mix up multiple issues - religion (a cultural issue), science (an empirical issue), images of Muhammad (a specific cultural/religious issue), scholarship and in particular minority scholarship (a wikipedia-specific sourcing and reliability issue). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I wish Wikipedia were more neutral in relation to religion. Most of our articles relating to religion are biased towards that religion's viewpoint. That isn't surprising but it is certainly a problem. And they probably are biased more towards a conservative view of that religion. I doubt that Til, for instance, would claim to speak for all Christians. He's characterising the situation in any case, Genesis is technically a creation myth (note that Til doesn't mention that argument is about using the term 'creation myth', not about calling Genesis a myth), but that is not all it is, although this isn't the place to go into that in detail. And it's surely pov to insist that 'Genesis creation myth' is the only acceptable title for the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Section break

(massive edit conflict)

@ Coren: This statement will pain you (sorry) but epistemologically speaking, 'truth' is a red herring. We do not have access to the ontos underpinning reality, and no scientist will ever claim that we do. What we have is theories that are correct within the limits of our ability to measure the world. 'Science' is nothing more than a set of elaborated beliefs backed up by strongly structured observations, and it can't be more than that without turning it into a belief in its own right and sacrificing its empirical underpinnings.

For example, let's take a fringe page I worked on a long time ago: Orgone. Now, anyone who thinks about orgone scientifically recognizes that as a scientific theory it's a load of crud. it's a grandiose hodgepodge of Freudian psychology, religious mysticism, and pseudoscientific ideation with no more than a shred of replicable evidence to its name. That being said, it's not false, it's just a wildly bad theory. It hasn't been refuted the way the phlogiston was, or exposed as a scientific hoax like Piltdown man, and there are still people lurking in odd corners of the world who use it (by their own lights) meaningfully. Trying to say that it's false goes well beyond what science can or has said about orgone - we can only get there on-project by using one form or another of synthesis. Yet it's precisely this distinction - orgone as bad theory vs. orgone as false - that caused trouble on the page, for exactly the reasons I outlined above.

No editor in their right mind would allow Orgone to be added to physical cosmology - as a cosmological theory orgone is just plain bad, and doesn't deserve a place there. But what about a reader who is interested in Orgone in its own right, as part of the history of ideas? I doubt such a reader needs or wants to wade through wiki-editor opinion-mongering about how stupid and crazy the concept of Orgone actually is. The badness of the theory is self-evident is an unbiased presentation of the topic; it doesn't need to be debunked as ontologically false; it just needs to be described as what it is in a balanced manner.

It's this arena of the 'History of Ideas' where the neutrality-as-truth concept starts to unravel. Many ideas in the history of ideas are wrong, yet still need fair presentation and explanation. Why should they be treated less dispassionately than other ideas?

@ WLU: I actually suggested that we create a section on Muhammad called 'art historical depictions' which would be a home for images of the prophet - such a section (as I explained) would have provided a justification for having the images there which would have quelled any objections. The idea was unceremoniously and vocally shot down (you'll have to ask the other editors why - I never got a good reason for it).

Aside from that, I'm troubled by a couple of your points:

• are you actually suggesting that images should not be covered by NPOV? As I've said elsewhere, that opens a huge loophole for POV-pushing - find the right controversial image, push it onto the page, and laugh as the 'other side' squirms because they can't remove it. That should not be encouraged.
• 'big' vs. 'little' (while maybe not the best terms) are not 'scientific' vs. 'nonscientific'. it actually marks the difference between where science is applicable and where science is not applicable. science is a very powerful tool within it's established demesne - where it can build theories and subject them to empirical observation - but outside that it's not particularly useful. Science can tell us that there is no empirical evidence that God exists, but it can only infer that God does not exist, and is of no use whatsoever in telling us what we should think about that. My concern is that we restrict science to saying what science actually says, and not try to infer more.
• NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources", as it says in its first line. that is not a statement that supports the claim that wikipedia is a tyranny of the majority.

You seem to be arguing against inclusiveness, as though there is some singular 'neutral' perspective that we should find and always use in all articles. That seems to me to be about as far from the spirit of NPOV as it is possible to get without actually ignoring the text. --Ludwigs2 18:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Except that "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias" very specifically does not mean "uncritically, and from a sympathetic point of view". Your own example, orgone, is especially illustrative: it makes no attempt to defend the concept as anything but a thoroughly discredited pseudoscientific hypothesis. It details its history, explains the underlying beliefs, and even discuss some of its adherents. It makes no attempt to validate the hypothesis, and the article isn't written "in-universe" begging the question of the validity of the underlying beliefs. Exactly everything our articles on religion tend to fail at.

And no, I said nothing along the lines that images are not bound by NPOV. Indeed, I've stated the exact opposite: selection of images should very specifically not be dictated by a religious POV – whatever that POV is. Oops, that wasn't directed at me! — Coren ^(talk) 19:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

As for your point on knowledge, well, solipsism might be an interesting intellectual exercise but it won't write an encyclopedia. Absolutely every reasonable definition of knowledge has "justified true belief" as its foundation, and "nothing is really knowable" may well be a common rallying cry of apologists for "faith-based" way of thinking but it's not what we do here. We're working towards "[...] freely share in the sum of all knowledge." — Coren ^(talk) 19:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If a section on depictions of Muhammad existed, it would be a great place to discuss the history of iconoclasm, key images demonstrating how depictions of Muhammad have changed within the culture if Islam (such as showing his face to veiling his face to replacing his face or body with a flame) and an image related to modern controversies such as the Dutch one (I would suggest this one). It would not be appropriate to use that section of the page as a "holding pen" in which all images are shoved and the rest of the page empty. Like most pages on historical figures and events, if we have paintings that illustrate specific periods of his life or actions taken, we should use them - we have many to choose from covering his birth, infancy, youth, call to prophecy, first revelation, preaching, trip to Mecca, night journey, conquests, death and even time in heaven. If this were any other page, this would be without controversy bar the decision of which to use. Again - a section on depictions is valuable and I would argue necessary. Using that section to hold all images is inappropriately censoring the rest of the page to the detriment of the article.

I'm not suggesting images be covered by NPOV simply because they are not sources and NPOV covers content; bar one line in WP:UNDUE images are not mentioned and can easily be handled, like most POV disputes, by editors discussing and accepting consensus.

Has any editor suggested the use of science to prove one religion is true at the expense of any other, or that science can determine which image of Muhammad is appropriate to use? If not, I'm not sure why we're discussing it. I'm well aware of the distinctions between science and religion and why science is inherently superior in virtually every field. Science should not get absolute say over all articles on wikipedia, but when religion attempts to make empirical claims, science should carry equal (sometimes more) weight.

Regards your third bullet, the key for me is the word "proportionately". In this regard, wikipedia should be a tyranny of the majority in that the most weight and the most text should go to what the most scholars believe, and that this opinion should appear first, and be given "right of rebuttal" where possible for minority viewpoints. However, those minority viewpoints should be included up to a certain threshold, and tiny minorities (such as the idea that satanic ritual abuse was real) should only appear in lesser articles.

I hope this demonstrates that you are misunderstanding my points. Wikipedia should be inclusive, but not indiscriminate. Those wishing to assert a majority view should do so by reference to the best, most reliable sources they can find, in quantity. Those who wish to include minority views should use the best, most reliable sources they can find. Those who can't justify their inclusions with reference to reliable sources should not be supported in their effort to add text. I don't find this to be controversial, it seems quite squarely in keeping with NPOV.

Regards Muhammad, the discussion of iconoclasm and depictions of Muhammad in Islam should be supported with sources. The page itself should be peppered with images relevant to the text they accompany. The idea that Muslims are unable to contain their offense at the idea of a non-Muslim seeing an image of their prophet is infantilizing, offensive and ultimately irrelevant. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

@ Coren: I was pointing to Orgone for its past conflicts, not its current state. The current article is mostly my writing (the editors I had that long-ago dispute with are not currently active on project, for differing reasons), and - setting aside some tweaks and expansions it could use - I'm reasonably content with it. It was not always that way; you should see some of the heavy-handed language that had to be discarded to get it to this state.

With respect to your other point: the epistemological/ontological divide is not solipsistic, not unless you consider the process of scientific induction itself to be solipsism. Because that is the basic premise of induction: we observe individual cases, we infer general rules, and those general rules are always subject to revision by further observation. justified belief is not truth; In fact, a big part of the development of science was an effort to get away from proclamations of prima facie 'truth' and base scientific authority in the justification of theories through presented evidence. The problems I'm pointing out above occur because some editors present a secular, scientific viewpoint as a prima facie 'truth' in its own right, one that applies anywhere and everywhere. That is science used in an unscientific way.

More to the point, though, 'knowledge' is more complex than you are allowing. This isn't a 'faith-based' vs. 'science-based' dichotomy; There are many things to 'know' about faiths that are utterly unrelated to science, but we shouldn't think less about that knowledge just because it's a-scientific. I think we all get to caught up in the 'special case' scenarios like Creationism (where faith confronts secular science directly in an absurd effort to reassert religious authority). Most of the time, faith and science are orthogonal domains, and trying to subsume either into the other is misguided. --Ludwigs2 20:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is. Ultimately, we need some operating understanding of what knowledge is if we are to collect it, and no school of though I am aware of strays far from "justified true belief" even though there are caveats with too literal an interpretation. The distinction isn't science vs. not science, it's reality vs. faith; that science is currently the most successful method for gathering knowledge about the world is a side effect (and an objective) of the method, but it is in no way the only method. Nevertheless, nobody can know something that is false or unfalsifiable for any meaningful meaning of "knowledge". — Coren ^(talk) 23:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Coren: You and I both know exactly what unicorns look like and how they behave, and we even have an article on them. That is certainly knowledge about something that is false. You and I both know that Christians and Jews have a God they sometimes call Yahweh and Muslims call God Allah, and in all three cases that God has definable characteristics (omnipotent, omniscient, etc…) That is certainly knowledge about something unfalsifiable. You are presenting a simplistic view of knowledge in which only 'simple facts' exist and all information of cultural relevance is excluded, and I suppose within that simplistic worldview it is meaningless to talk about anything false. But if we wrote Wikipedia from that worldview it would be a very limited and mostly useless encyclopedia.

We are dealing with a faith that contains hundreds of millions of people. Do we have knowledge about the tenets of that faith? We sure do. Are those tenets unfalsifiable? Yes, clearly. Do we ignore those tenets because they are unfalsifiable? No, clearly not. Unless you are able to state categorically that all religion is false (which you can't - that's a secular belief which is also unfalsifiable), then NPOV insists that we account for all significant perspectives. This does not mean (obviously) that we let religious viewpoints run rampant over the project, but we do not exclude them on topics of importance to their faith any more than we would exclude a physicist from working on physics articles.

You are trying to narrow the focus of the project down to that smallish segment of human knowledge that is covered by scientific authority, and dismiss the rest as irrelevant. You might as well suggest that we delete all our articles on poetry because there are no mathematical models for producing it. Or maybe you'd suggest that we replace all the sample poems on those pages with really bad poetry, because allowing good poetry is 'poetic advocacy', and that can only lead to mobs of aesthetes overrunning the project making everything prettier. Ghastly prospect… --Ludwigs2 17:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I know no such thing and neither do you. I know unicorns do not, in fact, exist and that they almost certainly never did. What we know, is what fictional accounts of that imaginary creature are, what they describe it to be, and so on. They have cultural and artistic influence and our article sets out that knowledge. I'm not narrowing the focus of the project, you are simply trying to play semantics to stretch it to fit your agenda, and I'm calling you on it.

That said, this is now veering off-topic and your descent into attacking a position I have never held (where in blazes did you pull that poetry argument from?) shows you are no longer interested or capable of discussing this rationally. — Coren ^(talk) 01:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

First off, the 'poetry' thing was a little bit of humor. If you've been paying attention, you'll see it as a riff on the very common (if hysteria-ridden) argument that if we remove any of these images we'll have muslim editors removing images from all over the project. smile and relax, it's all good.

Second, you seem to be doing that peculiar wikipedia thing where you agree with what I said while making it sound as though we are in violent opposition. We know what unicorns look like, we know that they do not exist: that's all I was suggesting. Knowledge is not restricted to what we know is 'true'. but there's no sense in getting tangled up in this epistemological puddle-jumping contest any further here. If you want to discuss it more, let's make a new section here or move it to some other page. --Ludwigs2 05:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

@WLU: actually, my response is simpler than I feared. I don't actually disagree with you for the most part; we're just using words differently (what you're talking about is what I consider NPOV; Tyranny of the Mainstream, for me, is a much harsher position that actively suppresses non-mainstream views). The main point we're miscommunication on is apparently the whole religion thing, which isn't 'science' per se but rather 'secularism' (or if you want to be uber-precise, the cultural bias in the west towards science-based secularism). The problem on Muhammad (and on other religious pages) lies in editors entering the discussion with the ultra-secular premise that all religion is valueless. In fact, it is the case, I think, that religion is largely valueless for scientific claims. But faith has a value of its own for a lot of our readers, and I don't see the purpose in ignoring that value programmatically. The whole conflict over the Muhammad images started because I asked that we evaluate the purpose of the images in the article with respect to their potential offense (on the assumption that editors would naturally feel that offending people without cause was a bad thing). That assumption proved to be mistaken, obviously, but the point still stands: our reader's religious preferences may not have a lot of impact on our decisions, but it ought to have some sway. forbidding it to have an impact in even the most trivial cases seems perverse. --Ludwigs2 21:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Having read many thousands of words on Talk:Muhammad/images and having just re-read your initial comments, I find your statement at odds with your initial posts. I don't recall any editors saying extra images should be placed on the page to piss off Muslims. I recall numerous saying the images should not be removed because of a particular religious faith's beliefs about images of Muhammad [6], [7], [8]. If we were on the same page, then there probably wouldn't be thousands of words sprawling across half a dozen pages and no assumption that editors are advocating for images of Muhammad purely out of spite. Drawing in the purported conflict between science, religion and by implication atheism seems to read a rather lot into the situation. If we are truly on the same page, you probably would have ceased advocating for reducing the number of images on Muhammad, particularly based on the WMF resolution. Either that or someone changed your mind during the discussion - in which case why is this conversation continuing across so many pages? Our readers preferences regarding images, religious or otherwise, are already strongly accounted for to the limits of software vis a vis the numerous means of filtering out whole classes of images. Merely because we do not actively pander to a minority of an already minority religious group in the world does not mean active efforts to offend. That assumption is itself quite offensive. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs tends to get a bit tangled up when making these arguments. Some days the rest of us are being accused of intentionally insulting Muslims by using images in the Muhammad article, other days it is ok to use images are long as they are relevant to the subject matter (though he feels that threshold isn't met for this article), and then there's days like today where the argument is a fallback on "religious preferences ought to have some sway". I cannot overstate enough to the 3rd that "no, it shouldn't". Tarc (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I usually try to avoid discussions like this, but I tend to disagree to some extent. I do not think that religious preferences should hold sway but, at the same time, I think it is possible to have respect for the subjects we write about. When writing about a religion, we are ultimately writing about the people who believe that religion, and I don't see how it hurts to show them some basic human dignity.

When writing about religion, I try to keep in mind that it is a belief held by people and should be treated with care to accurately define their belief. I find it helpful to look at how other encyclopedias treat them, like the Encyclopedia of religion and society or other such publications. I think it is important to remember that, to the believer of a religion, it most certainly is the truth. Above it all, I think we also have a responsibility to define the religion accurately for those who are interested in finding out about it, but without preaching it or proclaiming it to be the only "truth."

On the pictures of Muhammad, I would also have some consideration for the people who believe. I would seriously ask myself if the pictures are absolutely necessary to define the subject. Don't get me wrong, I really like pictures, especially if they assist in visualizing the text, but I would really question if they are necessary. I've never understood why it is offensive, but I can still respect the fact that it is. To use an analogy, if I was writing an article about, say ... a rape, I would seriously ask myself if revealing the name of the victim is really necessary. I may have the name, maybe even a photo, but I would seriously have to consider whether I should publish it, simply because I can, or if the subject deserves a little respect for privacy. Zaereth (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, to write articles that take religious restrictions or beliefs into account, you're making a bad or incomplete article for the rest of the readers that are not adherents of the faith. That's where the "not censored" concept comes in; we can't prohibit or water down material just because a small group of people find it objectionable. Doubly so if it cheapens the experience for the rest of us. Tarc (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

WLU - I'll tell you, I find it incomprehensible how many editors on this topic cannot keep cause and effect straight in their heads. so let me be absolutely clear: I do not know what causes editors to insist on having these images on the article. I can't see any sense to it myself, and every time I ask the question I get a mouthful on why the images can't be removed but nary a peep on why they're there in the first place. However, the effect is unambiguous and clear: including these controversial images makes Wikipedia look like it is snubbing a major world religion for no appreciable reason. Now, my friends over on Muhammad (like Tarc here) are doing a great job spinning out weaselly ad hominems to make me look like the bad guy (see Tarc's snide little post above), and who knows, maybe they'll succeed and I can count my days left on project in single digits. whatever… But my argument has always been the same, and it's always been about the project itself rather about the people involved. Using these controversial images without some overriding justification sends an en clair message, one that's impossible to miss: Wikipedia itself is telling the Muslim community that they are not worthy of any respect. You can spin that any way you like - I've heard them all, so no surprises there - but I'm telling you it's a piss-poor attitude for an encyclopedia to take. But again, whatever: at the end of the day you're going to have to sit down with your own conscience and make your own choices.

It aint rocket science...

If you want to talk more about the Muhammad thing, post above; let's not turn every durned thread into a rehash of the same ridiculousness. At any rate, I'm not going to respond to anything more about it in this thread, so... --Ludwigs2 23:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What causes editors to "include images on the page"? WP:IMAGE and their unambiguous usefulness on pages. The idea that wikipedia is telling Muslims they are not worth of respect (and again, the idea that Muslims are so thin skinned the can't tolerate the thought that non-Muslims might look at an image of their prophet is insulting) is untenable, considering the specific instructions on how to remove these images from your personal preference, including these images explicitly. And if this ground has been trod repeatedly (and it looks like it has), I can see why editors, faced for the fifth, tenth or fiftieth repetition of the same argument, might be abrupt. Previous consensus should not be revisited unless there is something new. Arguably the WMF's new resolution is worth discussion, but only to the discussion whether the new resolution alters things. Looks pretty clear that it doesn't, both in the discussion and in my own analysis. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs: You say "including these controversial images makes Wikipedia look like it is snubbing a major world religion for no appreciable reason". But, on this central point, I just don't think there good evidence that you are correct. And that's something I find dismaying about the whole campaign. On the one hand, it seems to me to be just based on pure assumption about what Muslims think. On the other, it fails to take into account the possibly disastrous effect on Muslims of being perceived as being fanatical and blinkered. This is something that disempowers them and gives strength to organisations such as the English Defence League.

I seriously suspect that if you were to put a group of Islamic scholars in a room and ask them to debate this issue, they would do do for an extended period, not reach a definitive conclusion and express opinions representing every shade of opinion you can think of. Just like us. Because people have diverse opinions and Muslims are no exception. And because it is a complicated issue. Sharia does not tend to simplify real-world issues into neat certainties. (BTW, the group of scholars I tried this with escaped, so I can't be entirely sure). --FormerIP (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, the issue is not that we have pictures of Muhammad in Wikipedia (no one in this discussion e.g. has argued against having an article on Depictions of Muhammad that includes examples). The issue is why we have so many in the article on Muhammad, given that scholars tell us that such images are rarities—that they form a special, always controversial category in Islamic art that is neither iconic nor representative of how Muhammad is portrayed. --JN466 01:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe your take of scholarly opinion on the matter is accurate. Some may feel that way, yes, but once again we're back to dealing with a minority opinion. Though I do not feel it would gain much traction, your position at least invites dialog. The problem is that we've had users..or a user...who came to the Muhammad article making demands, demands that echo about 95% of the IPs and SPAs that have hit the article talk page for years. Demands on top of insults and denigrations of the editors who disagreed made a perennially-tense topic area pretty much explode. Tarc (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not scholars that say they are rarities; wikipedians are claiming that they are rarities, that they are "fringe" and have no educational value. But scholars, after events like the fatwah against Salman Rushdie, 9/11 and the Danish cartoons, have given careful explanations of the historic use of images in Islamic art. Scholars like Omid Safi, Jytte Klausen and Timothy Winter have written extensively on the historic images; as has the late Ernst J. Grube, the first curator of the Islamic collection at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Safi, born in Iran and now Professor at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, has produced the book "Memories of Muhammad: Why the Prophet Matters", which explains in great detail the historic images. Much of what he writes contradicts what Jayen466 has been claiming; many of the Persian miniatures were painted by Sunni muslims. Safi wrote an article for the Washington Post on this.[9] The Medieval images have the same status as Books of Hours in France, i.e. they were produced for a small nobility. Both Britain and to a much larger extent France have significant Muslim populations. Apart from institutes/museums devoted to the Arab/Islamic world, the two national libraries, the British Library and the Bibliothèque Nationale de France (BNF), have extensive collections. These have been on display in exhibitions devoted to understanding the history of Islamic art (still viewable on the websites of the Fitzwilliam Museum [10][11] and the BNF [12]). The Metropolitan Museum has also recently reopened its Islamic collection after remodeling on 1 November 2011.[13] (note the illuminated manuscript of the Prophet Muhammad's Night Journey on Buraq). The purpose of these exhibitions is educational: to explain the history and diversity of Islamic art and culture to the general public. At a time when wikipedia/wikimedia is begging art collections to make available digital images of their older works of art, it would seem odd that they would contemplate taking a stance so much at odds with the directors and curators of those collections. It's hard to tell why people started using the wiki-word "fringe" in this case. It is worth remembering that some of the Persian miniatures under discussion date from the same period as the Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry. Mathsci (talk) 07:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ernst J. Grube, writing about these images, said, "Yet for many reasons, a fully developed Muslim iconography – in the sense that the West would understand it – never emerged in Islamic culture, although representations of Muhammad comprise a special category of Muslim religious painting that developed within the framework of Islamic art. They too, often appear in the larger context of a general world history. And however unexpectedly the image may appear, there are also illustrated Muslim texts that deal specifically with the life of the Prophet and, even more astonishingly, with the metaphysical and highly mysterious mi'raj, the journey made by the Prophet during the course of just one night through all the Heavens and into Hell. Such paintings bear comparison with the cycles of the Life Christ in Christian churches or manuscripts." Comparing Islamic religious art to Christian religious art, he writes nevertheless, "... after the acceptance of Christianity by Rome in the fourth century under Constantine, the change from pure symbol to unmistakably Christian imagery was fairly rapid. Islam, by contrast, never officially adopted a figural religious iconography; indeed, the very lawfulness of images was hotly debated in the early Islamic centuries. In mosques there are no cycles of paintings illustrating the prophet's life and deeds comparable to those of the life of Christ or the saints in Christian churches or, for that matter, the life of the Buddha in Buddhist temples. Thus, that one of the most extraordinary images of the Prophet's Night Journey should appear in poetic texts written in Persian, where it is apparently "out of context", suggests that such pictures comprise a highly elusive form of religious imagery ..." (Peerless Images, p. 133). This is not a description of mainstream Islamic art, but expressly identified as a description of a special, geographically and temporally limited subcategory of it. --JN466 08:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

These are from the texts that accompany the images of the Night Journey in his 2002 book. The images are taken from the 1436 Timorid manuscript from Herat in Afghanistan in the BNF in Paris. I provided links to images from the book in the discussion on Talk:Muhammad/Images where each of the 30 or so plates has an individual description. The images are quite representative of art of the period, with their inscriptions in several languages. The depictions of hell are considered to be derived from artistic traditions from the Far East. Here is one of those images that I uploaded yesterday.File:Miraj-BNF-1436.jpg A whole book devoted to the Night Journey is uncommon, but then so is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Mathsci (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The text I quoted is from the introduction to the section "Religious painting in the Islamic period", within Grube's chapter "The primary themes of Iranian Imagery" in the book Peerless images: Persian painting and its sources. (Neither the section nor the chapter are focused on the Night Journey.) No one says that such images aren't of interest to art historians, or that they are unworthy of coverage in Wikipedia. They're simply not good examples of the mainstream portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad in Islamic religious art, to the extent that they should overwhelm other, more iconic visual imagery in our article on Muhammad. --JN466 09:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You have made your personal point of view quite clear. You are attempting to marginalize and dismiss works of art which are currently being displayed prominently in leading international museums and libraries and on their websites. No historian of Islamic art has indicated that these works are marginal or insignificant. No director or curator considers that these historical Muslim-created masterworks could cause offense. (See the link below to an illuminated page from a museum in Tehran.) Sensibilities and levels of tolerance or intolerance vary from country to country. Had any such plates been left in Herat in Afghanistan during the Taleban uprising, there is a chance that they might have been destroyed. Mathsci (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not attempting to marginalise great art. I am pointing out that authoritative sources describe this art as marginal within the Islamic tradition. --JN466 11:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I posted some sources above, by acknowledged experts on Islam: Cf. [14] / [15], also [16] / [17]. More could be added: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] I am willing to entertain the idea that there may be other sources that say something else. And I am aware that in Iran popular depictions of Muhammad are and were tolerated. But I have seen no sources indicating that figurative (rather than calligraphic) representations of Muhammad have ever played a significant role in public religious life in Islam (let alone indicating that this view would be a majority opinion). Even authors focused on the images describe them as an anomaly restricted to the narrow niche of miniatures in books made for the private enjoyment of wealthy Persian patrons at certain times and in certain locales. If you are aware of sources containing a different characterisation of the Islamic mainstream, please show them to me. --JN466 07:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

"Islam for dummies" is hardly a scholarly source. Jayen466 continues to make subjective and unscholarly statements which contradict what experts like Omid Safi write. His arguments are anachronistic and ignore the whole question of patronage in the arts. (The Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry were likewise also produced for a tiny noble elite.) Illuminated manuscripts of Persian poetry often had a frontispiece depicting the Night Journey of the Prophet Muhammad. Jayen466's arguments are undercut by current scholarship where many major museums and libraries in the West are displaying illuminated manuscripts of this type. Did Jayen466 wave a copy of "Islam for dummies" at the director of the Fitzwilliam Museum when a Night Journey from the British Library was on display a year ago? Mathsci (talk) 08:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Islam for Dummies, despite the jocular title, is published by John Wiley & Sons, which is a scientific publisher, and written by Malcolm Clark, a professor of religion (A.B., Harvard College; B.D., M.A., Ph.D., Yale Divinity School; Post-doctoral study at Hebrew University, Israel Biblical Studies, Islam, Religion and Gender, American Religion). It is a best-seller and required reading for American army officers—a good general source that gives a useful overview to inform our talk page discussion. Besides, it is certainly not the only such source I have brought forward. --JN466 08:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It is in exactly the same series as "Everyday math for dummies." [24] I think Omid Safi's writings are more reliable, although obviously harder to carry around on the battlefield. Mathsci (talk) 09:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

To get some idea of scholarship in this area, the Shahnama project coordinated by the University of Cambridge is recording all images from the Persian Book of Kings, including less accessible manuscripts in Tehran. Here for example is the page depicting the images of the Prophet Muhammad in the Parable of the Ship of Faith. [25] This includes this image from 1480 in the Malik National Museum of Iran in Tehran.[26] Mathsci (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci, this is all well and good. I love Sufism. I like this art. It is fine art. Our articles on Depictions of Muhammad or Persian miniature painting should be sumptuously illustrated with it. But these are specialist sources on this specialist topic. They are sources about Persian art, not generic sources about Muhammad. --JN466 11:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It's just amazing how much emotional energy this 'images of muhammad' issue brings up on project…

I don't want to dispute what Mathsci says - he's merely pointing out what we all know, that there are clear examples of full-face depictions of the prophet in Islamic history. However, as Jayen points out, in part, the whole argument is somewhat beside the point:

• The images are not common presentations, but non-representative artwork from particular historical periods, and moreover artwork largely restricted to small wealthy segments of the populations of their time.
• This article is about Muhammad, not about Persia, Persian art, art history, or any other topic in which referring to the art-historic value of the images would make sense

Really, Mathsci's argument fails both WEIGHT and COATRACK: he is overstating the prevalence of this style of iconography, and trying to use that art-historical exaggeration to hook in images that are otherwise of no particular significance to the topic. He may be right that using the term 'Fringe' is an exaggeration (though I'm not certain anyone except him has called this a fringe issue - maybe he was confused by my generalized statement above where I talk about fringe topics), but wp:UNDUE certainly applies here.

@ FormerIP: this is not a mere assumption about what Muslims think.[27] It is a precept of their faith not to show images of the prophet, there are countless sources in the real world that discuss this, and there are countless complaints about these images in the Muhammad archives. Your statement is incomprehensible. and you go on to suggest that not showing images of the prophet would make Muslim's look fanatical (apparently to convince us that we ought to show pictures of Muhammad if we want Muslims to look reasonable)?

The editors advocating for these images (not just FormerIP, but most of them) have a distinctly unpleasant tendency to trivialize and fanaticize Muslim viewpoints. We are not talking about some small group of wild-eyed, hair-shirt Islamists; this is a basic part of the religious understanding of millions (tens of millions, hundreds of millions) of people. Some of them (obviously) are more invested in it than others - there are fanatics and people who don't much care - but that's irrelevant. I mean, imagine a charitable organization that responded to a famine in Israel by sending them 50,000 pounds of pork chops, and then justified it by saying: "Well, most Jews don't really care about that 'pork' thing, and those few fanatics who do don't have to eat it." That kind of justification is in itself reprehensible.

We can have a decent discussion over whether Wikipedia needs/wants to offend the religious beliefs of all these people, but please stop trying to make the fact that we are offending their religious beliefs 'go away'. That kind of intellectual dishonesty gets in the way of a reasonable discussion. --Ludwigs2 14:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

After reading the epos above ... that Wikipedia ought not include derisory material about any religion is likely according to the WMF vague principle of "least astonishment." Non-derisory images of unquestioned historic Islamic origin should not likely fall into that category, and the claim that they do fails. Wikipedia can not and ought not obey every stricture of scripture for every religious group -- IIRC, all images are forbidden by the Qu'ran according to some groups, not just images of Muhammed. If we seek to "offend absolutely no one" we really should jut remove all images entirely, as that is the only way to fully satisfy those groups. This is not "intellectual dishonesty" is is known as "reality." Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Framing this as an all-or-nothing choice was never likely to get us further. But we don't need 6 images from a small minority tradition of figurative representation whose presence in such numbers does astonish (Omid Safi's article linked above is quite informative in that respect), and gives a skewed image of how Muhammad is generally represented in Islam. It's his name and words (Quranic quotations) that are omnipresent in public contexts. Pointing out that figurative images exist, along with an example, is enough to inform the interested reader, point them to where they can find more, and put us above suspicion of including such images gratuitously. NPOV means representing minority viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. --JN466 15:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The argument "we shouldn't include so many images because they all come from a very limited artistic traditions" is untenable. If we had as many images of Muhammad to chose from as we do the late, great zombie known as Jesus, this is a valid discussion to have. Having a very small number of images to draw upon means we will probably have to choose images first based on what scene they depict, then based on whether we have different artistic lineages to draw from. "We shouldn't use so many Sunni images" is a valid statement if we have an enormous number of Sunni, Shi'ite, Christian, Chinese, Indonesian, African, Bah'ai, Sufi, contemporary and atheist images to draw upon. If we only have one image of Muhammad's birth, and it happens to be Persian, and 7/10 of the images on the page are Persian, we are faced with a choice of another Persian image, or no image. Given that choice, I would rather have an image and a section explaining why there are so many images from Persia.

"We are not talking about some small group of wild-eyed, hair-shirt Islamists; this is a basic part of the religious understanding of millions (tens of millions, hundreds of millions) of people." Actually most of us are talking about the billions of people who aren't Muslim; some are talking about how the millions of Muslims who might not want to see depictions of Muhammad have numerous options that would prevent them from seeing said images. I can't see that as anything but reasonable acommodation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of more mainstream images we could use that would add significant educational value (cf. the Arabic article). For example, we don't have any images of relics of Muhammad. These are culturally important parts of Muhammad's reception. At any rate, recent comments at the images talk page tended towards the view that if anything, we have too many images for the text to flow cleanly. --JN466 17:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

More to the point, the convention in Islam is not to show depictions of the prophet at all. In this case we have to treat all of the 'non-depictive' forms (Muhammad as a flame, calligraphic representations of Muhammad's name, etc.) as though they are depictions of Muhammad - because that is how Muslims mostly depict the prophet - and thus we have a very large array of non-depictive images to draw from. Please keep in mind that this is not some random absence (as though no one thought it was important to refer to Muhammad in art), but rather a studious avoidance. we shouldn't treat the instances where the rule is broken as though they are the norm. --Ludwigs2 17:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite. We also don't have a single calligraphic quotation from the Qur'an, despite the fact that they're ubiquitous throughout the Islamic world and are the direct cultural equivalent of Christian iconic art. --JN466 17:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

@ Collect. No one is arguing images should be removed simply because they are offensive. All of the arguments here and at Talk:Muhammad/images against naked-faced images of Muhammad address either the excessive number of such images compared to usual image use in similar sources or compared to the frequency with which they occur historically (I find these arguments unconvincing), or the fact that the present use of such images in our article is gratuitous.

It has been stated above that to remove them from the article would deny readers information important to their full understanding of the topic. This is a mistaken view. All images of Muhammad presently in that article could be removed without negatively affecting the reader's understanding of the topic in any significant way. They are decoration.

Would most Muslims find the gratuitous liberal peppering of Muhammad with depictions of his naked face insulting? Undoubtedly. You may doubt it but how many Muslims do you know? I know lots, have lived among them for years. Even very liberal Muslims are insulted by gratuitous offensiveness.

There are, by the way, places in that article that could justify such images. The section on Western reception would be significantly improved by inclusion of one of the many Western medieval depictions of Muhammad as a charlatan or demon. That, coupled with a picture of Muhammad among history's great law-makers in the frieze surrounding Washington's Supreme Court building would demonstrate the shift from contempt to respect that occurred between medieval and modern times – the essential message of that section. I proposed this but editors on the page felt it best to avoid the deliberately offensive medieval image and apparently we've had complaints about the frieze picture before.

So, on that page, offensive decorative "illustrations", uninformed often misleading artist's imaginings from centuries after the events depicted, that tell the reader nothing that isn't clearly conveyed in the text, are being defended tooth and claw, while offensive images that would actually exemplify an historical trend that is the very essence of a section of the article, are being excluded on the grounds that they're offensive. The former images, mere illustrations, are an insult due to their gratuitousness; the latter, as examples of the topic of the section, though nominally more offensive, would be no insult because they have undeniable, obvious, genuine didactic value. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. How many times do you and Ludwigs need to be reminded that "All images of Muhammad presently in that article could be removed without negatively affecting the reader's understanding of the topic in any significant way. They are decoration." is not fact, but opinion? And the opinion of a negligible amount of editors at that. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's a proposition supported by a good argument. The images of Muhammad presently in the article have no didactic value because the only thing they tell us that is not already in the article is something about the historical development of Islamic art, which is not the topic of the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If the images were only in the article to show the development of Islamic art, then they should be removed for irrelevance. However, the images in the article are showing Muhammad performing the major actions in his life: receiving revelation, preaching his revelation, putting the black stone in the Kaaba, and leading a campaign. I think that these are just as relevant to his article as are images of Paul Revere on a horse in his article, Laurence Olivier acting in his article, or Hannibal crossing the Alps in his. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The importance of the events depicted and the importance of the illustrations of those events are not the same thing. The events depicted are sometimes important to the topic - though one naked-faced image remained in the article for three years after the event described was removed from the text, apparently due to its unimportance. The illustrations of the events are not. "Relevance" means both connected to the topic and important to the discussion. The images of Muhammad in the article are irrelevant to the discussion. Though they needn't be: as I said, some images, used as examples of the section topic, such as in a yet-to-be-written section on depictions of Muhammad or in the section on Western reception that discusses his evolving portrayal, would be highly relevant, but there is no section on depictions of Muhammad and relevant images are actively kept out of the Western reception section. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Arctic.gnome: The problem with that argument (which has been raised multiple times elsewhere) is that these aren't actually depictions of anything - they are artistic representations of events for which the artists had no first-hand experience or independent second-hand descriptions. No one knows what Muhammad looked like, and there are no secondary texts; these images are on the same level as (say) da Vinci's The Last Supper as far as accuracy goes (which is to say, not at all...). That makes them of little concrete value as direct sources of information. And so we're left with the question that I've been asking all along: are these non-representative, non-mainstream works of art honestly of sufficient importance to the article to justify offending the beliefs of millions of Muslims?

If there were a current precept in Christianity (as there had been at a couple of points in history) that depictions of Christ should not be made, I'd be making this same argument at that page, because the images of Christ we have are also artistic fabrications. But there's no such precept in Christianity, so the issue doesn't arise there. It does arise on Muhammad, and it's something that needs to be considered for the sake of the reputation of the encyclopedia. --Ludwigs2 20:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Round and round and round and round and round we go. Resolute 21:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, your argument has no merit, and Mr. Gnome here has it right. First off, you don't get to speak for "millions" of people. You aren't them, you aren't their spokesman, and as MANY others have pointed out in the course of these discussions, many Muslims are quite likely deeply offended by being coddled to and victimized in this way., By you. Secondly, again, we use historical images of Muhammad in the article to depict the person we're covering. The idea that the image use is invalid because the artists didn't have a sitdown with the subject himself is quite frankly asinine. It is a new argument from you, I'll give it that. So we're upto, like, 4 different ones now? Tarc (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Alas, the problem, as I stated elsewhere, is use of such images is actually covered in both policy and Guidelines. Here's one tiny section (relevant and in context on its own) to demonstrate that: "Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images." - and an image of a depiction of Muhammad (clearly captioned as such) indeed looks like a depiction of Muhammad, even though not provably authentic. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The discussion of images is no different from the discussion of textual content, We have to rely on secondary sources, in this case, historians of Islamic culture and art. Even if an editor happened to have expertise in this area, they should probably not use their personal knowledge to make unsourced or subjective statements on wikipedia. Particular images have to be viewed in a historical and an academic perspective. As far as medieval images from Persia are concerned, all indications so far are that modern-day Iran does not find this part of their cultural heritage offensive; quite the contrary, it was a golden period. Are ther any specific countries or Islamic scholars that have objected to these Persian images in print? Mathsci (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, regarding your question "are these non-representative, non-mainstream works of art honestly of sufficient importance to the article to justify offending the beliefs of millions of Muslims", I don't think that the premise of your question is valid. Wikipeadia does not make content decisions by weighing importance against offence. If it introduced such a policy, it would radically change the nature of the encyclopedia, and such a policy could only be introduced through a community-wide discussion. Until Wikipedia's rules change, the only question that can be asked for this specific article is: "Are the images relevant to the article given that they are not mainstream representations?". I personally believe that how mainstream an image is does not affect its relevance. If we were talking about the history of religious art or the history or idolatry, then a common image—like Moses and his tablets, the Madonna and child, or the meditating Buddah—would be more relevant than an image of Muhammad. However, when we are talking about an historical person or event, then I think that any image which depicts the key details of the event are relevant. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Non representative has been discussed many, many times. The main point we should be addressing about all these images is "do they fit" not "do they offend someone." As pointed out we don't approve of pictures that are gratuitously offensive. Tivanir2 (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the principle of looking at secondary sources, Mathsci. But, if you start out by looking at sources about Persian miniatures to find out how to illustrate the article on Muhammad (rather than the article about Persian miniatures), that is obvious selection bias. The aniconic nature of Islamic art, including its preference for calligraphic representations of Muhammad's name and Quranic verses in literature, art and architecture, is well attested in secondary sources.

• Though pictures of Muhammad exist, they are rare and often Muhammad's face is hidden behind a veil. More important are the (calligraphed) descriptions of Muhammad that recall the object of their veneration and denote a mysterious beneficial presence of the Prophet.[28]
• Muslims have largely rejected the representation of human and animal forms in deliberately religious art. But calligraphy, ideally suited to transmitting word of God in a beautiful physical form, was the religious art par excellence in Muslim cultures. In this way, it was possible to have symbolic reminder of the presence of the Prophet Muhammad without creating any kind of "graven image" that would be unacceptable to Muslim sensitivities. [29]
• As we shall see, most Muslims have refrained from making images of the Prophet, preferring instead to focus on depictions through calligraphic representations and narratives. Their concern has been that, given Muslims' deep affection and reverence toward Muhammad, images of him could lead people to confuse the worship of the God of the Prophet with the worship of the Prophet of God. We shall also see, however, that a miniature tradition, admittedly a courtly legacy, flourished in medieval times, especially in Iran, South Asia, Central Asia, and the Turkish lands. [30] (Omid Safi)

Rather than looking at sources about Persian art, we should be looking at secondary sources that are written about the topic of the article, which is Muhammad. --JN466 00:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment I see Mathsci breaking out the perennial claim that Jayen and others are trying to "marginalize" Islamic art. Really, because Muhammad is not about art. It isn't Islamic art nor is it Depictions of Muhammad, it is the main content entry about the founding prophet of Islam. The only sources we ought to look to if we want to know how knowledge about Muhammad is usually transmitted are mainstream sources about Muhammad, and not art history sources that are de facto about art only. The reality is that these depictions are extremely uncommon within the mainstream secular, academic portrayal of Muhammad. There may be may reasons for that, but one important one is that Muhammad has not been known through visual representation for most of history, unlike Jesus or Buddha. Jayen is correct in that regard, and the source he quoted above, by an art historian of Mathsci's championing no less, also makes this point clear in terms of comparison. I've tried on the relevant talk page to suggest several times now that the best way to resolve the issue of what is representational of scholarship is to go to the sources used in the entry. What do they do in this regard? My money isn't on Mathsci here, and I say this because I am a scholar of religion and my experience with Islam as an academic subject (not one of my specialties admittedly) tells me so. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I should add, that the "Genesis creation myth" issue was indeed correctly settled on that talk page based on scholarship and not as some have claimed above, in favor of a religious POV. I don't want to get into this argument here because it is too long, but what we do now is correct. We clearly identify that a prominent classification of the narrative is as a creation myth, but as in scholarship it is not most often dealt with in that context for a variety of reasons and therefore is better identified as a narrative in the title. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Our sources can be a good indicator of which images are relevant, but that's assuming that our sources have the same criteria for inclusion as we do. If our sources use images for all other historical figures of whom all images are second-hand, but do not use images of Muhammad, are they doing so because they feel that images of him are not academically or encyclopedically relevant, or are they doing so because of self-censorship? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I've probably said this before. We aren't working on an article on Persian art. We aren't working on an article on Depictions of Muhammad. We aren't working on an article on Islamic art. We are working on an article of Muhammad. When looking for images of how he was perceived to look (ie: what he looked like via worldwide historical perceptions - not how what he was thought to look like was changed for whatever reason), then we need images that portray a person and images that portray a person in related historical settings. We are not seeking images for the "Depictions..." article. Religion, society, country - none of that applies to proper use of IUP and application of MOS\Images. Think about it... please. We shouldn't (except as required for a specific section) be looking for depictions that "say" this isn't what anyone perceived Muhammad to look like - it's simply an allowable depiction because some sects of Islam aren't permitted to make such. So many great arguments have come up - but they seem to apply to the "Depictions" article or the little sub-section that was in this one. Anything else creates a bias. I've even pointed out (earlier) the sections of a policy and guideline that state this. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Several of the images under discussion appear in the 2009 book on Muhammad by the Islamic scholar Omid Safi, "Memories of Muhammad: Why the Prophet Matters".[31] The book has received positive reviews in various academic journals. The illustrations used in the book are listed at the end under "art credits": the cover image of Muhammad with the angel Gabriel from the Topkapi Palace Museum; 3 illustrations from the Qisas al-Anbiya; 3 images of the Night Journey from the BNF in Paris, the Metropolitan Museum in New York. and the British Library in London. In the owrds of one reviewer [32] (Mary Hossain of Queens Universi[ty, Belfast): "This book provides a new approach, or a new combination of approaches, to the familiar story of the life of the Prophet. It combines the historical and the spiritual, giving, for example, the pre-Islamic background and relating several crucial episodes of the Prophet's life, but also showing how these are interpreted in a spiritual way by Muslims, showing both the ‘historical Muhammad’ and the ‘Muhammad of grace’. In this way Omid Safi communicates to the reader the Muslims’ love for the Prophet as well as addressing and assessing the historical evidence for certain events." This is a source by an academic Islamist which uses the same type of historical image currently in the wikipedia article. Mathsci (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Safi is from Iran, where images of the Prophet are tolerated. He also reports in his book that he is wary of telling his non-Iranian friends that the image in his home is of Muhammad, because he finds they react badly to it. [33][34] Cf. the discussion on pages 184–186 in the book by Carl W. Ernst ("While Muslims in other countries might find this objectionable, it seems to cause no comment in Iran."). It is a question of proportion. Safi takes the view, as an Iranian muslim, that images of Muhammad are okay. They're part of the culture he grew up in. It's a significant minority view in Islam, but far from a majority view, nor representative of how Muhammad is most commonly portrayed. --JN466 06:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's do a logic round-up of the arguments that have been presented today in favor of the images (ordered in descending order of credibility):

1. We need depictions of the person the article is about (Tarc[35], Robert[36], arctic.gnome[37], Robert[38])
2. We must use the images because they are sourced, even if they are not directly relevant to the topic (Mathsci[39])
3. Considering offense to religion would "radically change the nature of the encyclopedia" (arctic.gnome[40])
4. The effort to respect well-defined precepts of the Muslim faith is offensive to Muslims because it coddles and victimizes them. (Tarc[41])
5. Assorted argument by innuendo - e.g. snarky comments (Resolute[42], Tarc[43])

now let's consider them point-by-point

1. This is the most credible argument that's been presented, but it's still not a good argument, for the following reasons:
   • there is noting in policy anywhere that requires an article to have images - images have advantages over text on certain topics and certainly make articles more enjoyable to read, but it would not be against policy to have an article on Muhammad that had no images whatsoever, much less controversial ones.
   • the preference for images that 'look like' their their subject is being applied bizarrely. these images do not 'look like' the actual Muhammad (who's appearance is unknown); these images do not 'look like' the standard depictions of Muhammad (which are calligraphic or otherwise abstract). The best you can say is that we have a prejudgement that an article about a person needs to have a 'person-like' image on it, but that is a weak, goofy reason to begin with, and is certainly not a justification for offending someone's religion.
2. Jayen has effectively refuted Mathsci's argument via sourcing; the best we can take from this (per wp:UNDUE) is maybe one Persian image in a section that discusses Persian art forms. Sources show that the most common depictions are abstract or obscured, and the urge to have a person-like image is covered in point 1 above.
3. I might give more credit to arctic.gnome's concern, except that he hasn't actually specified how considering offense to religion would 'radically change the project'. I don't see it, and I'm concerned that it's just another hyperbolic claim that the project will come to a horrible end if we don't aggressively defend our borders. I'll wait to see if he has a better explanation for it before saying more.
4. I see no way to discuss the flaws in Tarc's logic without causing him insult, so I'll just let it slide on the assumption that everyone else sees it.
5. These last are not really arguments - just random ad hominem statements - and I'm only including them because I wish they'd stop doing it.

In other words - arctic.gnome's concern aside for the moment - there really isn't anything like a solid argument being made by the supporters. The positive arguments they've given (the ones for using the images in the first place) all fall apart under examination, and the negative arguments (the ones for keeping the images from being removed) all rest on a highly questionable anti-religious preconception that I don't think is even marginally justifiable under policy. But let's wait to see what their responses are… --Ludwigs2 06:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I find this level of denial in Ludwigs' TL;DR diatribe to be quite frightening, honestly.

Regarding "The effort to respect well-defined precepts of the Muslim faith", (which is a gross misrepresentation of reality) what this was getting at was several editors who have pointed out to Ludwigs that many Muslims are actually quite offended by the vitriol of, their fellow Muslims who protested violently against the the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. This is the problem; people like Ludwigs who stereotype and denigrate a billion+ people as hapless victims who need his personal protection on the Wikipedia. They don't. They don't monolithically, unilaterally, categorically oppose images of Muhammed. SOME do, yes. Not ALL. I'm sorry, but what this entire anti-image affair boils down to is a bit of bleeding heart sentimentality by people wholly removed from a culture who think they know best. They don't. Tarc (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) This source, Omid Safi's book on Muhammad, does seem to contradict Jayen466's subjective world-view. Omid Safi is an academic, specializing in religious studies. The book was written for a general international readership. Safi is in fact an American citizen; he was born in the USA but raised in Iran. I'm not not sure in what capacity Jayen466 is assessing a living academic. In the article from the Washington Post he tells an anecdote about the icon that he personally brought with him from Iran; the icon is reproduced on page 34 of the book, where it is briefly discussed. It is not a Persian illuminated manuscript, so somewhat off-topic. I am not sure that it is really within BLP policy to make negative statements about academics: that is going a little too far. Along with the way we discuss textual content on wikipedia, it would seem that discussions of the book should be based on its reception in published sources. The book has been reviewed by all sorts of reviewers. Here for example is a review by Nagihan Haliloglu, who is a young Islamic scholar of Turkish origin.[44] I am unaware of any negative reviews or specific criticisms of his use of images. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2's summary does not seem to reflect anything I have written. The Night Journey of Muhammad with Gabriel is part of Islamic tradition, There is already a reference to this mystical episode in the article and there could be more detail. Adding an image to illustrate the current text would also be appropriate. Mathsci (talk) 07:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to explain point #3. Currently, Wikipedia does not test for offensiveness when deciding whether to include a piece of content; it only tests for notablity and verifiability. If you want Wikipedia to establish a new rule saying that we will remove something that is notable and verifiable because it causes enough offence to outweigh its notablity, then that test will be applied (whether successfully or not) to far more articles than this one. It will be applied to hundreds of articles about religion. It will be applied to articles about human anatomy and sexuality. It will be applied to articles about evolution and abortion and flag-burning. It will be applied to articles about popular celebrities with controversial pasts. If you want to introduce a rule saying that Wikipedia takes offence into account, we can't just unilaterally create that rule when talking about one article. We would have to have a community-wide discussion about the rule and then describe it in writing. So if you want to make the offence argument, go to WP:VP/PR. Otherwise, lets stick to discussing whether the images add encyclopedic value. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 08:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

@Mathsci: You seem to be missing the point, on several fronts:

• No one is questioning that there was a style of Persian art that depicted Muhammad. However, Jayen has produced several sources that demonstrate that it was not a common or widespread practice even in its own time and place, and is far less common in all historical periods than non-depictive calligraphy or obscured images. Per wp:WEIGHT your source is valid, but a distinct and small minority worldview.
• BLP does not apply on talk pages in the way you are using it. It is perfectly acceptable to point out that Safi is an Iranian-American academic who is likely to have an atypical perspective for a muslim, if only because you yourself are trying to assert that he has a typical perspective. That doesn't discount his scholarship; it merely contextualizes his scholarly POV for the purposes of our discussion.
• A scholar is free to take liberties with his subject that are not granted to an encyclopedia. Safi's use of a controversial image is his prerogative: he knows the images cause offense (per Jayen's quote), and seems willing to make a bit of a stand on it, but that's between him and his publisher. We don't have that luxury as an encyclopedia.

If you're arguing that the style of art existed, we all agree with you. If you are arguing that the style of art is relevant to the Muhammad article you have not made an effective case.

@ Tarc: The fact that many Muslims find the behavior of muslim radicals disturbing does not mean that their religious beliefs are not being offended. It only means that they are embarrassed by the fanatics of their faith. It is a precept of Islam not to depict the prophet, and that fact that most Muslims are reasonable about it does not make the precept any less real. You keep trying to divide the world into foam-at-the-mouth fanatics and people who don't care, and that is an entirely unrealistic perspective. As I keep saying, efforts to fanaticize the opposition are not helpful or welcome.

On a side note, can an admin please caution Tarc about his language use? I mean seriously, it's such a pain to dig through stuff like:

• "I find this level of denial in Ludwigs' TL;DR diatribe to be quite frightening, honestly."
• "people like Ludwigs who stereotype and denigrate a billion+ people as hapless victims"
• "... boils down to is a bit of bleeding heart sentimentality…"

Just to get at the occassional level-headed point he makes. As it stands he is contributing far more to the atmosphere of hostility than he is to the discussion itself. --Ludwigs2 08:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

@ arctic.gnome: Actually, we do test for offensiveness, all the time; however it's usually handled as a matter of common sense and good taste. For instance, our article on Jews does not have any of the Nazi propaganda images that were so prevalent in the run-up to world war two because editors largely have the good sense not to include such (or to remove them if they get added). Nor do the Jyllands-Posten cartoons end up on the Muhammad article (even though they are as good a depiction of Muhammad as any that are currently there) because even on that conflicted page people recognize that there are limits. What's happened on this article is that good taste and common sense have been suspended over concerns about censorship, and that's just bass-ackwards. I find it highly doubtful that there is much of a change to be had here. Most articles already take a good-taste/common-sense approach to images, so no changes will be seen on them, and on other pages where good taste and common sense have been suspended they will reassert themselves, and that will only work to the project's benefit.

Really, I just don't buy the hyperbole: You seem to be saying that we cannot give even one single inch to Muslims, because if we do the project will be ravaged by fanatics. being open to good taste and common sense is not going to open the door to hordes of barbarians, and if you think it will you are stuck in a BATTLEGROUND worldview that is just no good for the project. A little fair perspective on the issue, please.

I'll add as an afterthought that you single-handedly added the bit about not paying attention to religious beliefs to NOTCENSORED in April 2010 [45], so please don't criticize me for single-handedly challenging it. it was a pointless, combative revision. --Ludwigs2 08:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Those are not tests for offensiveness. The reason we don't include Nazi propaganda images in the article about the Jewish people is that it is not notable enough to their culture over the course of 3000 years to warrant inclusion. The reason we don't include the cartoons in the Muhammad article is that they do not depict any events in the life of Muhammad. Those are both tests of notability, not offensiveness. And the line that I added to notcensered was clarifying a long-standing rule, not creating a new rule. Maybe there is no cause for concern if we start testing for offensiveness, but that is not for us to decide, it requires a community-wide discussion. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Omid Safi, who is chair of Islam in the American Academy of Religion, is more reliable than wikipedians for statements on Islam. Looking at the reviews of Safi's book (including the images) in print and on the web, I can find only positive reactions from non-Muslims and Muslims, from all parts of the Muslim world. Before he writes anything that he might regret, Ludwigs2 should check wikipedia policy more carefully. BLP does apply on all pages of wikipedia. I'm also not sure that it's helpful attributing statements to me that I haven't even suggested. As for sources on wikipedia, Safi's book is a WP:RS and we don't get to interpret it. We can summarise it in producing content, but personal commentaries should be reserved for blogs. Mathsci (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Safi himself writes,

• "As we shall see, most Muslims have refrained from making images of the Prophet, preferring instead to focus on depictions through calligraphic representations and narratives. Their concern has been that, given Muslims' deep affection and reverence toward Muhammad, images of him could lead people to confuse the worship of the God of the Prophet with the worship of the Prophet of God." [46]
• "It is true that Muslims do not produce graven images to be displayed in places of worship, such as mosques. In place of pictorial representations, there is a rich tradition of calligraphy, and ornate arabesque patterns, and natural designs." [47]

And he writes in the same piece that he avoids telling Muslim visitors to his home – depending on where they're from and whether they belong to the majority Sunni tradition – that the image of Muhammad he has there is in fact an image of Muhammad, for fear of offending them. At no point does he state that his view on Muhammad images, formed by his Iranian upbringing (he himself makes that linkage in his piece), is a majority view among muslims. The fact that he shows images in his book does not make him the majority view or the only view worth considering; in fact, he is quite clear about the fact that he wants to break new ground and foster a new attitude. Is that not so? If not, where do you differ in your reading of Safi? I agree that Safi and Grube are good sources, but we need to listen to what they are telling us. Both Safi and Grube describe the images as a minority tradition, a "special category" within Islamic art. --JN466 10:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

@Mathsci: RS does not nullify UNDUE; BLP does not prevent us from discussing a source's use and value under NPOV. Please don't use policy to undermine policy.

Also, you have not yet acknowledged the sources and quotes that Jayen has provided, despite the fact that Jayen's presented them 2 or 3 times now. it would be helpful if you addressed them. --Ludwigs2 14:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything to suggest there is really support for changing any policies, or that most editors have been convinced. It looks to me as if. like myself, the editors who disagree have said what they wanted to say and see no need to repeat in the face of inaccurate summaries, IDHT and TLDR posts. In order to ensure silence doesn't indicate consensus, I'm just noting that this is my last post here and I still see no reason to remove the useful and informative images whose presence is supported by WP:IMAGE and WP:IUP or replace them with less literal ones that feature calligraphy rather than actual pictures. The issue of which image to chose is something determined by the images available and should be discussed on the talk page. Attempting to impose a general principle based on alleged offense is not appropriate here, and hasn't succeeded in convincing me at least. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: A little bit of a history lesson for you. Muhammad is dead. Has been for a very long time. So... with that history lesson concluded, please explain to me which part of "Biographies of LIVING people" applies. Also, no policy says we have to have images isn't any rationale for or against them. And I believe you will find that (if you read policies and guidelines) images are suggested. I'm hoping you will spend some additional time reviewing these policies before making such erroneous claims. It would save you a lot of typing and us a lot of responses. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Did Ludwigs just really try to pull a "efforts to fanaticize the opposition are not helpful or welcome" attack, when that is precisely what he has been doing for the last month or so. I cannot believe that he has just blatantly lied, again, about those with whom he is in disagreement. Tarc (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

@WLU: If you wish to stop discussing the issue, that's you're prerogative, but please note that you haven't actually made an argument: you've just avoided all of the reasoned arguments for removing the images to restate your opinion that they should remain.

@Robert: Please pay attention - Mathsci was using a BLP argument with respect to a current source, and I was disputing that. We cannot have a proper discussion if you just make random comments without reading the material

@Tarc: ridiculous… again, can a sysop caution Tarc? If we cannot get administrators to ensure civil discussion on Jimbo's own page, then WTF... At the moment he's just trolling me with mindless insults, and I'd like someone to put a stop to that. Thanks. --Ludwigs2 17:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

An accurate description of your behaviour is not a personal attack. Resolute 18:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That's just what I was about to say as well, it is not an attack and I am quite tired of being lied about by this editor. We have a diff-full ANI report on Ludwigs that details this behavior already. Tarc (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

So, instead of addressing the current, reasonable, civil discussion, the two of you are solely focused on bringing up past conflicts so you can manufacture some type of administrative sanction. I think that's all we need to know to dismiss both of you out of hand. --Ludwigs2 19:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You are doing this at present, is the problem. Tarc (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Doing what at present, Tarc? having a reasoned discussion? I've done nothing here except try to discuss the issue (that's really all I did on the Muhammad page, too, though I wasn't quite as even-tempered there as I've been here). And yet, when I (or Jayen, or Anthony) make a reasoned argument, you and Robert and Resolute et al ignore what we say, repeat the same refuted party-line opinions over and over, toss out rude, snide, belittling commentary... You're seem to be trying to make a fight here, where one doesn't exist. What do you expect me to do with that?

Here's what I know, for a fact. You, Resolute, Robert, WLU - You don't have much of an argument. Period. If we were to discuss this issue in proper consensus style there are a couple of good points you all can make (I know, because I've heard you make them), but the bulk of rational argument is on our side of the fence. In a reasoned discussion most of the images would ultimately go - and I expect (ultimately) that that will be the eventual outcome of this debate, because reason usually does hold its own on project in the long run - but you don't even seem to try to use rational argumentation. You rely on emotional politics: demeaning those who opposes you; making hyperbolic, hysteria-ridden claims; shouting down opponents by demanding that your position is correct and inviolable. How are we supposed to have a discussion with someone who tells us that nothing we say will ever make any difference, and then calls us bad names for trying to make a difference anyway? --Ludwigs2 22:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You have not brought any new "reasonable discussion" to this debate in many days. Instead, you keep taking us in circles in an effort to fatigue your opponents. And I will admit, I am quite tired of this debate. Others have far more tolerance for this nonsense than I do. Putting all of your tendentious aside, consider this to be my standing objection to any and all of your arguments. The reasoning behind each can be found in the archives of the appropriate talk pages, where they have been listed more than once. I do continue to monitor, however, and those who are actually engaged in good faith debate have my utmost respect. They are far more patient than I. Resolute 22:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Part of the Night Flight of the prophet Muhammad

Resolute: again, Jayen and Anthony and I have been making a set of reasoned arguments. If you would address the reasoning, this would be over fairly quickly. Your choice. --Ludwigs2 22:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Anthony and I have had reasonable discussions on this topic. I have long since realized that you are not capable of such, despite all of your false pretenses. Resolute 23:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: Jayen, Anthony and myself (and numerous others such as Reso, Tivanir2, Tarc, and so on) have been engaged in constructive discussions that have been going rather well. As a matter of fact, in our discussions, there is only one difference. Someone is absent from them. Amazing how smooth such discussions go under those circumstances. Regardless, as your accusations against us continue, I for one will continue to press the issue at AN/I, since behavior and accusations are a big part of it - definitely not going to let that AN/I issue "fade away" when such is still ongoing. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither Ernst J. Grube nor Omid Safi have made the statements ascribed to them by Jayen466, who still seems intent on marginalising various aspects of Islamic art. Both Safi and Grube have written books or chapters in books accompanied extensively by precisely the images (see opposite) which Jayen466 has described at various times as insignificant/unrepresentative/uneducational/controversial/offensive. This type of assessment seem to be based on Jayen466's personal views rather than anything that can be found in scholarly texts. Mathsci (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, Mathsci, I have given links and page numbers for these quotes. They are verifiable.

• Grube: "Yet for many reasons, a fully developed Muslim iconography – in the sense that the West would understand it – never emerged in Islamic culture, although representations of Muhammad comprise a special category of Muslim religious painting that developed within the framework of Islamic art. They too, often appear in the larger context of a general world history. And however unexpectedly the image may appear, there are also illustrated Muslim texts that deal specifically with the life of the Prophet and, even more astonishingly, with the metaphysical and highly mysterious mi'raj, the journey made by the Prophet during the course of just one night through all the Heavens and into Hell. Such paintings bear comparison with the cycles of the Life Christ in Christian churches or manuscripts." Comparing Islamic religious art to Christian religious art, he writes nevertheless, "... after the acceptance of Christianity by Rome in the fourth century under Constantine, the change from pure symbol to unmistakably Christian imagery was fairly rapid. Islam, by contrast, never officially adopted a figural religious iconography; indeed, the very lawfulness of images was hotly debated in the early Islamic centuries. In mosques there are no cycles of paintings illustrating the prophet's life and deeds comparable to those of the life of Christ or the saints in Christian churches or, for that matter, the life of the Buddha in Buddhist temples. Thus, that one of the most extraordinary images of the Prophet's Night Journey should appear in poetic texts written in Persian, where it is apparently "out of context", suggests that such pictures comprise a highly elusive form of religious imagery ...""iconography", p. 133
• Safi: "As we shall see, most Muslims have refrained from making images of the Prophet, preferring instead to focus on depictions through calligraphic representations and narratives. Their concern has been that, given Muslims' deep affection and reverence toward Muhammad, images of him could lead people to confuse the worship of the God of the Prophet with the worship of the Prophet of God." [48]
• Safi: "It is true that Muslims do not produce graven images to be displayed in places of worship, such as mosques. In place of pictorial representations, there is a rich tradition of calligraphy, and ornate arabesque patterns, and natural designs." [49],
• Safi: "Now when Muslim friends come over to our home and ask about the image, I try to surmise from what I know about them whether I should reveal the identity or simply state: “It is an image of a holy man who is exceedingly dear to me." [50], [51] --JN466 00:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes Ludwigs, I'm sure you do find comfort talking with Jayen and people that share your general disposition. We all do. But the measure of a man comes when they must interact with those of differing..sometimes diametrical...points of view. And as I and others have pointed pout on several occasions, you have characterized the image-keepers as bigots, as stubborn, as obstacles, as being utterly incapable of understanding policies and guidelines relevant to images. You have gone to ArbCom, to WQA, to here, to WP:NOT. You have thrown every wiki-acronym under the sun at others, from NPA to IAR to IDHT to NPOV as you try to beat down the opposition with walls of text. And through all this there's really not a thing you have done to advance the conversation one iota towards your goal. Others have actually initiated productive dialog, such as the recent one on the black stone on the Muhammad talk page. Tarc (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

An aside before my post; I apologize for not seeing this prior to now but it seems like this is the fifth area this has spilled into and i didn't find this until today. Now on to the actual response. The images of muhammad provide educational benefits by depicting scenes noteworthy in his life. They are used to visually represent and support the passages describing major events that were essential to understanding who muhammad was. Thus once again I point out they are perfectly suited in the article unless of course the text it supports is now absent (i.e. the black stone picture that is under review right now.) As pointed out we are willing to revisit areas where pictures no longer make sense just like any other article. Asking for summary deletion for the we are offending someone argument once again goes into policy merry-go-round. Cheers Tivanir2 (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is asking for summary deletion, just that they be represented in proportion to their prominence in the article on Muhammad. These images are rare; they are not the rule, but the exception to the rule, and the reader of Muhammad should not come away with the opposite impression. --JN466 00:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I would contend that (a) rarity is irrelevant or (b) rarity adds a tiny bit more relevance. And here's why: this article is not "Depictions of Muhammad" or "Islamic Art". It is a biography. And it is one where we have visual representations of how Muhammad was perceived to have looked, as well as such representations of how his actions in various historical events was perceived. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it's clear that the description "rare" is disputed. It's a relative term. Depictions of Thales are far rarer. Should they be excluded from his article? --FormerIP (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If there is a particular kind of depiction of Thales that is rare, vs. another one that is very common, then it is the common one that should predominate in our article on him. It would be inappropriate for the rare one to predominate. --JN466 02:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

@ Tarc, Robert: Ok, so (per this and this) you guys are officially out to get me, rather than to solve the issue at hand. Got it.

@ Tavinir2: That's actually not a half-bad rationale. However, I question how much value these images have as depictions of "scenes noteworthy in his life". They are not particularly accurate or true-to-life. So we come back to the basic question: do these images add enough value to justify offending the beliefs of millions of Muslims? Please be aware that I understand the nature of this problem for you: if you so much as allow yourself to ask this question then the obvious answer is 'no'; this is why so many people are putting so much effort into trying to preclude the question from being asked. Are you really trying to suggest that these images have that much importance to the article? --Ludwigs2 02:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. I'm out to see you stop continued attempts at character assassination of other editors. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If you stop, I'll be the first to change my !vote to "Oppose block" - but recent comments such as stating or implying we have "deep-seated anti-Islamic prejudice" most definitely isn't stopping doing such. So, since you won't stop, it's time to prevent it from continuing. If you do stop before the AN/I report runs its course, I'll change my !vote to oppose. So tell me, am I out to get you, or does that make sense? It's funny, though I disagree with your opinions, I could be your staunchest ally - if actions like the one I mentioned above (or like you just now mischaracterizing what I know I said very clearly) stopped. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert - please tell me what it is I've done here that you consider 'character assassination'. I haven't talked about you as an editor or a person much at all in this thread, except to point out that you don't have a valid argument, and that's not character assassination, that's proper discussion. I can't say you've shown me the same grace: half of your posts to this page are about me rather than about the topic. Really, when you say things like: "I for one will continue to press the issue at AN/I, since behavior and accusations are a big part of it - definitely not going to let that AN/I issue "fade away" that sounds bad faith, like you're determined to drum for administrative sanctions as long as it takes for you to get them.

Why don't you tell me what I've said here that you don't like; maybe that will clear things up. --Ludwigs2 03:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I am not necessarily discussing your actions solely on this page. I am discussing such actions by you - regardless of where on Wikipedia. Such as[52] - or once again (above, today)[53] claiming our motives are anti-religious (at least this time you didn't claim they were Anti-Islamic or prejudice against Muslims). There are more, as I am sure you are aware. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert: This page is the only place I've been discussing this issue recently - you don't have any other pages by which to evaluate my recent behavior. that aside, I don't understand what specific problem you have with the first diff you gave (it seems fairly straight-forward to me - what specific problem do you have with it?); the 'anti-religious' statement is a direct response to a number of editors (Kww, Tarc, even yourself, if I remember correctly) who have stated that wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia that specifically rejects all religious viewpoints. This is a factually anti-religious perspective; that's a description, not an insult. Now, if I've misinterpreted, and you do not believe that wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia that actively opposes religious viewpoints, then the statement is wrong and I'll retract it. The important point is to be clear about what positions we are each actually presenting so that we can move forward in the conversation. understand? --Ludwigs2 04:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• "The editors advocating for these images (not just FormerIP, but most of them) have a distinctly unpleasant tendency to trivialize and fanaticize Muslim viewpoints." We do? I thought we said that as long as Wikipedia is secular, they simply don't matter - followed by us pointing you to village pump to try to change that.
• And then you get back to the core of your argument: "We can have a decent discussion over whether Wikipedia needs/wants to offend the religious beliefs of all these people[...]" We could, but we shouldn't. We follow policies and guidelines to justify the text, images, links, whatever based on relevance and (where applicable) educational value - but again you seem to imply it's about us thinking we need or want to offend Muslims. That is definitely not in my character (nor others) - it is something I deem irrelevant until policy is changed to address religious offense. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• With respect to the first point, some of you do have that tendency, above and beyond the secularity argument. I've pointed this out on several occasions. Usually it starts from a more-or-less reasonable claim and then implodes, e.g.:
  • The images offend Muslim religious beliefs (fair statement, whether or not one believes it)
  • The images offend Muslims (personalization, so that it's an emotional claim rather than a religious precept)
  • The images offend some Muslims (reducing the size of the group)
  • The images offend fanatical Muslims (much smaller group, with irrational overtones)

I've seen this process play out a dozen times. Do you disagree that you make these arguments? The point of such arguments - as far as I can tell - is to present 'offense' as the property of a small, fanatical, irrational sub-population so that it can be dismissed without discussion. Again, if that's not what's intended, you should explain what the aim is; all I can see is what actually happens in the logical progression.

• With respect to the second point: that's a really odd spin on my perspective. What I have said repeatedly is that we do offend Muslim religious beliefs. I don't think anyone questions that (I don't remember anyone saying that we don't, at any rate), and my concern is over why we are offending Muslim religious beliefs. We don't seem to have a valid encyclopedic reason for doing it I mean, I'm sorry, but you put me in a difficult position - I don't know whether have personal reasons for wanting to do this or whether you simply don't understand the ramifications of your own actions, so I don't know the best way to educate you about the issue. All I know is that from the perspective of wikipedia there is no valid reason to offend religious beliefs on this page. We're just doing it gratuitously, and that does not seem right.

When it comes right down to it, you are making a huge stand (four years and 16 archives worth of conflict) over images that are at best of trivial importance to the article. I cannot imagine why you would do that, or why you continue to do it. It makes no sense. Maybe if you could explain that to me we could make some progress. --Ludwigs2 05:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait wait wait. For you? Implications I am yet again prejudice against another person for whatever reasons you state. Stop trying to assign me values that don't exist. I am not prejudice towards anyone on any grounds, I couldn't care less if they had 8 eyes and lived on pluto. Now on to your points, yes the images offend some muslims. I don't have any information on how that may be and if someone else has numbers please let us see them. I want actual concrete proof from somewhere that this is a major issue not just assuming it is on someones behalf. These images aren't gratuitous (no controversial images in the fact that it is controversial just because it is muhammad not dantes inferno muhammad) so that argument gets nowhere. And once again back to marginalizing images that we have pointed out reasons for. The merry-go-round is chugging along. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Second section break

It depends what you mean, Jayen. If you mean calligraphy, that already predominates in the article 9:5. If you mean other depictions such as veiled, abstract or more recent, it is for editors to propose the inclusion of those images in the article if they want them there. --FormerIP (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, no one has proposed another depiction of Muhammad that is more common. Therein lies the problem. Calligraphy is not Muhammad or a depiction of how he was perceived to look. No one would look at calligraphy and say "yeah, that's what he looked like!" Nor is "flame and veil" - that is simply a depiction of specifically how he does not look in order to have something that does not violate religious rules. A biography has pictures of (a) how someone looked, or (b) failing the availability of such, how others perceived him to look. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I added a number of calligraphic images a week or so ago, because we had practically none. Muhammad has many names, and there is very common calligraphy of those; we don't have a single example. Quranic inscriptions (let's not forget, the Quran is a record of actual words spoken by Muhammad) are on mosques all over the world; we lack a single example. There are important relics of Muhammad that we have images of; none are in the article. Generally speaking, Muhammad has not been received visually. Unlike some antique depictions of Caesar and so on, none of the extant images were made in Muhammad's lifetime; they are purely imaginary pieces of art which do not claim to depict what Muhammad looked like. There are in fact very detailed verbal descriptions of Muhammad's phyisical appearance recorded by people who physically met him, and these are important in Islam; again, until about a week ago, we did not provide any of them in our article. In general, Muhammad's reception has not been visual, but word-based. There is a nice explanation of this here:

For Christians, Jesus, who is represented to them by a repertoire of images literally from the cradle to the grave, is something like a fully realized film star, every trait etched in the public's shared visual memory. The figuration of Muhammad more resembles that of a radio personality, a voice heard from afar whose features each can only imagine for oneself. Muslims must individually picture the Prophet as the voice behind the Quran or as a figure emerging from between the lines of the Sira or from the concrete but often generic traits—“neither too tall nor too short”—described but never portrayed in the hilyeler or elsewhere.

Islam is logocentric. It's Muhammad's words that matter – endlessly studied, memorised, analysed, calligraphed and inscribed. Unlike Christianity or Buddhism, images or statues of Muhammad have never played a significant role in the public life of Islam. Our article should reflect that. Best, --JN466 02:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Jayen, I think you misunderstood my points. I have no problems showing how Muhammad is represented using either calligraphy or "flame and veil". But I'm not discussing or debating those (when used for those purposes). I am discussing how he looked or was perceived to look - and stating that neither of those others qualifies. No one thinks he looked like calligraphy. No one thinks he looked like flame and veil. Thus, a representation on how people thought he looked would be a depiction of Muhammad - not of calligraphy or of "we cant depict what he looked like, so here's what he doesnt look like via flame and veil". Hope that explains what I was trying to say. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The images that do exist are entirely fanciful, and conform to the visual language of local artistic traditions. No one actually thinks Muhammad looked like that, and those images never shaped public consciousness about Muhammad. Again, there is a difference here with Jesus: there is an iconic image of Jesus – a young man with a beard, long hair (and a halo) – that pervades Christian consciousness. The miniatures have no comparable significance in Islam. They were not part of public life, but restricted to a private, courtly setting. The vast majority of Muslims would have been unaware of them (indeed, as Safi points out, many still are) and they never shaped public consciousness in the way Christian iconography did. Islam is focused on the words of Muhammad, because to Muslims they are the words of the messenger of God. --JN466 03:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Even assuming that to be entirely true (and there are points I disagree with), it is covered and permitted in both policy and guideline - namely IUP and MOS\Images (I've quoted the relevant sections 3 times already, so I will not do so again). Therein lies the problem - back to Village Pump to change or amend those. But I disagree on the Jesus comparison. No Christian who is educated in their religion believes Jesus looked like that. As for the "fanciful", etc part, if you can find a cite from the artist stating that was their intent, I'll give you that - otherwise, as we both know, it's OR. And significance in Islam isn't relevant. A picture of Tesla has little significance in anything in this country - except to those who perhaps are knowledgeable in the correct areas of science. How can we impose the significance of a religion or other country on whether something is relevant to the article? And again, what you say holds true for the articles on Islam and Depictions of Muhammad - this article is neither. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Robert: again - permitted is not the same as required. We are permitted to do many things on project that we choose not to do; the question here is whether this is something we want to do. --Ludwigs2 03:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Robert, I don't understand your reference to the Depictions of Muhammad article, because clearly these images are relevant in that article. I don't wish to impose the standards of a religion or another country on Wikipedia. We are looking at how Muhammad has been received by humanity; and most of that reception has naturally occurred among Muslims. What I am against is imposing the artistic sensibilities of a very small minority of these Muslims on the article, over all the rest of Muslims, and the rest of humanity. Best, --JN466 04:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. in Muslim culture Muhammad is generally not depicted in human form. This is the way that Muslims perceive him. I can't understand why Robert is asserting that the article needs to have a person-like image. Maybe he's afraid our readers don't know what a 'person' looks like? They certainly won't learn anything else about Muhammad from these images.

If Muslims generally depict the prophet as calligraphy, or as a dancing flame, why should we reject those as proper depictions of the prophet? That's like rejecting the animal-head imagery you find in Egyptian and Indian mythos because it's not 'realistic' enough. But realistic or not, Muslims overwhelmingly depict Muhammad in abstract forms, and our article ought to reflect that. --Ludwigs2 03:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia does not write articles for Muslim culture. After a month of discussion, why is not sinking in? Tarc (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Tarc: that wasn't a 'Muslim culture' argument, that was an NPOV argument. If the most frequent and prominent images of the prophet are abstract forms, then per NPOV they should have proportionally larger representation in the article. Or are you suggesting we don't write articles for NPOV? --Ludwigs2 03:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Er, no, writing for NPOV would mean that we would not favor the religious demands of a handful conservative Muslims, and instead write the Muhammad article neutrally and fairly, i.e. with images. Your interpretation of policy is so wrong on such a basic level. Tarc (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, NPOV means presenting viewpoints in proportion to their prevalence; does it not? It does not refer to any abstract notion of neutrality, or non-religiousness, or whatever. "In proportion to their prominence"—no more, no less. And we have good sources agreeing that these early Islamic images are rare, that they form a special category within Islamic art, were a courtly tradition of miniatures, were never used in public places of worship, and are not representative of Islamic art generally, which eschews figurative images, and especially figurative images of God and Muhammad. That is true, is it not? Then how do you justify giving these images such prominence in the article on Muhammad? How does it represent them in proportion to their prominence and cultural significance? These images are rarities in Islam. They are so rare that many Muslims are unaware that they exist, and incredulous when you tell them that yes, they were made by Muslims. --JN466 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

As with Ludwigs, that is a very unfortunate twisting of NPOV to suit your needs. An Wikipedia article that capitulates to an outside religious minority and removes images to appease their religious beliefs would itself violate NPOV. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a rather unfortunate twisting of NOTCENSORED to say we have to stick more Muhammad images in than NPOV justifies, just to prove to the world that we are not "capitulating to an outside religious minority". I don't feel the need to prove anything, other than describing Muhammad's reception accurately, but if its proof you're after two images (one Islamic, one European, which no one has argued should be removed) will already do that. --JN466 15:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ludwigs, because he was in human form. That is not questioned by anyone. As for your Egyptian analogy, it doesn't hold water. Wherever possible, we use "human form" representations in conjunction with the rest. Which is also why I am for Jayen's recent work - they bring balance in showing what he was perceived to look like (the images we've been debating) as well as how he was represented (the calligraphy and the flame & veil). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert: I'm not following your logic. Obviously he was in human form - we don't need an image to tell us that. You seem to be suggesting that we pick a more-or-less random image of a human just to indicate that Muhammad was a human. That's a little silly as logic goes, but not problematic in itself - it becomes problematic because doing it requires that we fly in the face of both NPOV and the precepts of Islam. Do you have a more sophisticated rationale than "we need to indicate Muhammad was human"? --Ludwigs2 04:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, you aren't following me. Apologies, I will try for more clarity. He was human. He looked human. We have images of how he was perceived to look. I would posit that how the subject of an article looked or (failing that being possible) was perceived to look provides a great deal of understanding of the societies and cultures who had such perceptions. I am also for the images Jayen has added because they show how he was represented (which is very different from how he looked or was perceived to look). My post got EC'd a bit below your post, so to reiterate, you brought up the Egyptian stuff - I mentioned that when possible, we did our best to provide portrayals of how the person looked (or was perceived to) - not just abstract representations. And I believe the same should apply here. Such things fascinate me, and I find a lot of educational value and relevance to such (images, perceptions and abstract representations - ALL three - alas we have only two). And the six or seven discussions about this in the last 6 or 7 months seem to indicate that the vast majority of those who have responded see such value and relevance as well. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

well, as long as you're willing to abide by NPOV and UNDUE (limiting the person-like images to appropriate proportions with respect to abstract representations and contextualizing them to a proper art historical context) then I don't really have a problem with what you've said. Again, there is no rule or policy that say we must have images of any particular type on the article, so we do not need any person-like images, but I'm not averse to the idea so long as there is a clear encyclopedic reason for using such. --Ludwigs2 06:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

A brief summary

I am arguing the images of Muhammad at Muhammad lack significant educational value relevant to the topic – the life, thought and impact of Muhammad. Jayen is arguing that figural portrayal of Muhammad is over-represented in our article compared with the vast bulk of current and traditional portrayal. Jimbo, above, is arguing that the images we have used are not what a reader would expect to find in this kind of article. Ludwigs argues that, though we may pay little attention to Jimbo's, Jayen's and my points in most articles, because of the controversial nature of this content we should on this occasion.

That is, he is echoing the Foundation's May 2011 resolution on controversial content where it urges Commons

to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment [content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain] in categorization and placement.

Jimbo, a member of the Foundation board, has said about that resolution

I'm unaware of any discussion at the board level that would suggest that the resolution applies only to commons.

(To be clear, no one's arguing we have to do what we're told by the Foundation in this regard, I'm pointing out they also make the point.) The onus is on the includers to justify the presence of this controversial content in terms of real educational value and reader expectation. So far, they've failed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, I disagree. Please state why you don't find them relevant and educational. Not simply that you do not. State why. Be fair. We've had to repeat our reasons numerous times. I'm only asking for you to state yours once. Anything other than "they offend" please. That does not answer why you do not find them educational. It's totally unrelated (and perhaps now you can see why that "answer" trotted out by others (PLURAL) over the years has upset so many - since it is not an answer to the question at all).

Here's a small portion of the reasons I think they are:

1. Many readers find depictions of how people perceived the subject matter to be informative and educational (I can point to multiple RfCs, consensus, etc where this has been pointed out).
2. Many of us find the changes in perceptions to be very educational as it shows (a) differences in how different societies perceived the subject, or (b) how a particular society's perceptions changed over time. (Jesus and Thor also fit this -and this is something I find overwhelmingly interesting. How much of a story is myth, how much is legend and how much is reality? And how do the depictions through those ages compare/change?)
3. Numerous entities deem the images are of educational value to Islamic topics and have included them in galleries on Islam and art related to Islam, such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Topkapi Palace Museum, The British Library in London, and the building for SCOTUS - along with numerous works on art and Islamic history. My opinion is of far less weight than those who are deemed far better sources than I.
4. I (and others) find it educational to have (in order of preference) (a) a photograph of the subject of an article, (b) a sitting portrait (or portrait based off a photo), (c) a depiction of how the subject was thought to have looked or (d) a depiction of how the subject was perceived to have looked. In my case, even with (a) and (b), I'd still be interested in seeing (d) if there was some sort of divergence that would gain me a better understanding of cultural and societal influences (such as Euro-Jesus and Blond-Scandi-Thor)
5. And counter to the argument that they dont look like him, policy and guideline specifically permits depictions intended to be of the subject even if they are not accurately representative (which again, if there were photos, I'd say they should be assigned prominence - but I know I am not the only person who is also interested in perceptions).

There is no reality for humans. There is only perception. Often they coincide. Often they do not. To fully understand anything, understanding others' perceptions is often more important than just understanding reality. Perceptions are reflections into what people believe, how they think on certain subjects and more. Since so many of us are vastly different, knowing how others perceive things (to me) is vitally important if I am going to learn to understand their thoughts, opinions and feelings.

Finally, that brings us back to this one point (that I made to someone else earlier): this has been hashed out six or seven times in the last six or seven months, and overwhelmingly, it was determined that the vast majority of those who responded thought the images educational and relevant. So... even when you do answer why you think they are not educational, it still reverts back to what the community feels (not what you or I feel), and no matter how many times it's brought up over the past few years, the community has ended up indicating they feel the same - they are educational and relevant. Side note, we have brought up these and other reasons before. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, one more note: EVERYTHING in that resolution is already covered in policy and guideline. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Two points that need to be made, without prejudice: (1) logic dictates that it is impossible to prove a negative, so it's irrational to ask someone to prove that the images have no educational value. The burden is on you to demonstrate they have positive educational value. (2) Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy even on wikipedia. I personally will place one good reason above a thousand casual opinions, and I'd recommend that perspective to everyone. --Ludwigs2 06:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Yes they are examples of how Muhammad was portrayed (in an extreme minority of instances) in the past. But that is not relevant to this article. Relevant means related to the topic but also important to the discussion. Clearly how he was (rarely to the point of exception) depicted figuratively in the past is related to Muhammad, but it is not relevant to Muhammad, except for a brief mention which I have inserted at Muhammad#Depictions of Muhammad. A depiction is relevant in that section, and it contains a depiction.
2. Those images in that article do not explain (a) differences in how different societies perceived the subject, or (b) how a particular society's perceptions changed over time. To say anything clear on those points will take a whole article: Depictions of Muhammad. In this article, they are meaningless examples without explanatory text.
3. See #1.
4. You may like to see anachronistic, unrepresentative images in an article, but that isn't an argument for relevance.
5. Such images are tolerated. They contradict WP:IUP with regard to relevance and educational value in this article - and many others. Toleration is not compulsion, though. When other editors object on reasonable grounds - educational value, relevance, reader expectation - the onus is on you to justify inclusion.

With regard to your last, unnumbered point: Yes policy covers this well. The Foundation, Ludwigs, I and others are urging you to follow policy concerning relevance here. I know that policy is routinely ignored on many articles but, because of the controversial nature of this content, I think we should pay particular attention to educational value and reader expectation here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I would argue:

1. It is not in a minority of instances. Calligraphy is not in any way akin to perceptions of how one looks. Neither is "we can't portray his face so we'll use a white spot or veil and use flame as well". MathSci had a lot more on this as well. Thus, this is a point of disagreement - brings us back to consensus. We know what that is.
2. Earlier, people were arguing they were of various sources. They are also from various time periods. Both argues against your opinion on this. As opinion (both of our points) we turn to consensus again.
3. See my number 1 ;-)
4. As noted earlier, policy and guidelines explicitly state it is permissible. I've quoted them even. That aside, once again, while you do deem the images fit those categories and are not educational, I disagree - thus we turn towards consensus.
5. Tolerated? Why? What tolerance is involved? Also they do not necessarily contradict IUP. You see, that's your opinion. My opinion is they have relevance and educational value. And thus, we turn to consensus.

See where it returns again? Let's do that RfC and see what happens. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) (1) Muhammad is almost universally portrayed in text or calligraphy, not figurative portrayals. (2) So what? What's the relevance to this topic that justifies the number of them. This is not Depictions of Muhammad. (3) Nobody argues that figurative portrayal is typical, currently or historically. (4) Policy specifically discourages use of irrelevant images (See: Wikipedia:Image use policy#Content). (5) "Tolerated", because of #4.

Is it time for an RfC? This kind of wide-ranging and inclusive discussion is, I think, a necessary preamble to an RfC, if only to save the community's time by refining the various arguments first. But maybe we're there. If we go to an RfC now, I'd like it to be open-ended, i.e., no formal question, no !vote, at least for the first few weeks, to canvass new perspectives. What is the issue? Muhammad or a wider question about controversial content?

Jimbo, I'm sorry this has taken up so much of your page. But, knowing you're watching, knowing your intolerance for inappropriate behaviour, and, I suspect, simple respect for your experience and position, have all worked to make this the most focused discussion of this issue I've seen. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert:

1. You can only make this argument if you refuse to acknowledge multiple scholarly sources which state that Muslims used calligraphy in place of physical depictions. Look at Jayen's sources, above; that's what they say. are you explicitly rejecting wp:RS?
2. None of these 'interesting points' are actually discussed in the article (at least they weren't a week ago); there is no clear educational value to the mere presentation of these images. One cannot merely slap an image on a page and assume the reader will dig out the subtleties of historic variation over time; that needs description
3. Yes, the images clearly have value as works of art in a historical context. However, the article Muhammad is not an art-history article, so that is irrelevant.
4. We don't write articles to satisfy the whims of editors; we write them so that readers find them useful and informative. When the whims of editors get in the way of that, the whims of editors don't count.
5. 'Permissible' is not the same as 'necessary' and is not the same as 'desirable'. There's no dispute on the first point, but much dispute on the second two. please focus on the correct issue.

You are falling back on the 'subjective relativism' defense - where one asserts that reason cannot be used to evaluate the issue so everything is just a conflict of opinion. It doesn't really work here because this is not a matter of mere opinion; You're simply not engaging the reasoned arguments that are being made. That's fine if it's all you can think to do, but the failure to acknowledge an argument doesn't make it any less powerful. --Ludwigs2 06:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs:

1. Don't care. Doesn't matter. Wrong article. This is not the article on "Depictions of Muhammad". This is not the article on "Islamic art". This is not a religious article. This is an article about Muhammad, where I fully expect, for various educational reasons, to see how he looks or how he was perceived to look. If this were one of those other articles, I'd agree. It isn't.
2. Other than the black stone, (which WAS in the article and removed), the rest of the historical scenes were in the article text.
3. Check the books mentioned (that Math listed). If not for those, I'd concede this point.
4. This has nothing to do with whims. I find the images useful and informative. You claim not to. Hence we turn to the community to see where the community falls. We already know that answer.
5. Correct, permissible does not mean that. Now that we've cleared up that policies and guidelines actually specifically state that this is permissible, I am hoping no one ever claims it says otherwise. That was the point of my comment - it was not a "permissible means we should do this" point. It was "no, the policies and guidelines don't forbid it like people keep claiming - they most specifically state it is permissible".

No, I'm not falling back on such an argument. You're positing that your opinion on the matter trumps mine because you think your reasoning is more valid. I, on the other hand, am saying two things (1) you cannot deem what I or others don't find educational. Period. Full stop. We do, sorry. And (2) you're positing that your "facts" trump what the community has decided (over a half dozen times in recent months) is (a) opinion, and (b) tiny minority. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

lol - Robert: that is a perfect example of a 'subjective relativism' defense. You're basically saying that you feel really strongly that these images are important and relevant, and no amount of reasoning will convince you otherwise. Add that you've dismissed RS, you've dismissed NPOV, you assert I have no right to even question your subjective assessments, and you back your position up with pure ad populum reasoning… If this were a high-school debate society your forensics coach would be on the verge of an apoplectic fit. This is an ostrich move, the textual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah… so the you can't hear what others are saying.

Just with respect to your one substantive point, Mathsci doesn't actually have 'books': he's got one book (by Omid Safi) and a short list of museums and art-history sources that use the images. And even with the one book he has, he is cherry-picking quotes (ignoring quotes that Jayen has provided which tend to dispute the position he's trying to advance). I don't want to discredit Safi, who seems like a respectable academic, but using Safi to advance a position that Safi himself seems to dispute is textbook wp:synthesis. --Ludwigs2 14:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad is a biography. In every biography I could find on WP, there is either a depiction or a placeholder for a depiction. While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for a specific case, surely "all the other similar stuff exists" is. It establishes the preferred format for articles about people. In some cases, WP uses modern photographs; in others, portraits painted either in the lifetime of the subject or many years later. In yet others, like Shakespeare, for example, we have a suspect portrait and in still another, we have an "imaginary" depiction. For Heroditus, we have a photo of a "purported" bust. In other words, for every person whose life is the subject of an article, we have the best depictions we can locate.

In what way are the artistic renderings of the visage of Muhammad any different? That a subset of the peoples of the world does not like/approve of their use at all is of concern to them, but cannot be the concern of WP. The Bahá'ís would dearly love to have the photographs of their prophet Bahá'u'lláh removed from his article, for the same reasons the Muslims give. The photographs remain for the same reason the Muhammad renderings should remain -that these are the best (however anachronistic, imperfect, even imaginary they may be) we can find of the person who was Muhammad.

For all of the examples I have given, the subject is known for his words, and while these words are not usually considered holy (Muhammad and Bahá'u'lláh excepted), they are certainly important and highly regarded. And yet what these great thinkers and writers might have looked like is also important to our readership. Where the flame and the veil help us to see the perception of the divinity of Muhammad, and should also be included, the visages help us to see the perception of his humanity. Therein lies the educational purpose. Bielle (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

@Bielle: I agree that there is a preferred format here. I am suggesting that a 'Wikipedia formatting preference' is not a valid reason in itself for including controversial images that offend readers' religious beliefs. The very idea is bizarre, like suggesting that we should not stop a threshing machine just because some silly worker got his arm caught in it. Formatting preferences are not part of article information; they are rubrics we apply, not rules we have to obey.

I'll add that I am perturbed by the logical inconsistency in your second paragraph. You say "That a subset of the peoples of the world does not like/approve of their use at all is of concern to them, but cannot be the concern of WP," while in fact you and other editors have demonstrated that you are yourselves very concerned about the issue. what you're basically saying is this:

• Group Q is concerned about X
• Wikipedia cannot be concerned about what group Q thinks
• Therefore Wikipedia must contradict X in all cases

The conclusion does not follow from the premises. The 'proper' conclusion would be "Wikipedia must ensure that X does not exceed its proper proportionate representation." We're Not Concerned By… is not equivalent to We Must Actively Oppose…, and I don't understand why you've made the leap from the first position to the second.

I'm going to add - just because of the gross misrepresentation - that Muhammad is not considered divine in Islam. In fact, part of the rationale behind the precept against depicting the prophet is to keep people from fixating on the image and associating that with Allah. It's not a huge point, but it's better if you don't misrepresent the beliefs while discussing them. --Ludwigs2 14:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

@Bielle: Certainly, if we had a photograph of Muhammad, no one involved in this present discussion would object to its inclusion. That other biographies contain uninformed artists' imaginings of the subject is a matter for the editors at those articles. Many here are arguing that we should apply policy with regard to relevant educational value and take account of readers' expectations in this case, rather than do what other articles may do. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually what Bielle is trying to point out is Group Q is offended by X. Wikipedia does not consider offense to Group Q because then it would have to weaken dozens if not hundreds of articles because "people take offense". Therefore when Group Q complains about X we need to use policies to make sure that wikipedia continues to provide the best articles available. Once again we aren't trying to be needlessly antoginistic since we don't include controversial images (outside of the fact they are about the people named above.) Like I have pointed out numerous times if we actually wanted to offend people we would have bomb hat muhammad as the first picture not the calligraphy of his name (which won the spot as most common associated.) Tivanir2 (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, Tivanir2, you miss the point: these images do not help to make "the best article available," they simply antagonize people needlessly. You are making the absurdly hyperbolic claim that being reasonable on this article will cause commotion on hundreds of other articles. Being reasonable doesn't cause commotion; it resolves it. --Ludwigs2 16:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

So the images antagonize people, big deal. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, reducing the number of figurative images is the right thing to do because not to do so misrepresents Islamic culture. Offence in itself would not be enough. The photograph of Bahá'u'lláh for example would seem to be a different kettle of fish. Firstly, it actually is a genuine historical photograph, one used in the movement itself for special religious purposes. As such it has an undeniable educational value with respect to Bahá'u'lláh. We have a similar situation with Xenu. I would not be able to argue in good faith the Bahá'u'lláh image or the Xenu article should be removed because Baha'is and Scientologists feel strongly that their presence in such a public context as Wikipedia is inappropriate. Wikipedia is indeed not censored, and the offence in those two cases is not needless. --JN466 16:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Bielle, the difference is that, if we aim to show representations in proportion to their prevalence, figurative depictions must come a distant fourth place in the article on Muhammad, because they are rare, completely unknown in many Muslim cultures, and have never been used to decorate public places of worship anywhere in the world. Calligraphy of Muhammad's words, names or descriptions of his physical appearance is used instead, and present in mosques all over the world.

Look at the article on Allah. They are no images of a white-bearded gentleman in it (unlike the article God). There are only images of calligraphy, because that—along with passages from the Quran, which is believed to be God's word—is the only way God is represented in Islam. There simply are no images you could use; the stricture against images of Allah is absolute. The difference with the article on Muhammad is only a matter of degree. The stricture against figurative images of Muhammad is the second-most emphatic such stricture in Islam, which generally deemphasises figurative art. While the stricture against representations of Allah is never broken, the one against images of Muhammad has on rare occasions and in certain limited contexts been broken, as we've seen.

Now, the point is that the conspicuous lack of images of Muhammad throughout the history of Islamic art is itself an important educational point here. Visitors to our article should understand and learn how Muhammad is portrayed. They should notice and learn that unlike other figures like Jesus, Krishna or Buddha, Islamic places of worship do not contain images and statues of Muhammad. Conveying that understanding is part of our basic educational brief. So the absence of a great number of figurative images in the article will itself teach the reader something of great importance: that in Islam, Muhammad is overwhelmingly portrayed through his words rather than through images. The article will then accurately present the visual aesthetic associated with Muhammad in Islam. If we show lots of images of Muhammad, just like we do in the article on Jesus and Buddha, that point will be obscured, and that actually detracts from the educational value of the article. An important message that our readers could have come away with will be missed.

There is of course another, somewhat less central educational point to be made as well: we should make clear to the reader that there have been such images, in limited contexts; usually showing Muhammad as a flame or veiled, but occasionally also with a depiction of his face. The many Muslims who are unaware that such images exist will learn what Omid Safi, himself a Muslim, is trying to make Muslims aware of—that in various periods of history, Muslims in certain parts of the world created such images, out of love and deep respect for Muhammad, the messenger of God. We could include an example in that section—preferably a veiled or flame one, as these are the most common types—and we are already pointing the reader to the Depictions article, where in-depth information and further examples of this special category of Islamic art are given. What we should not do is treat Muhammad like Jesus, Krishna or Buddha, because doing so will mislead the reader about the nature of Islam. Our job is to do the opposite. --JN466 15:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's a brief summary: The images of the article-in-question, will not be deleted. Censurship is unacceptable on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED fanaticism gets really old. We make editorial decisions all the time for a variety of reasons, and sometimes those include deleting content or adding other content. Indeed "editing" requires that we do so. I say that people who repeat this mantra with such religious ferver ought to reexamine their roles here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, I have to agree with Griswaldo here. I 'get' that you don't want these images to be removed, I 'get' that you don't think they will be removed, but you don't get to demand that these images will not be removed. You can make an argument and discuss the issue - that will be welcome - but blasting out absolutist declarations in pointless. No one cares how domineering your presentation is (except for the irritation factor); if you don't have an argument to make, then you don't have an argument to make, and your mere opinion is just an opinion.

Now, do you have an actual argument to make, or are you going to continue with the "Resistance is useless!" approach?--Ludwigs2 16:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censured. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

lol - okie dokie, Resistance is useless! is where you're going to stand. too funny... --Ludwigs2 16:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You wanna have the images deleted, because you believe it offends people? then get the censurship repealed or at loosened or open a RFC. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; at the end of the day, that is really all one needs to foil the desires of religious extremism. The encylopedia will present a fair and neutral view of religious figures, free of censorship. Ludwigs and a handful of hangers-on have now tried... 1) Talk:Muhammad/images, 2) WT:NOT, 3) WP:WQA, 4) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, 5) WP:ANI, 6) the humorous WP:NOTSOLOMON. What else is there? Tarc (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Holy smokers, there can't be much left to the dead horse. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

[54] --JN466 16:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Grammar Police, Jayen, really? Has the discussion deteriorated to such a degree that this is what we're at now? Tarc (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay - when it comes right down to it, I see no reason to let the project's reputation be damaged by senselessly literalistic misinterpretations of policy. Jayen, Anthony and I are making intelligent points. The fact that you and several other editors don't want to hear it (and that some of those editors are very adamant about the fact that they don't want to hear it) is a failure on your side of the debate. The fact that you can so effectively stonewall intelligent discussion is an epic failure of the project. I see no reason to stop trying to have an intelligent discussion; do you see a reason to stop stonewalling?

Again, make an argument or don't, but either way stop being a mere obstruction to intelligent discussion. --Ludwigs2 17:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Block Sottolacqua

I've seen the score chart, styles, scores, and songs, and call-out order be removed. Sottolacqua made a page biased, and lack reputable sources, and miss the most information in Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 12). She also removed a warning I've wrote to her. The answer is there. I want her gone and to never come back to editing and removing important stuff with Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 12). --Plankton5165 (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for notifying Jimbo. Perhaps some people do not realize that TV series was one of the high-rated TV shows in the U.S. for the year (with the daughter of the U.S. Republican vice-presidential candidate), and many aspects are discussed each week (in which the show is broadcast) on several other U.S. national TV shows as sources for details. I am sure that detailed sources can be found to support the score charts, songs and dance styles. However, please be patient as it might take a few days to get the source links together. Again, thanks for the notice. I feel you were right to be alarmed, but this will likely be settled within a few days. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

THANKS A LOT... I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE GOOD ENGLISH... MY ENGLISH IS BAD.

Hello, someday the world will recognize the extraordinary good that you did to us. Thank you very much.(César Martínez, Venezuela). --RASECZENITRAM (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Why you are saying that for? --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

He's saying thank you to Jimbo for Wikipedia. That's all. 109.156.146.77 (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia languages

Interesting piece in the Guardian today about the work of some Oxford University researchers: The world of Wikipedia's languages mapped. 75.59.227.116 (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have mentioned this to the editors of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Donations contact

Jimbo Wales, someone wanted to contact you regarding the fund-raiser, but was frustrated at the lack of links on the donate page [55].

If you wanted to respond, then given their comments and noting they've set up an email address, it might be best to use Special:EmailUser/Impossibletofindone.  Chzz  ►  06:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)