Talk:Muhammad/images

RfC Proposals Redux 2

Let's try again? Let's keep non-proposal conversation above please? And proposal conversations here? Thanks, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

We're looking for what, examples of who the RfC should be phrased? Here's one;

*"RfC - Should the Wikipedia acquiesce to the demands of religious fundamentalism and their apologists, removing all images of Muhammad from the main article? Or should it ignore external advocacy and propaganda pushes, to provide information to the world freely and uncensored? Tarc (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

C'mon Tarc, you know that's equally unsupportable. And since it's really a policy overturn/change question, this wouldn't be the venue either. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I know, it wasn't serious, just a momentary steam blow-off. Struck. Tarc (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal #1 (Tivanir2)

Which images should be removed from the wikipedia article based upon not having an accurate and reasonable need to be there? And then we can number images and say the name so people can look at them then do Support for images on one line and Remove for the others so you have two subsections perhaps? Just tossing out an idea. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal #2 (RobertMfromLI's)

• Create a suitable and unbiased RfC proposal (my quick example wording):

• In an effort to improve the quality of the Muhammad article, and ensure the article is properly complying with Wikipedia's current Policies, Guidelines and Resolutions, we are undergoing an image by image review of all images contained in the article. For each image below, please review the image, the citations, the information about the image and the relevance of the image to either the article as a whole or to the section it is contained in.

• List each image with citations and information (such as the captions that Wiqi55 and others so diligently worked on improving). Format similar to this (example is sans actual images and information - pretend it's there):

• {image 1}

Found in: {section link}

Citations/source for this image: {cite/source such as "History of Islam Volume 1, 1987, publisher, etc, etc}

Additional image information (such as from description or source): {Depiction of Muhammad during (event), by (artist) from (date)... with whatever other additional info we have}

Q1: Does this depiction hold historic or artistic value as a historic or artistic interpretation of Muhammad?

Q2: Is a depiction of this nature of the article's subject relevant to either the article or the section it is contained in?

Q3: Based on such criteria, do you believe the image adds value to the article or to readers of the article?

• (02:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)) At the close of the RfC, outside, uninvolved editors/admins would be solicited to review each set of responses to determine some sort of consensus.

Therein lies the gist of my proposal, which will probably need a few tweaks and such. By weighing in on each of those items, the RfC will automatically address policies, guidelines and the new WMF resolution. Thoughts? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments on Proposal #2

I appreciate the sentiment, but such an image-by-image analysis appears to have been done barely six months ago, a discussion which featured several editors here who are, yet again, protesting them images. Tarc (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I know. :-( But if we are to have an RfC, I figure we should at least do it correctly in as unbiased of a fashion as possible. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal #3

"Under what conditions can an image depicting Muhammad be used in this article?"

Proposal #4

"Does inclusion of the images presently illustrating Muhammad conform to Wikipedia policy?"

Comments on Proposal #4

This is the wrong question. Merely because something conforms to policy does not mean it necessarily should be included. Many if not most of our editorial disagreements (on the whole encyclopedia) have no specific policy/guideline, and it's up to establishing an editorial consensus to determine what should be done. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal #5

"Should the article Mohammed contain pictures images of Mohammed?"

Comments on Proposal #5

This is probably the best one, although I think I might add, and say, "Should the article Mohammed contain pictures images of Mohammed, and, if so, how many and which ones?" That may be too much for an RfC, so if we only want to deal with the broad question, then as written this is fine. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that would bring us to proposal #2. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:14, 30 October 2011 (UTCI

Support (for proposal #5) I too might support this proposal on the WMF '... principle of least astonishment' and also to help reduce the perennial discussions occurring on this page. However, I have spent a long time informing myself recently about this subject, both here and off-site. I have a concern which I find hard to eloquently express. There appears to be world-wide movements (such as the petition site) which desire the removal of all images of PUBH on and off Wikipedia, not just those images on the Wikipedia Muhammad page. If, as a result of consensus, all the images of PUBH were removed from the Muhammad page, what happens to such images in other Wikipedia places? Specifically, I would withdraw my support above, principally for WP:NOTCENSORED reasons, if I felt that it would lead to the removal of all such images from Wikipedia. All (English Wikipedia) places where images of Muhammad are currently being used are listed below, including the Muhammad page ...

• image1 in Muhammad and Islamic view of angels
• image2 in Black Stone, Depictions of Muhammad, Jami' al-tawarikh, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Kaaba, Muhammad and Muhammad in Mecca
• image3 in Muhammad
• image4 in Muhammad, Muhammad in Medina and Siyer-i Nebi
• image5 in Censorship by religion, Depictions of Muhammad, Early Middle Ages, Freedom of speech versus blasphemy, Islamic calendar, Muhammad, Muhammad in Medina and The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries
• image6 in Grigory Gagarin and Muhammad

( I said I could not express myself eloquently :( sorry) --Senra (Talk) 22:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"Least astonishment" does not have the slightest applicability to this article. A reader with even average common sense who clicks on the article for Muhammad will expect to be presented with images thereof. Tarc (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That is, in fact, not true, for a number of reasons which have been explained above. No sense repeating them. --Ludwigs2 00:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree, in part, with Ludwigs2 here. Tarc, your contributions to this discussion seem to get more and more insulting over time. As far as I can tell, you're saying that any Sunni coming to this article does not have "average common sense". Still, I think that, probably, "least astonishment" supports inclusion of the images (at least, some of them), but I don't think it is appropriate to say that no one of good sense comes here and is astonished to find the images. In fact, I was a bit surprised myself, in that I assumed that there were no pictures (at least, outside of those drawn in contemporary times by non-Muslims, which clearly wouldn't be appropriate here). Of course, that points to the notion that some images should be included (as others have said), but perhaps not nearly as extensively as we currently feature them (up to the possibility that the images would more appropriately belong only in a sub-article like Depictions of Muhammad. Again, I'm not trying to take a strong stand here one way or the other, but only to say that this is a question worthy of discussion and an RfC. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If you feel insulted, then you should work on some skin-thickening exercises. This is EN.wiki. Not Middle.East.wiki. Not Iranian.wiki. A reader reading an article in the English Wikipedia, which like it or not presents topics in a Western-centric point-of-view, should not be astonished to see an image of Muhammad in the Muhammad article. Ludwigs has no leg to stand on on this tangent, and neither do you. Tarc (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I more or less agree with that; I, for one, was fascinated when I finally saw an article on Muhammad that gave me insight into what people's impressions of him were. Incidentally, the fact that Farsi Wikipedia has these images in their Muhammad article without the accompanying talkpage theatrics should perhaps indicate that many Muslims (certainly all the Muslims I know; in my area, we have a few Iranians and a lot of Albanians) are not so closed-minded as they've been portrayed by the images' detractors; if I were a Muslim, I'd find the idea that an encyclopedia needed to "protect our beliefs" rather patronizing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point - can't get a link to work, but there are 5 images, two veiled, three full-face; and its a featured article. Some are the same as here, where we have currently 6 images, one veiled, one flame & 4 with face visible (including the Russian one). Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Persian wikipedia is not a reliable source. It is also in the interest of Persian nationalists (and the theocratic regime in Tehran) to turn their article into the "Persianified Muhammad". But here on the English Wikipedia we should try to be more balanced. We currently have too much Persian imagery in this article. One gets the impression that the Prophet was revered only in Persia (or Persianate cultures) or that he was a Persian King. Last I checked, even pages of Persian kings do not have this amount of Persian imagery on their articles. And it's not about protecting one's beliefs, but rather having a balanced and accurate presentation of a historical figure and his teachings (which this article's placement/selection of images terribly fails at). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 15:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, having a Russian image of Muhammad totally drives home the idea of Persian nationalism; nice try at now framing it as a nationalist idea, but perhaps you should apply Ockham's razor here. It could be a giant Persian conspiracy to Persianize Muhammad... but it might also just be the fact that the images are quite informative, for reasons I've elucidated above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No one said anything about a Russian image (or a conspiracy for that matter). The fact that we have too much Persian imagery in this article has been raised before by other editors. I'm just saying that comparison to the Persian Wikipedia should be more reserved. We shouldn't copy other Wikipedias. Their take on the subject sometimes reflect national interests and cultural or religious beliefs. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 16:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well we've just discovered (below) we've had an image from Kashmir, and the 19th century, all along without realizing it! Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Erm. Dear me. I really did not mean to cause so much controversy. Perhaps we should all reflect on historical figures such as the King who was purported to have been wise. One wonders how such a person would have dealt with mediating this thread! --Senra (Talk) 16:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Johnbod. it may have only been found or copied in Kashmir, but possibly produced somewhere else. In any case, the illustrated book Hamlat i-Haydari has been studied and categorized as a tradition of the Qajar dynasty, which is Persian. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 17:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Copied, very possibly, but if they didn't think it was produced in Kashmir they wouldn't have catalogued it that way. With such a specific date it presumably has an inscription recording the circumstances of its making. In fact we currently have 2 Persian, 2 Turkish, 1 Kashmiri & 1 Russian image, which seems reasonable balance. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I meant originally produced. It is thought to be Qajar (Persian), not Indian. Also, the Turkish miniature tradition is a continuation of the Persian one, with Persian works often served as model to Ottoman painters. Considering these facts, a better count would be 5 Persianate and 1 Russian. That doesn't seem "balanced". Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As usual, any specious wiggling to avoid the facts. One might as well call all Western art Greek. If it is made in Kashmir it is "originally" Kashmiri. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Wiqi55 is saying we need to find more images to provide even greater balance? I'm sure that's achievable - though I am not sure if more images is suitable. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Johnbod, it has been studied as part of the Qajar tradition, which is Persian. The Hamla i-Haydari is also a book of Persian poetry, composed by a poet in the Qajar court. It can't be more Persian than that. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 21:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes it could - it could actually be made in Persia, by Persians. You know perfectly well that Persianate culture covers almost the whole Islamic world to varying degrees, but that doesn't mean there is not a difference between what is actually Persian and what is not. Or would you classify the whole of Mughal painting, and other arts, as Persian? Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Kashmir was ruled by Parisian dynasties in the 16th century (and perhaps later too). There were also Persian courts in Kashmir. Thus the fact that it was made by Persians cannot be ruled out. Also it was a Parisian poetry book. Regardless of the patron's ethnicity, the fact that they were interested in a Persian poetry book is enough to determine their cultural affiliation. Concerning your other point, we are dealing with a single artistic tradition. The same artists and their direct disciples often moved from one dynasty to another. For instance, the Persian miniatures boom in the Ottoman empire was largely caused by many masters and their disciples moving from various Persian cities (most notably Tabriz) to Istanbul. It is rather reasonable to assume that the images we have here are the result of a continuation of a single artistic tradition at different phases. This tradition happens to be distinctively Persian. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 21:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Honest questions: (not familiar with art topics really) Does the fact that they were ruled by them invalidate their own cultural contributions? Inotherwords, does the art of the time reflect their own culture, or the culture of the Persians they were taken over by? If their own culture, how much weight should we give to who ruled as opposed to the cultural aspects of the art? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The style will certainly reflect the artist and his school. But the content (including the interpretation of certain events, or which events to highlight and illustrate) will be left to the patron. Now the patron could either be a Sultan (i.e., someone affiliated with the court) or a rich merchant. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so we need to become more informed/knowledgeable on these images then? And we need to know if the artist/school moved on to Persian artistic influences or kept their own cultural influences? I think that's the gist of what I am getting out of this... and from there we can make an informed decision on this? This may be a case for better variety or better citing/information or removing ones with the same artistic influences? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be a help. Wiki55 has a moderate amount of knowledge, but unfortunately he uses this advancing distorted arguments to marginalize the actually very widespread traditions involving Islamic depictions of Muhammad into a "Persian" box, which he then feels able to dismiss. Applying the same logic to Europe, all post-Renaissance art would be described as "Italian", as it is certainly influenced by the Italian Renaissance, and forms part of the same tradition. And all Western art from the last 2,000 years would be described as Greek for the same reason. Like other countries, the English court in the Renaissance imported several Italian and Flemish artists of the Tudor court who influenced English art; that does not mean that all art made in England for centuries afterwards was "Italian" or Flemish". That the Mughals and Ottomans imported small numbers of Persian artists (among others from elsewhere) for a brief period equally does not mean that these empires did not develop their own traditions. Johnbod (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wiqi55, I agree with your "shouldn't copy other Wikipedias" sentence. But alas, your last statement is the crux of this entire argument. If we do not reflect such interests for en.wiki, then the entire RfC and ongoing discussions is moot - so, what's the issue if they have some bias in such a fashion? It doesn't seem to be related.ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Addressing editors who have significant concerns about the use of images of Muhammad on this article

We need to get our thinking straight; pin down our points of agreement; sharpen our arguments. For starters, am I right in thinking

1. No one would object to pictures of Muhammad illustrating Muhammad#Depictions of Muhammad (if it ever gets written)
2. No one objects to pictures of Muhammad illustrating Depictions of Muhammad
3. We believe the artists' impressions of historical events in this article have no educational value for the topic of this article - or, if they do, not enough to justify the space they take up.

The question of whether the Foundation resolution has implications for this article, I'd really like to put off till a little later in this thread, once the more straightforward points are clarified. If you can think of any other important possible points of agreement among us that need to be clarified, please add to the list. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC) (I just jumped online and have to jump off again, so haven't read the last day's posts. Will do in 4 or 5 hours. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Good start, but I see a couple problems right off:

There is no agreement that the section described in #2 needs to be written for this biography article.

Point #3 is not a point of agreement, it's a point of disagreement. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct. Wrt #3, I'm wondering if those with concerns share a view on this point. Forgive me if I misunderstood, but I thought you were OK with the present use of images on this article, Amatulic. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, these are all things I would agree with, with the obvious caveats that it hasn't touched on the ethics or foundation principles issues, and that point three skirts around something that is/will be a major bone of contention. I don't think it is possible to say that any image has no value to the encyclopedia (simply coloring up the page is a value of sorts). we are sparring over the issue of enough value, which brings in the dual questions of how to evaluate the positive value of an image and whether 'controversiality' is a negative value to be weighed against positive values. But with that in mind I'd agree with what you've written. --Ludwigs2 17:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

P.s. maybe you can add that as point 4 - one of the concerns here is that the 'controversiality' of an image should be weighed in to its evaluation. --Ludwigs2 17:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, Two suggestions: (1) your question on shared point of view is probably not something you want to steer to. The history of this talk page will show that most (not all) who share a view do so for reasons that will be deemed religious (whether personally held beliefs, or the belief we should honor/respect others' religious beliefs so we don't offend). That probably won't turn out well without a policy change first. And I guarantee you, even if I am uninvolved in this, numerous people will find such shared POVs if such is in the proposal. (2) I'd steer away from "controversiality" as well, because "offense", "controversial" and so on all point back to religious beliefs - which, like my #1 above, all point back to Wikipedia no longer being secular. It's a difficult situation, I know. Especially when multiple roads lead back to the Village Pump for policy changes. Now, if you are discussing proposing a policy change, then yes, all of the above becomes valid for incorporation. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to see what those presently engaged in this discussion who object to the way images are used in this article are complaining about, if we put the controversy/Foundation resolution to one side. I'm pretty convinced this is not the venue to sort out the relevance, if any, of the controversial/offensive nature of the pictures. Now I want to see, with that off the table, the exact nature of other objections. That's starting to crystalize below. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am OK with the present use of the images. That's why I said that your item #3 wasn't a point of agreement, because it basically says "we agree the present use is wrong." There is a fairly good consensus that the way images are used presently is fine. Ludgwigs2 disagrees, seeing a problem with ethics and controversiality. He has not made a convincing argument (to me at least) that such problems even exist here. The fact remains that we are having this discussion because Ludwigs2 wants to hold the images in this article to higher standards than any other biography on Wikipedia. The only reason we are having this discussion is because some folks are offended. That's what it boils down to. As far as I can see from looking over years of archives, those who are offended seem generally ignorant of their own faith, they are offended by their own choice or by indoctrination. That, and the fact that they complain here, are not reasons for Wikipedia to coddle them when the images do add educational value to the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep. My section heading could have been clearer. Sorry. I was just trying to see what common ground is shared by those who are currently objecting to the way images are used here. I understand you are not among those. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Two points, one general, one directly to Amatulic:

• general point: I believe that anthony is trying to get a feel for points of agreement between those editors who have concerns about the images. While editors who support the images are certainly free to comment, we do not really need another section of dispute over the same material. Once we have a clear set of agreements between the 'oppose' editors, we can go back to debating the issue. that will make the discussion more clear and effective all around, so I would ask the supporters not to get involved in this particular debate.
• Amatulic:
  1. your argument seems to be that "anyone who objects to the image is too ignorant to be coddled" - if you cannot see either the ethical or the logical problems inherent in that approach, I don't know what to say to you.
  2. You are an admin, and that sysop bit holds you to a higher standard of behavior. I understand the need on your side to make this about me as a personal matter - attacking me personally is the only way to avoid discussing the issues I'm raising, which may be the only way for your side to sidestep the conclusions that would otherwise be natural. it's not the first time I've dealt with that kind of thing on project, nor will it be the last, but I expect admins to be more circumspect than average editors. I've already corrected the statement you made about me here made here twice; do I need to do it a third time, and accuse you of wp:IDHT to boot? --Ludwigs2 20:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not an admin in this dispute. Please respect the distinction. Admins aren't special people, they are simply editors with a few extra tools, and those tools are not to be used when WP:INVOLVED in a content dispute. Also, stop seeing personal attacks where there are none. About you, I simply stated that you see a problem with ethics and controversiality and have not argued the case convincingly, and that you appear to want to apply higher standards to the images here than anywhere else. Right or wrong, that is the impression you have given, and I apologize if that impression is incorrect but that's how it seems to me. Finally, do not misrepresent the position of others. I didn't say anyone who objects to the images is too ignorant to be coddled. You clearly aren't. However, look at the archives. Almost 100% of those who object have done so based on premises that are false by Islam's own theology. We can attempt to educate them, or we can bend to their ignorance. There's a big ethical problem in doing the latter. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Point one is obviously false, given the people opposed are opposed to all images of Muhammad on the article, not their placement. Cramming them into one section will not resolve the issue for those people. All it does is allow a certain editor to pretend they are being reasonable now while the necessary reduction in images that such a change would cause would actually get them halfway to their goal of censoring the article to suit their viewpoint. The battle for the other half would commence rather quickly, I suspect. Resolute 18:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Amatulic. Resolute, I suspect Hans, Qwyrxian, and possibly Wiqi55, along with me and Ludwigs, have no problem with relevant images of Muhammad illustrating a section addressing images of Muhammad. Not sure, though. Hence this section. You're right, if that is established it will clarify the debate some, and focus the debate on the specific usage being opposed, rather than image use in general. I'm certainly not proposing cramming images into such a section, one example, or two at the very most would be due weight. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, I think you missed a few parts above. (1) It will not end the "issue" at hand. Which is that there are images of Muhammad in the article (it is not their location causing the problem - it is their existence in the article causing problems). (2) A few of the editors you name (see conversations or diffs above) have indicated they wish no images and do not seem interested in a compromise. If agreement for moving the images to their own section occurs, it will only be a stepping stone to removing them. The next step will be removing the "redundant" section because a "Depictions" article already exists (sound like recent history?). And finally, by what standard or policy or guideline do you think that this article deserves special treatment over the numerous other articles with similar (ie: religiously motivated) disputes to remove content (text or image based)? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll clarify my position in light of Anthonycoles' request/point. I do not object wholesale to all images of Muhammad, nor do I think that we should interpret the recent WMF resolution to mean that we should remove these images (side note: I do 100% support the creation of tools that make it possible for others to block the images; I myself, for example, will use such tools to block pictures of nudity, etc., while I'm at work, as I need some images blocked but not all images, as the current work-arounds require). I do believe that we are probably over-using images in this article, because, as has been pointed out by others, these images all come from a fairly narrow time frame and area, and using them to represent Muhammad throughout the article is excessive; in other words, I consider the over-emphasis of a narrow category of images to be a violation of WP:UNDUE. I also believe that we should have more calligraphic or other abstract images (assuming we can get them as free/fair use files), given that that is how Muhammad is represented the overwhelming majority of the time in Islam. I do believe that we should have a section in this article that acts as a summary (see WP:Summary style) of Depictions of Muhammad, and that said section should contain one or two visual (picture) images of Muhammad. I believe that the Depictions of Muhammad article should contain as many images as we can reasonably fit, keeping in mind the constraints of WP:UNDUE (i.e., not overemphasizing one specific time period/artist/whatever). In other words, I'm not coming at this from a "potentially offensive" position--I'm coming at it from the requirements of WP:NPOV, which I believe this article violates. Finally, one of my main points so far in the last week or two is that I consider it insulting that some editors have constantly lampooned this as a dead issue, as one of pandering, of accusing some people of bad faith, and of attempting to prevent the dispute resolution process from being used by those who feel that their voices are not being heard. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian: There are definitely points I agree upon. I have no idea why some editors would (a) try to remove an opponent with WQA, (b) try to do an end run to ArbCom when valid RfC proposals were on the table, (c) misstate their position at ArbCom, (d) propose RfC's that through implication or direct wording make the questions "remove or remove or remove" and so on. You're correct, if that isn't bad faith, I dont know what is. Nonetheless, in good faith, with numerous conversations being derailed because I wont agree to removing all images, I've proposed an RfC that addresses your concerns. The "all or nothing" ones on the table will not work to do that. Nor will the "none or none" proposal. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I pretty much endorse this entire post, Qwyrxian, it's a common sense approach to the page. N^oformation ^Talk 02:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This is also in response to Antonyhcole's comment. I also do not object automatically to every and any image of Muhammad here. Two aspects are capable in principle of being illustrated in such a way in spite of the (unreasonable, in my opinion) offence to some Muslims: (1) Muhammad reception in the West. (2) A discussion of the image prohibition. However, even if we ignore, for the sake of the argument, the inane argument that offence taken by a large number of people for religious reasons doesn't count on an article about the very religion whose members take offence, there are enough arguments left to reduce the number of illustrations to at most two:

• The Western Muhammad reception needs at most one image, as some kind of focal point. This is also the number we have at the moment. Any more than that would be undue weight because the important thing here is the reception in writing. Reception by Western painters, if someone wanted to discuss it, would definitely have to be moved to a separate article.
• The image prohibition and also the phase(s) in which it was interpreted more sensibly and Muslims did depict Muhammad can, in principle, be discussed in the article. But more than one image for this very minor aspect is overkill and massive undue weight.
• This article is a key part in our series of articles on Islam. Images in articles serve a dual purpose. While each of them individually illustrates some detail in an article, all of them together give an impression of a topic's mainstream iconography. Our Muhammad article is currently lying about the iconography of Muhammad by showcasing numerous atypical pictures. Hans Adler 06:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... interesting point (Bullet 3). Image 1 and 2 do seem to have stylistic similarities (to each other). I didnt notice such in the rest, but it's late. I'll look again tomorrow.

You've made a very compelling argument for evaluating the images in that light. Yes, I know others have stated they've evaluated them in that fashion. But I'd rather make up my own mind. Tomorrow. When I am more awake. Off to bed. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 09:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually those comments bring up a good point that I hadn't thought about. While we are generally apprehensive of removing current pictures why does the article not have any current depiction types (i.e. the flame or flame with face that is normally used to depict him by the muslim community in present time.) I am not saying we should necessarily replace any pictures (thats for the RfC obviously) but we don't have any modern day type images which would also be a good addition to the text in my opinion. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The most recent Islamic image (1808) is "flame-only". It would be ideal to have a modern, probably Iranian, image, but copyright keeps these off Commons. We don't even have any at Depictions of Muhammad. It might be possible to have one under "fair use", but given how vulnerable to attack all images of the Prophet are, one wonders how long that would last. I don't agree with Hans Adler's points - our images are, with the exception of the absence of a modern one, reasonably typical of the images that exist. These come from a wide variety of cultures, covering more than half the period since the Prophet's lifetime. Exactly the same criticism could be made of images used in Jesus and other Christian articles as "lying" about Christian use of images. Jesus has (very low down) a reasonable section on Depictions of Jesus, which rather remarkably did not mention Protestant aniconism at all (a sentence now added). We should restore a brief section here covering Islamic aniconism & the depictions, and linking to the other articles, & that is under discussion elsewhere here. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that setting an arbitrary number is not a great way to start any sort of editing. Pictures with relevence should be included (again we need to look at said pictures and determine relevence) and pictures that have no relevence should be removed. As far as biography portraits go this is extremely meager especially compared to even other religious founder articles. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Tivanir2: I noticed that too. There were such images at one time. And I think whatever images we agree belong in the article must have such portrayals (flame, veil, etc) to be balanced. I also agree with the (paraphrased) "no arbitrary number" comment. Content, need, relevance, balance (ie: flame, veil, face shown, etc) and value should be all that is used to weigh such - regardless of whether that means 2 images or 200 images or something inbetween. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Johnbod: I suspect those would be the only images that were not objected to - though I do suspect if another en-masse removal attempt is made (though unlikely due to the semi-protect), that such images would simply be associated casualties - and not due to an objection to them specifically. I guess, either way, that leaves us some work on finding an image that's PD or that we can use a fair use claim on. Definitely against the imbalanced portrayal that Tiv has pointed out. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, as for point 1, I am sure some people would object to images of Muhammad in Muhammad#Depictions of Muhammad (if it ever gets written). Having such images there would not be vital, given that there would be a link to the main article. If we had an image, I would advocate that it be a veiled one (example). Points 2 and 3 I agree with. --JN466 02:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayen! Thanks for that. I messed up this thread with an ambiguous title. :( I was really just trying to clarify the position of editors presently here advocating removal of images. They've now mostly chimed in, so I'll just let this thread ramble on, as these things do, until something shinier pops up. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, that section was written. Someone took it out (see thread with related title on this talk page). Anyway, from following page after page (which are now all in the archives) about the images, you may find their existence here is the issue - not where they are located. BTW, thanks for the image link. I'll be proposing an image change/addition (will see who wishes which) as not having such a representation seems not to be balanced. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is quote from the archive that clearly suggests that the number and location of images affect the amount of objection to them:

We got along fine with one picture at the Muhammad article for more than a year, I think it was. It was a Persian miniature, it was small, Muhammad's face was veiled, and I thought it was a sensible compromise between some Muslim sensibilities and reader's right to know how some Muslims depicted Muhammad. The other pictures were at the Depictions of Muhammad article, where we had space to treat the subject thoroughly. That seemed to be acceptable to all.

Anecdotal evidence, yes, but still useful. Full post here [1] Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 04:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not even the slightest bit useful. We have no idea at all what piques the SPAs and vandals ire at any given moment, whatever incites them to come here and post their harangues is beyond the purview of this board. What is interesting though is that in the several weeks since Ludwigs2 initiated this fiasco, we have not had a single comment in this discussion by a non-established, regular users. No IPs, no SPAs, not in any of these topics or even to file an Edit Request. If you wish to ponder anecdotal evidence of editor behavior, ponder that one for a bit. Tarc (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really related anyway. It was a veiled image. Not really a compromise either, since it's accepted as ok (which means one side gives nothing). As for the Depictions article, it didnt make press - though it does get some removal requests (all archived now). And a lot less since this article no longer has a decent sized section pointing to it. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Wiqi55. I must say I agree with the general sentiment expressed in that 2006 post you linked to. --JN466 21:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

May I ask, in all seriousness, how a picture of a veiled Muhammad in any way is representative of how those perceived his face to look? The information presented is not the same. In the example at the link above, the Quranic calligraphy was the subject matter - not the sleeveless woman. In this, Muhammad and how history perceives him is the subject matter - not one single perception, not a veil (except as a representation of part of one perception). The comparison seems rather inapplicable. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The style with the veiled face would seem to have been the dominant style in the depictions that were created, making it the representative type of image. --JN466 04:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I see a point in that, but, assuming unveiled depictions did not gain a lot of notability due to "controversy" (for lack of a better word), that would simply argue towards a better balance. Currently, I think it is 2 veiled, 4 not veiled. But, here's an interesting thing (and a follow-up point): when I searched Google for images, using the word "flame" in the search terms, all but one image were unveiled and unflamed (and there was a bunch of calligraphy). Note, I only said that such was interesting. On to the follow-up point (and perhaps this is the reason my search results ended the way they did), either due to changing perceptions in various sects of Islam or perceptions of those who are not necessarily Muslim but venerate Muhammad (or have interest in him), or due to the "controversy"(for lack of a better word) surrounding the images, or a combination of those, it seems the other (non-veiled) images have a very high degree of notability. But that's just my opinion. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Religulous Pastafarians

Wow it took me hours to read this latest talk page and I've not commented here in quite a while but I noticed it pinging away on my watchlist. This reminds me of the guy who created the Flying Spaghetti Monster to prove his point about creationism. Let me use my use my own very simplified analogy for all those islamist who wish Wikipedia to remove pictures of Muhammad because it offends them or they believe their religious dotrines do not permit it. My god says "PIZZA IS EVIL, DO NOT EAT PIZZA". I ask all of you to please stop eating pizza, it offends me and my god. Should I now start going to known pizza parlors starting picket lines? This might seem silly because it is silly. There are literally hundreds of different religions with conflicting dogma. Shall we cater to them all or just pick out the ones we like or are the most vocal? This encyclopedia is supposed to be a reflection of human knowledge. It is WP:NOTCENSORED and never will be. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

so your solution, then, is to force feed people pizza even if there are other things to eat? There are plenty of places to get pizza and no one's going to close them; a rule that requires pizza be served with every meal is just downright silly. --Ludwigs2 20:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

After reading Ludwigs response I'm wondering if maybe there is some kind of language/communication barrier. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Tools and instructions, top of this talk page, indicating how to avoid seeing the images. Additionally, almost 100% of the people who have complained (see talk page archives) are one off accounts who fully knew that coming here would expose them to such images - and chose to view this article anyway. That was their choice. They could simply have listened to whatever news report they saw or read and realized the images are here - then chose not to come here. Big difference, IMHO. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think his point was that it would be absurd to expect the pizza places of the world to stop serving pizza (eviscerating their purpose in the process) in response to a religious group shouting outside their window. Furthermore, as I've said above, I don't think most Muslims are so closed-minded as you make them out to be. Where I live (not far from Bridgeport, CT), we have a few Iranian families, some Bosniaks, a significant community of Albanians, and a couple of Indonesian families. I can safely assure you that none of them would find these at all offensive; indeed, my Albanian friends were disgusted when they couldn't find the Jyllands Posten cartoons, because they wanted to see what could have possibly been so horribly offensive. When they finally saw them (through Wikipedia), they thought it was ridiculous that anyone could get so angry given the myriad ways everyone else's deities are parodied (incidentally, the vast majority of "protesters" were teens who wanted to make noise, not true-believing Muslims). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Blade - you know, I'm aghast at the constant misrepresentation of the problem here. It's as though most editors on this page are incapable of principled behavior (most of the arguments I read here sound like Kohlberg stage 1 or 2; maybe one argument strays as high as stage 4). I wouldn't believe that possible in conversations with otherwise normal adults, but I can't argue with the evidence, either. it's disturbing.

The 'principle' of the matter is that we are pithily snubbing a belief of a major world religion for no real reason and without any clear gain for the article. Are there Muslims who don't care about this issue? I'm sure their are lots, just as I'm sure there are lots of Jews who don't care one whit about holocaust denialism, and lots of Christians who wouldn't bat an eye at the theory that Jesus was banging Mary in his off-hours. Somehow we manage to be respectful enough of Judaism and Christianity not to spout off about these theories except in places where it is appropriate and necessary. Yet when it comes to this page, those are taboo considerations - we somehow must do the disrespectful thing, and it is (if you listen to the some of the arguments here) apparently a violation of policy even to consider the appropriateness and necessity of the images.

I am faintly disgusted by the continuing effort to fanaticize the opposition that I see you and a number of other editors engaging in. Your arguments seem mostly to involve a search for different derisive labels to slap on people who disagree with you, in order to make them appear ignorant, unknowledgeable, extremist, unrepresentative, or otherwise 'bad people' who should be ignored. It is a ugly approach, reeking of bad faith and prejudice (and non-falsifiable as well, since ultimately the only criteria for them being labeled 'bad people' is that they oppose you). If you honestly cannot craft a better argument than "our opponents are too worthless to consider" then you don't have a credible argument to offer, and you ought to stop trying.

Harrumph! End of rant (for now…) --Ludwigs2 01:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You say: "I'm sure there are lots of Jews who don't care one whit about holocaust denialism, and lots of Christians who wouldn't bat an eye at the theory that Jesus was banging Mary in his off-hours." - these are gratuitously offensive and insulting remarks, as well as totally inaccurate comparisons. The comparison shows you have failed to grasp the situation here at all. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

We have no obligation what so ever to respect any religious belief and we don't have to justify depictions of Muhammad in a Muhammad article with an appeal to Islamic tradition; their traditions are their own and in what they publish they are welcome to develop their own rules. We are an encyclopedia, and if depictions of Muhammad in a Muhammad article offend some portion of the world, to be frank: tough shit. Religious beliefs should never shape this secular encyclopedia and the only time offending people (and I don't care if it's 99% of the world's population) should be a consideration is if it could possibly lead to legal action against us. We didn't capitulate to Scientologists when they complained that publishing information about Xenu was out of line with their religious practices and we sure as hell should not capitulate to Islamic beliefs either. To further the pizza analogy, no one is forcing Muslims to use Wikipedia, nor to view the page on Muhammad; if someone doesn't like it they can find another online encyclopedia, and a non-pizza dinner establishment for that matter. N^oformation ^Talk 02:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. You've basically just said: "we're free to insult any religion when and where we feel like it, and if they don't like it they can go find another encyclopedia." In one fell swoop, you've turned Wikipedia into the worlds first 'yellow press' encyclopedia. congratulations! --Ludwigs2 04:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say we're free to insult, I said we should not consider offense when determining article content. Not caring about offending someone is not the same as insulting someone, it is very very different both in MO and intention. Some people are offended by things you and I would find tame, there's a difference between not considering what offends them important and calling those people dicks - big difference. N^oformation ^Talk 04:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I recognize that there are people who get up in arms over images of Muhammad, just as there are many, many Muslims who do not. While they are perfectly entitled to be as angry as they want, we are under no obligation to take it into account. This has nothing to do with deliberately offending people, but rather providing the highest quality information we can. It doesn't make sense to try and describe someone as well-known as Muhammad without knowing the different ways he was portrayed. All of the images here, at least in my opinion, do a better job of communicating it than mere text would, and is therefore in compliance with policy. If providing high quality information means some people get angry, that's the price we pay; think for a moment about the 6 billion or so people (such as myself) who aren't Muslims for a moment. Why should our understanding of Muhammad suffer because some Muslims happen not to like something? (By the way, I'm not claiming the only people who dare argue against the images of Muhammad are all fanatics of some sort, more that there's more than one Muslim point of view on the matter. Neither of us can speak for the "Muslim point of view" as if it's unified, because it's plainly not.) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Guys, you do realize that this is exactly the kind of reasoning used in entrenched racism, don't you? I mean, this is like that age-old Deep South Jim Crow thing where they used to say (pardon me for this offensive example): "'N*@@er' is just what we call those people, we don't mean any insult by it, and it's not our concern if a few uppity n*@@ers don't like it." You are trying to render your opponents as unworthy of being listened to - you may even truly believe they are unworthy of being listened to - but that is your problem, not theirs.

You are playing word games to make your unpleasant actions look socially acceptable. but let's look at the facts:

• You know that these images offend people (you collectively acknowledge it regularly)
• You know that a proscription against images like this exists in the Muslim faith (you collectively acknowledge that regularly as well)
• You know that these images add little to nothing to the article (none of you has been able to point to anything except trivial values for these images)

Now look at the way you collectively try to twist out of this ungainly state:

• You attack the people who are offended, suggesting they are ignorant zealots unworthy of consideration
• You try to minimize this as 'individual preferences' and refuse to acknowledge that this is a well-known principle of the faith
• You try to shift blame onto the victims (classic passive-voice deflection, e.g. "We're not offending then, they are just being offended by what we're doing")
• You use bad policy logic ("we have to offend them because our policy says we can't not do it")

Add that you consistently ignore counter-arguments and then make stuff up, and your whole argument becomes patently ridiculous. to whit:

• Blade: as discussed repeatedly these images are not 'high-quality information'. They have little to no informational value, and could easily be removed from the article without harm.
• Nofo: 'not caring about offense' cuts both ways; if you truly didn't care about offense you would consider removing the images because they have no particular informational value, but instead you seem to care very much about continuing to offend people regardless of the benefits (or lack thereof) to the encyclopedia. 'WP doesn't about offense' is not the same as 'WP tells them they can suck it'.
• Blade: You say that "Neither of us can speak for the "Muslim point of view", but in fact you are trying to promote a side of the dispute that is a distinct historical minority. Not showing pictures of the prophet unless we have cause is neutral; insisting on pictures even without cause is a distinct action that can only be perceived as biased.

You talk you me as though you think I don't understand that Wikipedia sometimes has to offend people because the encyclopedia requires it. But you are the ones who do not seem to understand that last 'requires it' phrase. I defy you to give an explanation of why these images are required on this page - I do that safely because I'm quite sure you can't. In fact, I expect you to ignore the challenge, because that's what happened the last three or four times I've asked for that explanation. But realize that by avoiding this question you are just putting off the inevitable. Sooner or later you are going to have to face the fact that you are wasting 100s of hours of editor time defending images that piss people off for no good reason. When you finally face that, I hope you will have the good graces to be ashamed. --Ludwigs2 14:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"Not showing pictures unless we have a cause" is strictly to pander to muslim senseabilities and ties directly to the think of the children concept. We don't have highly inappropriate pictures here (I don't see any questionable acts, no pictures of "Everyone draw Muhammad day, no bomb turbans) and it's asking for people to set aside that this is a western view encyclopedia. In any western setting it is perfectly reasonable to show pictures of someone when you write a biography about them. Having to have a requirement to show them doesn't even play into the equation. Most editors have weighed in on good reasons why they should be kept, and most if not all have been willing to at least review areas where the pictures might no longer make sense. However to blantently require we need to observe a religious edict held by approximately 85% of a religion is not what I would consider acceptable under NPOV and NOTCENSORED as it is censoring and adopting the POV we shouldn't offend someone on religious grounds. If a santized view is what people want they provide a way to get it, and that should be sufficient. Requiring everyone to do without because someone is offended when they can simple block out the pictures for themselves is not acceptable. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Also being deliberately offensive is definitely not the aim as if the article and editors were trying to be deliberately offensive I am certain they could get depictions and the rights to use them for some of the highly offensive pictures listed above. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I happen to think that showing a group's impressions of Muhammad (the Persians, after all, were a rather important people in history, as are the Europeans) is very germane to the topic at hand (Muhammad). It offends some people, but contains relevant, encyclopedic information (if we were to implement policies that images had to be required for understanding, as you seem to be angling for, we'd have to remove the pictures of Barack Obama, since his looks don't impart any information on what he's famous for; that would be absurd). Tivanir2 also makes some excellent points above. Is that simple enough? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: You keep taking this personally, and I am not sure why. You also claim you understand policy, such as WP:CENSOR (which has been the crux of this argument) but didnt even know that it has a prohibition against using any religious reasons for censorship. When informed of that (even though you proposed the change to it at VILLAGE PUMP) you indicate that was because it changes so much - but in this respect, that isn't true either - not just was it in CENSOR when you went to Village Pump, but it was also in it a year ago,[2] a year and a half ago,[3] and via different wording two years ago.[4] You were advised multiple times to take your religiously based offense objections to the correct forum as well. I am not sure why you think that the rest of us don't know policy when you didn't even know the contents of WP:CENSOR (while personally using it well over a dozen times before its contents were pointed out to you). Please don't take it personally when people simply point out things you didn't know about. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even read past the second "nigger" because that's patently false and asinine. You might as well compare those who disagree with you to Nazis as well. The reasoning behind not caring about offending someone is not the same as the reasoning behind racism - they're not even related. I also don't care that our article on Homosexuals can offend some Christians, nor do I give a shit if our article on Xenu offends Scientologists or that any X offends Y. That's not the same as dehumanizing an entire group of people based on the color of their skin. I will not discuss this further and if you continue this line of reasoning I will take it to AN/I for underhanded personal attacks, poisoning the well and general antagonism. N^oformation ^Talk 17:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@ Tivanir2: I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. You are making the argument that the only choices we have in this situation are to offend muslims or pander to them. Even if that were a remotely credible assertion (it's not, not unless you are beginning from a deeply prejudicial position in which even minimal respect shown to the faith is considered pandering), it's still an open question whether it would be better for the encyclopedia to pander on this trivial issue or to continue offending a major world religion. again, ridiculous.

@ Robert:…

@ Noformation: So, apparently offensiveness is a valid argument when you are the one feeling offended. interesting… allow me to force you to live by your own principles by parroting you: your feeling of offense (by your own argument) does not matter on the encyclopedia, period. if you are too offended by my otherwise reasonable argument to read it and respond rationally then your opinion simply doesn't matter, and you should probably go find another page to work on where you will not subject yourself to things that offend you. --Ludwigs2 17:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@Blade: I agree with you in principle, but please note that if your primary concern is the historical and artistic significance of the images, then the images should be restricted to a section about their historical and artistic significance (as I suggested above). To put a finer point on that, these images are informative about the Persians and the Persian's particular approach to depicting Muhammad, but these pictures tell us nothing whatsoever about Muhammad himself. Scattering the images throughout the article is a gross violation of wp:WEIGHT because it drastically overplays the importance of the Persian perspective and drastically downplays the prevailing modern perspective of the faith, which is that depictions of the Prophet are proscribed. --Ludwigs2 18:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Only 2 of the 6 images are Persian. At least 2 others are from a Sunni Turkish milieu. How often do these basic facts have to be repeated, to people apparently incapable of taking anything in? Johnbod (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

∞ evidently. N^oformation ^Talk 23:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Applying your beliefs evenly and uniformly without a single issue bias/exception would probably gain your arguments a lot more credibility. Just a thought. You may also wish to read this[5] as I think it applies not just to myself, but to others who's motives you keep calling into question. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No my arguement stems from the fact that none of the pictures are controversial on any other grounds than religious. In any other situation all of these images would be perfectly acceptable AS LONG AS they weren't of muhammad. For people that still find that unreasonable there are self imposed filters they can use to make sure they are not exposed to it. As for trivial issue it definitely cannot be assigned to that category because every group that has something it doesn't like on here will insist it be removed and cite this as a basis. That is not even a far stretch as this would garner media attention and then everyone with an axe to grind would come out of the wood work. Second nothing I have seen shows respect as respect travels both ways, and since my way says seeing images is a ok it gets trampled because someone else says NO! I get offended regularly by things I find on wikipedia but that doesn't lead me to ask for removal because offensive shouldn't be taken into account. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert: can you not, for one single solitary post, avoid attacking me? for someone with as much experience on project as you have, you are 'absolutely clueless about wp:NPA. I'm beginning to get the idea that you are deliberately trolling me just to try to make me angry. is that the truth? Answer carefully, because your last 20 posts to me have all contained efforts at character assassination, and that that is fairly damning evidence against you.

Tivanir2: you are just compounding the problems of your previous argument. all you've done is cross out one word and generalize the same insupportable dichotomy - "...only choices we have in this situation are to offend muslims religions or pander to them..." - and that's not an improvement. I still assert that you can only make such an extreme dichotomy from a position of deep prejudice, in which you refuse to allow religions even one iota of respect (for personal reasons of your own, assumedly). that's not acceptable on a collaborative project. This is clearly a trivial issue except to the extent that it's been magnified by absolutist thinking, and you've offered no evidence to the contrary; what happens in the real world is irrelevant to our discussion; whatever you personally find offensive is certainly something you are free to bring up, and if you have the same grounding for offense that the Islamic proscription against depictions of the prophet provides, then I'd even support you. honestly you don't have an argument here. --Ludwigs2 19:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually I have no prejudice towards people, though I hold a very strong opinion on what other people attempt to force me to do. I don't expect anyone to show my own religion (Asatru Shamanism) respect or to not offend it. I have heard from multiple places and sources everything about my religion being either a fake religion or cult simply because it is not mainstream. Instead you are personally attacking me trying to ascribe values that don't exist, which would lead back to your own quote of don't attack editors. I tend to have respect for all religions (I always try to ensure I don't disturb someone during religious observence for example regardless of religion) but I will not ever willingly back down when one group decides it wants to ban something from common grounds especially when that group HAS A WAY TO NOT OBSERVE THE OFFENDABLE MATERIAL. That being said when is the RfC? I would like to put an end to merry go round with 5 different rehashes of the same think of the children mentality. If there is a reason to actually remove the image (other than a religious edict) then I am all for it and have even identified one though it was previously identified. Otherwise I will simply continue to link WP:NOTCENSORED for the remainder, since apparently what you wish is WP:NOTCENSORED with the footnote of unless it offends enough people. I also find it hilarious you quote WP:NPA then proceed to do it against myself not more than 5 lines later. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: If you truly feel that way, even though I think it unsupportive, go to AN/I or start an RfC/U. I haven't attacked you once. I just want to know why you don't apply your interpretation of policy uniformly and why the policy changes the rest of us think are necessary for your summary removal request for religious based objections/beliefs haven't been taken to the appropriate forum. Claiming it's an attack because you refuse to answer (or use the correct forum to address policy changes, or refuse to apply your policy interpretation uniformly) is ludicrous in light of there not being any attack against you. Numerous times when someone disagrees with you, you claim they are attacking you. As others have also asked, please stop assigning incorrect motives to my actions. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@ Tivanir2:I'm sorry if you took this personally - not my intent. To my way of viewing things one can easily hold a prejudice without being prejudiced. It's usually just a matter of not having thought things through. That's what I feel has happened here: you have gotten yourself into a mental box where you feel you are forced to offend Muslims by showing these images because you think not showing these images is pandering. What I have been saying all along is that these images are not by any stretch of the imagination necessary to the article; using them or not using them is a choice we get to make, and choosing not to use them is not 'pandering'. I feel you're too wrapped up in the conflict here - you've got your mind set on keeping these images solely because people oppose them, and not because of any intrinsic value of the images, and that is something that you should reconsider.

@ No, it's not that big of an issue for me. Mostly I'm pointing it out as a matter of due diligence, so that anyone can see that I tried to encourage civility on the page. I'm perfectly happy allowing you to lay out example after example of bad faith editing. That is your choice. --Ludwigs2 15:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

So in other words you decide to tell me you don't want to offend me retread believing me to be prejudice and decide to try to justify the position? The reason I consider it pandering to them is simply because the individuals in question are able to edit out the images either through software or they can follow the FAQ to disable them. This solves the issue. Instead demanding the images be removed is designed solely to placate a group of people so it is in a nutshell to censor for the benefit of a group. I am much less wrapped up into the argument than you think since I have already pointed out an image for deletion because it no longer belongs. To try to summarily remove all issues is simple to make a group happy which falls under WP:NOTCENSORED. Tivanir2 (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

N^oformation, wrt "we should not consider offense when determining article content," in a situation where two images are of roughly equal educational merit and relevance, but one is offensive to large numbers of readers and the other is not, should we lean toward including the inoffensive image? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is that an either/or question? You have two images, both accepted as having educational merit. Why not include both? Resolute 14:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's assume we only need one. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's not. This is a talk page for Muhammad, not WP:IUP. We're dealing with a concrete, clearly-defined situation here, don't sidetrack this into the abstract what-if? realm. Tarc (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The only way that the community would include include one and not the other would be if they hold the exact same value. Otherwise even if they are slightly different they bring separate value to the table, and I have to agree that both would be included. That is why above I stated we should have the current age images (i.e. muhammad depicted as a flame or veiled or whatnot) as well as the earlier century images which by itself would show people a timeline of slowly transforming the preference to muhammad not being depicted. Right now working on hunting down some images not copy written but there are some slight issues with searching here so I will need to wait until I get home unless someone else can pick them up. Don't get me wrong there are images that should be removed but that is because sections were removed and they no longer make any sense what so ever. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole: I might almost agree with you if it weren't for various other factors. For instance, a picture of a veiled Muhammad, while educational and historical, does not portray the educational and historical value of a non-veiled image. Thus, there is a difference in what the images provide. "Here's a picture of a car from the 1920's" "Here's a picture of the inside of the engine compartment of that car from the 1920's (showing the engine and other workings)." Both portray the car. Each provide entirely different context. Both provide entirely different educational and historical value. If it was simply "Here's a picture of a car, right side view" or "Here's a picture of the car - another right side view" (or even "left side view" for a car with no notable differences on the "mirror" side) I'd agree. As for the other pictures, it's kinda like "Here's a 1957 Chevy Belair" and "Here's a 1963 Chevy Belair" and "Here's a 2010 Chevy Impala" - so even though they are all "unveiled", and of the same topic (Chevy Impala line (ie: Belair, Biscayne, Impala)), they provide different values that one alone cannot impart. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Tivanir2: There's an image already uploaded to WP or WM which is referenced in one of the conversations above (yesterday). I was going to write a proposal/RfC-ish thing below, but took the night off last night. I'll get to it in a few hours. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert, this is untrue. any picture (veiled or unveiled) is only valuable as a historic or artistic element. the unveiled picture does not depict Muhammad any more clearly since neither picture is an accurate depiction of Muhammad. You continue to push this same point of bad reasoning over and over, but sheer repetition does not make the reasoning any better. --Ludwigs2 16:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Irony alert! Resolute 16:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What irony? these are established facts: Robert has offered this logic at least a dozen times, I've debunked it at least as many. it's bad reasoning. If you disagree, you're free to tell how it's actually good reasoning (good luck with that).

I don't mind if you guys attack my reasoning - that's not a personal attack. I mind when you attack my character. You'll notice that I did not question Robert's character in this post, only the quality of his reasoning, and only because of the exceptional number of times I've had to correct this particular point. If you think this is a personal attack, all you need to do is explain how, and I'll retract it. but I see no reason to retract a critique of poor reasoning. --Ludwigs2 17:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• One correction, to perhaps help you understand the responses. You haven't corrected my reasoning - neither of us stated fact. I stated my opinion. You've stated an opposing opinion. One numerous of us think has no merit. Nonetheless, this is still a matter of opinions and perceptions. Mine (like my actions on hundreds of pages covering numerous religions, irreligions and sub-topics) carries no bias for or against any religious beliefs (mine or others). I'm not saying yours or anyone else's does - I am saying mine does not. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

  Robert: I don't object to your casting my statement as an opinion, but it is an opinion based in a rational assessment of the images. As I have said ad nauseum the images - at best - show artistic representations of the prophet from various historical periods. They have no factual value (they are not depictions of the historical Muhammad or his acts), the article currently does not discuss the art history issue in any great detail, so therefore the pictures add little to no educational value to the article. Your opinion, by contrast, is not based in anything; you simply assert that the images have value and avoid any detailed discussion of the matter. That is bad reasoning. I'm sorry if you don't recognize it as such, but you are making a positive claim (that the images have value) but you consistently fail to explain or justify that position as anything other than mere opinion.

• You are stuck in the subjectivity fallacy (Kohlberg stage 3) in which you assert that all opinions are equally subjective and deny all reasoning which might evaluate between them objectively. That is not an acceptable way to write an encyclopedia (it's the kind of 'fringe theorist' logic which asserts that some funky theorem is just as good as anything science has to offer). I respect your opinion, mind you, but you have no rational grounds for asserting your opinion (that you've offered, anyway) that can match the rational grounds that lie behind my opinion; comparatively speaking, your logic is flawed. --Ludwigs2 18:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, you offer no reason why I should be limited to the choice of only one image. The question is invalid. Resolute 16:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Tarc's right. My question was too meta for this discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolute: that's a red herring - how many images the article has is a question of balance. We don't overload articles with excess imagery (wikipedia is not a child's picture book). The real question Anthony is asking (allow me to generalize) is this:

• we've decided we're going to have X pictures in the article
• we have available Y images to choose from (where Y is very much greater than X)
• all of the images have equal 'educational' value for the purpose

should we choose the images that offend people or the images that don't? --Ludwigs2 16:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: let me answer that last question ("should we... offend...") The answer is here, last few lines. Which brings us back to "Suggestions to change policy should be brought to the correct venue". Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: You wrote "...how many images the article has is a question of balance..." - in which I fully 110% agree. Hence one of the additions (dunno if I mentioned it here or on another talk page) to my RfC proposal including weighing quantity and representativeness in order to determine whether we thought we needed more images or less images or whether the current amount was suitable. Ironically though, our almost singular point of agreement is entirely contrary and contradictory to suggestions that all images be removed. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Point 1: ridiculous abuse of policy. see wp:IAR.

Point 2: you are avoiding the question. Even if we decide to add more images, there will still be any number of images available with the same educational value that do not offend anyone. So again: why do you want to choose an offensive image over a non-offensive image, if there is no other difference between them? --Ludwigs2 18:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That there is "no difference" is an imaginary construct of your own fevered creation. We have images, we use images. Religious views towards image usage are not applicable to en.wiki. Tarc (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: Really, please stop using IAR to push your point of view, disagreed upon by most, that we should weigh religious objections[6] or single article objections[7] into determining article content. Again, I repeat "Suggestions to change policy should be brought to the correct venue." Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert: stop abusing the rules, and I will no longer have to IAR them. fair enough? --Ludwigs2 19:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of abusing the rules you want us to apply IAR to. It gets tiring. It's (what I am doing is) actually called "applying the rules uniformly". ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

IAR is not a policy meant to be enforced unilaterally, it still needs consensus and it's usually reserved for uncontentious issues and most people would agree with. You can't just invoke it to push a POV. Our censorship policy is clear regarding religious considerations, no one is abusing the rules by enforcing them. N^oformation ^Talk 20:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me for being a bit thick on this but WP:IAR says to remove rules to make it better. How is removing images about the subject in question better? Tivanir2 (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

IAR is precisely the remedy to apply when editors are abusing rules (or if your prefer, applying rules improperly to the detriment of the encyclopedia). You are collectively applying a rule in a such a way that the encyclopedia is offending its readers for no clear reason or meaningful gain; that is detrimental to the encyclopedia, since it makes wikipedia look insensitive and prejudiced and causes endless reams of talk page conflict. And yes, I can invoke it unilaterally, and will continue to do so until such a time as it is made clear that there is a valid reason for offending readers with these images.

Some editor added a moronic caveat to NOTCENSORED, you guys are jumping on it to push a distinct POV in a tremendously tendentious way - not good. Until I get a chance to fix the damage done to NOTCENSORED I will continue to use IAR in an effort to fix the damage you have collectively done here.

Your best bet in this situation is to stop pushing the NOTCENSORED button (which I will continue to IAR until the situation changes, so that will get none of us anywhere), and start doing your homework. Make a convincing argument that the images have a specific value so that NOTCENSORED is unambiguously applicable. If your argument is good the images will stay; if your arguments are bad the images will be removed. Cut the bureaucratic codswallop and justify the use of the images, or give it up. --Ludwigs2 21:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point you should either put up or shut up, if you think editors are abusing policy then file the appropriate complaint so it can be decided on once and for all. Your presence in this discussion is verging on becoming a net negative, if it isn't there already; you can't just scream "FOUL! FOUL! FOUL!" all day. Tarc (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

But the fact of the matter is they aren't applying rules improperly WP:NOTCENSORED goes over the fact there is things on this website that most likely will cause offense and if that is a problem the individual needs to find ways of dealing with it. As for the value of the images they are similar to the value you see in any other historical biography that exists on this encyclopedia. Assuming we are causing damage for no reason at all is dealing in bad faith. As a western centric encyclopedia, when reading a biography, the reader should be expecting to see images in the article as every article that is similar and has any images (accurate or not) includes them to help the reader visually. As stated before these works aren't here to simply offend people (if that were the case you would see images, again, like the bomb hat image from the danish cartoonist) and there are work arounds to ensure anyone that would be offended can make sure they cannot see the images and therefore avoid offense. WP:NOTCENSORED reads correctly because the entire section states we don't censor for any group or anything and the least astonishment rule really doesn't apply since, as stated above, the viewer looking at a biography should expect to see pictures. Applying rules is not abusing rules, that is the reason they exist otherwise there would be anarchy which wikipedia is dead set against. Besides reading IAR it shows that the rules should be ignored when people generally agree they are getting in the way of constructive and useful editing. As for specific value why would I need to present this? What specific value do pictures of Jesus have? Moses? Any other historical personality? As for pushing a POV I was not aware it is considered pushing a POV to follow the rules, as that is what I and most of the editors are attempting to do. As for making an arguement to keep them how about making a counter arguement to remove them not already covered under NOTCENSORED? Tivanir2 (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Tivanir2: The fact of the matter is you are applying the rules to the detriment of the encyclopedia. that is grounds for IAR.

I have to say, based on your post above, you really do not understand what wikipedia is for. The one, unbreakable principle of Wikipedia is that we are supposed to be writing a reputable encyclopedia; anything which gets in the way of that is dispensable. to whit:

• Notcensored is not (as you suggest) intended to tell people to 'deal with it'; notcensored is to allow is to include material that is necessary but controversial. Wikipedia is not some bully-project that says "I'm going to say whatever I feel like, and you can sod off if you don't like it."
• Wikipedia is not intended to be a 'western-centric' encyclopedia, and that certainly does not mean that we are allowed to offend eastern topics with impunity.
• The fact that the images are not intended to offend people has no bearing on the fact that they do offend people; actions count, intentions are only good for excuses.

The rest of your arguments are entirely specious. it's not the value of the image in isolation, but the value of the image with respect to the offense it causes. No one is offended by the Jesus and Moses images, so the balance is well in favor of including the images; millions of people are offended by the Muhammad images, so some strong rationale for keeping them is required, otherwise the balance goes to removing them. You have no strong rationale - 'visual aids' is not a strong rationale; art historical importance is not a strong rationaler (on this article, anyway). if there are many similar images that we can use which do not cause offense, why are we using the ones which do cause offense? you have no rationale for that.

Inclusion of these images, whether intentionally or not, damages the reputation of the encyclopedia. The burden of proof is on you (as their defender) to show that they are valuable enough to the article justify the problems that we all know they create. It's clear to me that you cannot demonstrate any real value - if you could, you'd have done so long ago and I would have given in - so why don't you just admit you can't provide any and get past it.

@Tarc: I don't see a need to file administrative action at this point; I still feel we can work this out through discussion. if you have a need to go administrative, please feel free. As I have said previously, I am open to wp:MedCab if you think it will help us get past this sticking point. --Ludwigs2 23:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, this is the core of your flawed standpoint; there is nothing to work out, there is only a negligible sticking point in that you do not accept the status quo. You cannot and will not negotiate your way into removing images from this article. I cannot emphasize enough how this simply Will. Not. Happen. Your only recourse is to go elsewhere, where I am quite confident that the case will only come down resoundingly against you, as swit as the ArbCom denial was. We do not censor images for the sake of fundamentalist appeasement. There cannot be a more iron-clad statement than that. Tarc (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, policy is clear here and you can invoke IAR all you want but without a consensus for your position, these images will not be removed. You keep going on about offending people but what you don't get it that is doesn't matter, policy on religious considerations is unambiguous and these images will not likely be removed now or ever. You have passed WP:TE at this point, either drop it or let's take it to AN/I, because it's clear that you will not let up on this point. N^oformation ^Talk 00:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Again (and again), You can be as adamant and uncollaborative as you like, and all that does is affirm (and reaffirm) that there are drastic wp:page ownership issues here. I've been very clear about my position, about the problem that I see on this page, and even about what you can do to relieve my concerns or resolve the problem. you choose to ignore those overtures and make rigid, hostile declamations to the effect that "these images will not now or ever be removed", violating a half dozen policies every time you do it. If this is going to boil down to a to sheer, blind stubbornness on your part then we will end up in arbitration. That's fine with me. would you like to open the case now, or shall we continue on a more collaborative tone? --Ludwigs2 00:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, just for clarity sake. Almost everyone disagreeing with you and you insisting you are correct and that you will continue until you get your way is an example of all of us violating WP:OWN? Please tell me that isn't what you just said. And if you think that the stubbornness from so many of us is grounds for opening a case, then by all means! Go right ahead. Otherwise, go change policy (or attempt to). Just as a side note, I've got days of diffs to go through (from the last year, plus 67 more offline in a text file) before I'd be anywhere near filing anything... maybe you'll beat me to it? I haven't bothered really, because sanctions should be preventative... but you're back to baseless accusations and allegations - as well as walls of text repeating you'll continue instead of using the correct venue. So, please, go file some action, whether against us, or to get WP:CENSOR changed, or to get a special exclusion for this article or whatever. Or heck, keep going on your repeatrants here - but stop accusing us of nonsense. From now on, I'm just citing policy back at you. No other effort seems worth it (except the filing I'm preparing and trying my damnedest not to file). ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have the AN/I report written and waiting to go, but collaboration is obviously what I'm sure we all prefer. However, we cannot collaborate if you keep pushing the point that images should be removed on the grounds that it offends a religious belief. Furthermore, it is not page ownership to assert that we will not IAR at your behest and ignore WP:NOTCENSORED. So long as that policy is written as is, this page will have depictions of Muhammad, that's not me owning the page, that's pointing out the most likely scenario. So what is it, will you drop the religious offense argument and collaborate otherwise or not? N^oformation ^Talk 00:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice third personal attack in two days. The simple fact we are left to contend with is that a religious groups wants is no reason to change anything in this wikipedia. We don't do it for the mormons, catholics, scientologists or any other group and most likely we won't do it here. I am all for adding additional pictures but to try to wipe the slate of all pictures is pushing the POV that religious rights trump editing of an article. NOTCENSORED's intention isn't to say "sod off" it is a way of saying this might offend you and we apologize but being offended isn't a rationale for editing something. Once again we arrive back at think of the children argument. The community has provided tools to avoid this (FAQ) or help (add-ons) if people really find it that troublesome. This is sufficient as someones offense doesn't trump my right to learn about how muhammad is perceived in the Islamic community. Tivanir2 (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind we've had hundreds (if not more) requests to remove these images on religious grounds. If we're counting numbers, it's not us against "him" it's us against very large number of people. Just sayin'. Rklawton (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a very large number of people against another very large number of people. Fortunately for Wikipedia (and freedom of information), policy does not support removing material on these grounds. Resolute 00:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the Koran doesn't support removing it either, though Islamic courts have ruled against creating/displaying such images anyway. Rklawton (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Fortunately, we are able to educate our reader, and share with them the fact that not only has such imagery not been forbidden, but that followers if Islam themselves have created images, both fully rendered and with Muhammad's face obscured. Free learning for everyone! Resolute 00:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just a few points ;-)

• Numbers don't matter - and we know that - but even if they did...
• We are discussing policy, which is against removing content (including images) due to religious beliefs - he is the vast minority in insisting we should violate policy on just one specific article (even though a bunch more that fit such criteria have been pointed out).
• Do you really count single purpose, single edit (only to complain) editors who ask us to violate policy, especially (1) in light of the fact that in reality there is no religious prohibition to our actions, (2) they came here because of a news item and chose to violate their own faith, (3) this page is already a special case exception that has instructions on how not to view the images
• How much weight to we give single purpose single edit accounts mandating we follow religious dictates they aren't even applying properly? Just curious. Do we count them?
• And finally, the important one, as you know... the validity of arguments (since we !vote on things here) can be used to weigh whether they are considered - and currently, due to policy, "my religion forbids you (no it doesnt) from showing images of Muhammad" is not rationale that gets considered under policy - which brings us back to the numerous suggestions that Ludwigs2 use the correct venue.

All told, that still leaves him in the minority. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding, "If this is going to boil down to a to sheer, blind stubbornness on your part then we will end up in arbitration", didn't you already stumble at that dance, Ludwigs? As I said, I have no call to start a case, since the status quo is fine, and cannot change as a result of your numerous discussion. I repeat; CAN NOT, as content removal based on outside religious pressure would itself be a policy violation. You feel it breaks policy to KEEP the images here, but that view has gathered precious little support around here. So what we have is a disagreement over application of policy. Since your POV is in the minority, it is a literal impossibility for you to achieve what you want via article talk page discussion. Why is that so hard to understand and accept? All that dragging this on and on, in new sup-topic after new sub-topic, accomplishes is create more heat and more rancor.

So once again, you are cordially invited to stop. There is nothing to be gained by dragging this out in this page. I cannot be any clearer than this. Tarc (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)Rklawton: as I count it there are currently roughly equal numbers of editors on each side of this dispute (Me, Anthony, hans, and a couple of less vocal editors arguing against the images; Resolute, Robert, Tarc, and Kww, Nof, and Tav arguing for them). there is a strong tendency on the other side to personalize the issue, which is why they always talk as though I were in this alone. The hundreds of others are a definite plus, but this dispute is more balanced than they care to admit.

Robert: the violation of wp:OWN comes from the statements by Tarc, Nofo and others that the pictures will never be removed. There is no room for reason or discussion, no possibility in their minds that that anything other than the current version will exist: They effectively reject wp:consensus discussion as being against policy. Frankly, I have not seen such a clear and determined example of page ownership on any article I've ever worked (except, perhaps, cold fusion). Ownership is not stubbornness (which all of us have in spades); ownership trying to control a page to dictate its content, which I can't possibly be guilty of since (a) this issue is nowhere near my preferred resolution, and (b) I have offered several compromise positions which have been roundly rejected. I'm afraid wp:OWN is something that you guys are just going to have to… well… own.

Nofo: If you feel an ANI report is required, please don't let me stop you. I'll be curious to see what you write. On the other hand, if you actually do prefer collaboration, then you are going to have to ditch that "the images will never change" mindset - collaboration is impossible when one side refuses to budge even an inch. Also, you've misunderstood IAR; it is precisely your misuse of NOTCENSORED that is being IARed because it is damaging to the reputation of the encyclopedia, and that is not going to change just because you don't like it. So long as you continue to misuse NOTCENSORED I will continue to IAR it. Your best bet (as I keep saying) is to make a convincing argument that you are not misusing NOTCENSORED.

To be clear, I meant that this article will not be free of depictions, not that things can never change. Images can change, the amount can change, but there will likely always be images here and there will definitely not be change based on religious considerations - here or anywhere else on WP. N^oformation ^Talk 01:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

But again, you just can't make a convincing argument that you're using NOTCENSORED correctly, because you're clearly not. All you have is a 'the rules must be followed' approach that doesn't sit well with the project's principles.

Robert: that is most decidedly not what NOTCENSORED says, nor what it was ever meant to say. You see now why I need to invoke IAR. --Ludwigs2 01:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: I am not sure how you've forgotten this already, but that is exactly what WP:CENSOR says. And I quote: "Wikipedia will not remove content because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image *do not apply to Wikipedia* because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations." - so, again, please use the correct venue. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert: since we're whispeing… Notcensored was intended to protect necessary information, not controversial trivia. you're misuse of it here requires IAR here. --Ludwigs2 06:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs: Depictions of the subject of the article have never been considered trivia anywhere on Wikipedia, and you have made your true motivations clear (not offending/violating religious beliefs).[8][9][10] That requires taking it up at the correct venue. Maybe this time you wont have the overwhelming rejection of your argument that you had last time.[11]ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 07:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert - save it for ANI. we've hashed this silliness out enough here for the time being. --Ludwigs2 12:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I decided to file the AN/I without waiting because after going over the whole page again I'm sorry to say that I don't think this can be resolved without intervention. You can find the report here N^oformation ^Talk 01:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Image Proposal (Addition/Replacement)

Hello all, as Tivanir2 pointed out above,[12] there is no picture of a veiled or flame Muhammad in the article. I'd suggest that we (a) add one, or (b) replace an image of the same artistic origin with such. Jayen466 pointed out[13] this image (File:Siyer-i Nebi 151b.jpg) above, which seems it may be suitable (and is apparently PD). Preferably, a newer image of this sort would be prefered, as Tivanir[14] and others[15] noted - so feel free to find & propose a better suited image of this type (ie: newer). Thus I propose the following (please feel free to show strong support, support, weak support, object to either, or object to both, or comment or whatever):

There you have it... !votes above below, anyone? Discussions and such below perhaps? ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment Yet again, this is simply untrue. The Kashmir image shows the Prophet wholly as a flame (top left), and the one near it with a veil. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. It took (for me) pulling up the full image of each to realize that though. Side note: "Yet again"? ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes - I have now clarified that in both captions. That the Prophet can only be seen by clicking on each image to some extent mitigates the potential offence, I think. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

!Votes

Add this image to the article:

• Very Weak^{(18:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC))} Support add or weak replace (sans better suited more recent image) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• Weak ^{for the same reasons as as RobertMfromLI 18:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)}Support makes perfect sense to add in, as this is very frequently how he is depcited. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Replace one of the similar (to the other) Persian images with this image:

• Weak SupportOppose^{(18:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC))} add or weak replace (sans better suited more recent image) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - see below, if we are all to vote twice! Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Do not add this or similar recent image (please provide reasons):

• Support to Neutral Oppose - should have a suitable common depiction in this article ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • As Johnbod pointed out above, apparently there are two such images. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support - the proposed image existed in the article until 24 March 2011, when it was removed[16] by consensus. The conversation is archived at Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive_20#Fine then, lets get consensus here. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Not very strong feelings, but the more narrative images probably illustrate the article better, as well as being rather more typical. As pointed out yet again above, this proposal is based on a complete misnomer as there is already a veiled image in the article, and a flame one. From "1595" this is hardly "recent" - three of the other images are more so, or of the same date, and the phrasing of the question is POV. Note that the proposed new image is from the Topkapi Istanbul manuscript catalogued as Hazine 1222, and the existing veiled image from a manuscript of the same work that is Hazine 1223 - I suspect these are volumes 1 & 2 (or whatever) of the same manuscript (later: yes, they are). If so to have both would be excessive. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Better suited new/recent image of this type (please provide link and ensure licensing (ie: public domain, etc) is suitable):

Discussions: Image Proposal (Addition/Replacement)

I'd gladly support a more recent image if anyone can find one that's public domain or that uses a suitable copyright (CC, for instance). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I could swear I have seen that particular image in this article. I didn't notice it had gone away. It's on Commons so it's fair game to use on Wikipedia. I have fixed the link in your comment above to point to it. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I distinctly remember it too. :-/ Thanks for the link fix. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've examined the history of this article and the talk page archives, and based on that I have to oppose adding it. See my comment in the section above. I have no objection to more flame-faced Muhammad images but that one just didn't seem to fit anywhere. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that particular image under discussion. Can you point out a diff or something? For some... reason... that conversation got rather cluttered. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If you read the section up to this diff you'll see that there's no real objection to replacing the image "Muhammad at the Ka'ba from Siyer-i Nebi" which is the one being proposed here. Ludwigs2 made the change, someone reverted it, then Qwyrxian undid the reversion. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Much thanks. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If I may be so bold and actually jump out on a limb to improve the article. Can we either add something about the black stone or remove the image associated with it? It does depict muhammad but it has no supporting info anywhere throughout the article so I was thinking either a short explanation and a link to the black stone article or taking it out and perhaps finding an alternate picture. Thoughts? Tivanir2 (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If historically relevant to Muhammad (as opposed to Islam or such), I'd support additional content to support the image. Otherwise, I'd support image removal. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind including it and it is another picture of him but if we are referencing a specific event we should at least have a line or two and a link if it is important enough to warrent a picture of the event in my mind. I can see what references I can pull for it but I haven't looked for a reference in a while so it might take some time. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So much has been chopped from the article (such as the "Depictions" mini section that jumped to the full article)... the history is a sad tale of events in that respect. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Two proposals

Hello all, I have been giving this much thought in light of proposals on the table here and at AN/I. Here's what I've come up with as the only two proposals I think are valid and properly address these issues uniformly across Wikipedia.

• There are various contributors who believe that due to the fact these images are not pictures or portraits of Muhammad (and are only visual depictions made years later) that they bring no historical, artistic, societal or educational worth to this article. Assuming that (as claimed) none of such belief is being biased by a religious perspective, then I propose the appropriate thing to do is to start a Community Wide RfC that addresses such an issue in regards to Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, Josiah, Adam_and_Eve, John_the_Baptist, Mary_(mother_of_Jesus) (and the countless others like them) using such justifications. Anything else, such as picking a single article, especially in light of the fact that it has been (again) pointed out that such issues exist many places and need to be dealt with, would lead at least me to believe there is some bias affecting such interpretations of image worth.

• If anyone does indeed find in their heart and mind that their objections are solely towards these images due to religiously based offense (or unduly influenced due to that), I propose we formulate something for Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) to address changing policies to include religious objection/offense as grounds for content removal.

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 14:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:IUP says images should increase readers' understanding of the subject matter, but many (most?) articles contain images that may illustrate the topic in some way, may be relevant related (see the lead image of Pain or second image in Economic inequality), but can't be said to increase readers' understanding in any significant way. This disparity between policy and practice needs to be addressed.

I generally see no harm, in fact I like artists impressions of historical events or images that symbolise abstract concepts but don't add to the readers' understanding. I believe, however, they don't belong in articles when they do harm or when readers find them offensive. That is, I'd like to see WP:IUP amended to allow such images, but not when they are offensive, harmful or, of course, contrary to other policies.

Do the images of Muhammad here or of Jesus at Jesus fall into the category of relevant related, illustrative but add nothing to understanding of the article topic? I think most do. But I don't see the point of arguing their merits on that ground until image use policy with regard to such images in general has been clarified. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I was using "relevant" where I meant "related". --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I have a better set of RfC proposals. I think they will be ready to post tomorrow. I'll let you know. The biggest issue seems to be a divide over the educational value. No, I'm not going to start that debate either - I'm simply pointing out that I don't think there's an intent to ignore IUP. I simply think there are various camps on what worth (in that respect) the images impart. And I suspect that will be our biggest stumbling block. If we all agreed either way (not of value or of value), the images would simply remain with minor complaints - or would all be removed. Alas, not the case. I'll send you a message tomorrow if I manage to finish my new proposal. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool. On this, it seems to me there are degrees of image usefulness

• misleading or harmful
• useless - no relation to the topic
• related to the topic but adds nothing to the readers' understanding of the article or section
• adds to the readers' understanding of the article or section
• adds enough to the readers' understanding of the article or section to justify the space it takes up (related, educational and WP:DUE)

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I would also add "harmful" -- where an image conveys wrong information about an event. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 07:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC).

I guess that belongs at the top. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• On "misleading or harmful" we run back into the problem of the numerous other articles I've presented. My interpretation of such would thus be determined by the way the images are used. As a for instance, the images here are dated and labeled with "Depictions of..." making it clear they were made long after Muhammad's death and are simply depictions - thus I don't find their use (which is what I think the valid criteria) misleading or harmful. Ironically, some of the images on the other articles I cited are not being given such care - something I think should be rectified (and intend on addressing if policy will allow it).
• On the last one - it is hard to judge how much understanding it will give to a certain reader. As a for instance, 10 or so years ago (+/- a few years), a study was done in Baltimore, MD that showed over 1/3 of the adult population was functionally illiterate. Inotherwords, they can read, but at a 6th grade level or less (if I recall the study correctly). I'd bet that pictures (properly labeled) would serve them very well and add a greater understanding than say for someone who wasn't pictorially oriented. Then there are simply those who are pictorially oriented, and those who consume text and pictures with equal voracity (such as I, who read at decently over 100 pages an hour but love pictorial representations).
• On the rest, I think the three of us agree - the problem though (which is what I was trying to point out above) is not our agreement or disagreement on those points. The problem is determining what others feel on the matter. Let's say (hypothetically) Anthony isn't big for pictures and is more textually oriented - and that Wiqi and I are very pictorially oriented. It would be very difficult for Wiqi and I to convey the worth of the images because it is simply something Anthony cannot perceive in them. Thus, we run in circles, round and round. Now, there is another side to the coin, which is cited someplace in WP:SIZE I think, where apparently studies show that breaking up large blocks of text help enable readers to better follow the text (ie: nothing to do with whether they appreciate the pictorial representations - simply that breaking up the text with them makes it easier to follow/read the text). And sadly, I think all of that brings us back to heated debates on the worth of any images. :-/ ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That they improve readability is not, in my mind, a good reason to include controversial pictures. We're trying to define the conditions necessary to justify inclusion of a controversial image. (Just thinking out loud.) We agree truly gratuitous is inappropriate, and important content is appropriate. Where you draw the line between the two is the problem. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As a general statement, perhaps (but even that I am against blanket application of - too much of an excuse to say, for instance lobotomize Scientology due to the massive controversy it created). But in this instance, we are talking about a religious dictate that not following generates "controversy". The basis must be analyzed, not just the end result.

There is a difference for as long as policy states we do not adhere to such. And it clearly states such. No "may" or "should" - but a distinct and definite "will not". Leaning in that direction requires a policy change to address the solely secular policy in place. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Your opening proposal contains a syllogism: An image that is not an actual picture or image of X brings no historical, artistic, societal or educational value to an article about X. (If you think I've unfairly summarized, let me know.) I don't accept this syllogism, but lets see where it leads. Your proposal is to start an RFC to discuss this issue in the context of a very narrow list of examples. My first question: why so narrow a list? For example, the list would include Satan, Big Bang, Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, and Sacagawea, all of which contain images meeting the criteria that they aren't photos or portraits of the article subject. A substantial proportion of all of our history articles would need substantial removal of images. Do you disagree?--SPhilbrickT 13:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

According to the various articles on the topic, there are sects of Islam (perhaps other belief systems, too) that ban all images of human likeness, does this make almost all our articles on human beings controversial and offensive? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

An outside opinion

1. WP:NOTCENSORED does in fact prevent us from making exceptions to our policies because "it offends people". It is a bad argument for not having images--as long as there would have otherwise been images. It's clear that images belong in articles on depictions of Muhammad and on the Denmark cartoon controversy, simply as necessary illustrations of the subject, but what about here? 2. WP:NPOV does apply to this article. It's clear that, just as many Muslims are offended by images of Muhammad, a lot of people find the ban on depicting Muhammad distasteful to their notions of free speech. If that leads people to plaster images all over everywhere just to annoy the fundamentalists, we have an npov problem on our hands. On the other hand, by removing all the images we support the point of view of those who oppose images. 3. This is an article on Muhammad, not on the controversy over depictions of Muhammad. As far as I can tell the images are just there to illustrate events in Muhammad's life, not as examples of Muslim exceptions to the ban on representational images. 4. Muhammad has occasionally been depicted by Muslims, in various circumstances. This is the exception rather than the rule--only a minority of Muslims do this. In an article on the Buddha, visual depiction of the Buddha is the norm across Buddhism; this is more or less the case with Jesus as well. But if we only had Eastern Orthodox images of Jesus or Vajrayana images of the Buddha, that would be an WP:UNDUE problem. (That said, those other articles maybe haven't given so much thought to the weighting issue; images of the Buddha are slanted toward Indian Buddhism and images of Jesus are slanted toward Western European images of the Baroque and Renaissance). 5. There are ways in which we do take "sensitivity" into account as a matter of course--as long as those sensitivities are widely held in Western culture. Certain types of sexual content are viewed as too extreme; the nude on pregnancy is likely to be removed because it makes an otherwise innocuous article NSFW. Yes, I'm contradicting myself here, and I'm not sure these are good analogies. 6. Compare the Arabic article; it mostly uses aniconic imagery, with it looks like a couple actual depictions of Muhammad. Maybe it's going to far in the other direction, but it shows that what the English Wikipedia is doing with images isn't the only way. Regional biases shouldn't exist with NPOV but in practice they are inevitable (for instances, the Turkish Wikipedia being more skeptical than other wikis of the Armenian Genocide. en is just as likely to be at fault as any other version of Wikipedia. 169.231.54.14 (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Nicely stated. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As has been pointed out above, there are no depictions in the Arabic article (the ones you are thinking of are of other people), but 5 in the featured Farsi article - several the same ones as here (and minus our one European image, the same number). None in the pretty short Turkish & Indonesian (bahasia) articles either. Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the IP has summed up the situation quite nicely. And there are a lot of useful images in the Arabic article (calligraphy, relics and others) that could help us shift the balance in our article here. (Unfortunately, some of these also have templates pointing out copyright problems.)

The difference between the Farsi vs. the Turkish, Indonesian and Arabic articles seems indicative of the fact that Iran, as a Shiite (and non-secular) country, is actually more tolerant of Muhammad imagery [17] than predominantly Sunni societies (even secular ones like Turkey). --JN466 09:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a similar, but lengthier opinion here if anyone is interested. If this ever comes to a RFC this would form the guts of my objections to the removal of purportedly offensive images. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 04:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I richly commend the above-linked essay; all but the last sentence which I vigorously oppose with every fibre of my being :), --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The part about only revisiting consensus if there is an indication the community has changed its mind? That line is used to head off tendentious editing and civil POV-pushing, where essentially a single editor or small number of editors continuously bring up a topic until the patience of other editors is exhausted and they leave. Essentially, if you've raised a point three times in the same environment (policies, guidelines and community is overall unchanged), and in particular have no new arguments and the response is always the same, stop bringing it up. Ludwig2's original point about the WMF's new resolution on least surprise and its applicability to the images is a change to the community and thus merits some discussion. I don't think it's legitimate reason to remove the images, and nor do most people, and once the discussion is over it should not be raised again as a reason to remove the images unless there is a reason to (i.e. the WMF has explicitly stated that the resolution applies to the Muhammad page). We have specific policies and guidelines about editors who continually push against consensus without changing it because it exhausts the community's patience and draws people away from the act of creating an encyclopedia. They are meant to be used, not sit an a metaphorical shelf. There's a FAQ at the top of the page that addresses squarely and exactly the essential points that have generated thousands of fruitless, repetitive, pointless words of discussion with nothing new arising. I don't think it has helped anyone - not the minority of editors who support the use of images only in line with the thoughts of a single, religiously-motivated minority of the world's population and not the majority of editors who believe those religious motivations do not apply in a secular, non-Muslim educational work. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"Offending"?

I don't know where else to put it. I beg your pardon for starting a new section. Here is a quote from Tariq Ali, a Muslim who rather feels offended by people who consider Muslim depictions of Mohammed offending:

"In the 13th, 14th and 15th century there were Muslim painters in Herat in Afghanistan, in Persia and in parts of Turkey who painted the prophet. So the notion that this is outside the Islamic tradition is absolute rubbish, which is why I was very angry with the way that some people responded to the Danish newspaper cartoons that attacked Islam. The cartoons were racist - and should have been attacked on that basis. They should not have been attacked on the basis of an Islamic theology which outlaws depiction of Mohammed. That is nonsense." (The Socialist Review, November 2006)

Cheers, Ankimai (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a quotation worthy of inclusion in Depictions of Muhammad. And I daresay it represents the views of the majority of Muslims who know the history of their faith. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's a great quote. That might also go well somewhere in the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article or one of its related spinoffs. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Tariq Ali is a war historian and an admirable man, but not a reliable source on this topic. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is not a single Islam, just like there is not a single Christianity. The differences are as wide as those between Mormonism and Roman Catholicism. I don't think our socialist writer was particularly knowledgeable in that regard. You could argue as well that Christians should not be upset about the Quran allowing a man to have several wives, because "Christianity" allows it, too. (Aside from the theological argument, the pragmatic argument – that the cartoons could have been attacked more effectively for their racism – is of course sound.) --JN466 10:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

And there is the reason why we will run into debates and controversy on this issue no matter what route we take. Remove the images, and you will have "encylopedists", those of other sects of Islam or of other religions and various others complaining. Keep them, and you'll have some of various sects of Islam and those trying to support them complaining. But, only one choice leads down a very dangerous path. That dangerous choice is removing content over religious beliefs or religious objections (again, Scientology article, anyone? Age of the Earth article (where myself and others just had to remove (yet again) the (paraphrased) "you're all wrong, it's 6,000 years old, my Bible tells me so" edit) and numerous other articles). Heck, even in the topics related to Christianity, by the time we are done removing "incidental" and controversial issue at the behest of one sect or another, there wont be anything left in the various articles. And thus, that returns me to the only two major points I've been standing fast on: (1) no special case exceptions - they will spread elsewhere until a lot of articles become special case exceptions (especially when this makes news, which depending on our final resolution, it might just), and (2) take an entirely secular view on all articles (there isn't a single article on religion that I can think of off the top of my head that isn't "objectional" or "controversial" to some or many). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the only way we can make it editorially fair and policy-compliant, and be seen to be doing so, is by applying the basic NPOV rule that we represent significant viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. We have established that, broadly, Shiites do not seem to have a problem with images of Muhammad, while Sunnis do. Shiites make up approximately 10–13 per cent of the world population of muslims. Their view is a significant minority view that needs to be represented, but per NPOV it should not overshadow the article, but be represented in proportion to its prominence.

If we treat figurative images like the Persian miniatures as specifically Shiite, then certainly the proportion of exclusively Shiite Islamic media – that Sunnis could not identify with – should not exceed 10–13 per cent; indeed, it should be rather less than that, as some of the Islamic media we have in the article, like the calligraphic symbol of Muhammad's name, are meaningful to all muslims, whether Shiite or Sunni, in such a way that Shiite views are in part already reflected in the presence of these common symbols. We should exempt geographical features and the like, as a hill is neither Shiite nor Sunni, but we should include in our thinking whether a mosque we show is a Sunni or Shiite one, or one frequented by all muslims. I think this way we could at least handle the Islamic art, and demonstrate that we have thought about neutrality and tried to apply policy in a meaningful way. --JN466 00:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, this has been covered above at length; it is a false distinction, but one that some POV Sunni editors here are keen to make - pushing all images into a "Shia" box. Certainly historically many Shia divines objected to images, and no doubt there is a considerable range of views today, although the kneejerk reaction that they are "un-Islamic" that they produce in some uninformed Sunnis is probably missing. The Persian miniature tradition grew up in a period when the great majority of Persian rulers, and a rather smaller majority of the people, were Sunni, and often fiercely persecuted Shias. I hope we all know that the present nearly-all-Shia demographic of Iranian Muslims only goes back to the Safavid dynasty who came to power in 1501, by which time the artistic traditions, including depicting Muhammad when appropriate, were well established. In fact the majority of surviving images of Muhammad come from Ottoman Turkey, which was pretty solidly Sunni - very solidly in the royal family, who commissioned the Siyer-i Nebi etc. Traditional images still fail to shock there, at least in big cities. The area where there is very little evidence that images were ever accepted widely is the Sunni part of the Arabic-speaking world. Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. However, while all of that is historically true, when we apply NPOV we usually go by the present-day publishing landscape, rather than viewpoints from 500+ years ago. I accept there have been Shiites throughout history who objected to such images, and there have been Sunnis who produced some (though clearly not many for the past few hundred years, and not in the core regions of the Sunni faith); but in terms of showing or republishing them today, Sunnis generally don't like it, and Shiites are okay with it. To be NPOV today, we should reflect that. --JN466 02:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Turkey is not "core"? That is even before we go into the issues of Muslims outside traditionally Muslim countries, and the range of views they have. Or the question of who is likely to read English, or have internet access - surely fundamental to the "publishing landscape". Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Come, don't be so pugnacious. ;) You know very well what I am trying to say. I think the IP made a good point above: no one present-day "school" of Islam should dominate the article's approach to illustration, certainly not a minority school of thought. Please consider it as a way to put this to rest, based on an easily defensible NPOV argument, rather than an eternally contentious application of the NOTCENSORED hammer. Best, --JN466 02:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a false premise in the notion that we should consider the proportion of Shia vs Sunni: the assumption is that in writing this article we should adopt a Muslim point of view. We can -- and should -- write about Islam without doing that. The vast majority of the world's population has no objection to images of Muhammad; from a scholarly perspective (encyclopedia, anyone?) there's certainly no objection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a tricky issue: but our illustrations are Islamic art, and should reflect Islamic art appropriately, in the correct proportions. We would strive to do the same if we illustrated an article on Buddha—we would not just use imagery from one Buddhist tradition. --JN466 08:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Even for the "correct proportions" I don't accept that we should pay much (if any) attention to population proportions. In any event, since you didn't respond to it directly, I'll say it again: we should not write/edit this article from a Muslim point of view, giving any weight (in editing decisions) to normative Muslim ideas about what is "appropriate". If you need another example where that question arises (and quickly gets dismissed): Scientologists would prefer that we not write anything about Xenu. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

from a scholarly perspective (encyclopedia, anyone?) there's certainly no objection. There isn't? Because I'm a non-Muslim (non-religious in fact) scholar of religion and I object. Are scholars "offended?" No, but objection is a wholly different matter. Now let me be specific here. I don't object to deceptions of Muhammad on principle and indeed would object to their removal from contexts where they belong, like Depictions of Muhammad (or even one deception in a section by name in this entry). What I object to is their overuse in the entry on Muhammad, an overuse that does not reflect scholarship on Muhammad, or references sources covering the topic. Does that make it clear to you? This is not an art history entry. Have a look at other encyclopedias, introductory religion textbooks, and other reference sources that cover Muhammad as a topic and tell me what kinds of images you see. In fact here's a good exercise.

• Go through the sources that are used in this entry and see what type of depictions of Muhammad you find within them.

If no images at all exist because its just a prose text of course that doesn't mean anything, and I wouldn't argue that. But see what types of images exist. And btw, the argument below about the profit motive deterring encyclopedias from putting depictions of Muhammad in them is nothing but misinformed editor speculation. It is also a clear attempt at a cheap end-run around our foundational principles when it comes to sourcing. Anyway without anything substantive backing the perspective it can't and shouldn't be taken seriously. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but on what grounds do you "object"? Most people on this talk page who object to the images do so because they are offended or because they believe we should cater to the fact that "Muslims are offended by them". It's fine if that's not where you're coming from, but we can't ignore the fact that that's what is driving most of this discussion (indeed the very existing of this sub-page). It might be possible to have a sensible discussion about "overuse" if we could shut down all the crap about whether the "offensiveness" of the images should play a role in editing decisions (and in any event I'm pleased you agree with me on that latter point). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure we agree on the offensiveness part actually. Offensiveness should always be considered. If we're detracting from the educational value of our entries because we're trying not to offend a handful of people then I agree that we're doing something wrong. But all things equal, we should strive not to offend, but even that isn't the situation here. All things are not equal educationally because flooding the entry with those images actually has a negative educational impact. Again this is not the case in a section specifically about depictions, or in the main entry Depictions of Muhammad or in a relevant section of Islamic art. But in the main content areas of this entry presenting these images presents undue visual information about a subject that is not known through this type of visual information 99.9% of the time. That is what differentiates Muhammad from Jesus and Buddha, btw, both figures who are well known through this type of visual information, and have been throughout history. I've made this argument in several locations already, but I guess I haven't done so here. The surest way to settle this issue is to go back to the sources, and the best sources to start with are the ones use to write this very entry. I'm not a specialist in Islam and I'm happy to consider that my experience with introductory western religion texts, introductory texts on Islam, etc. etc. might be off. But an argument from art history is not about to convince me of that. Go to the sources about Muhammad, not the sources about his depictions because this entry is about Muhammad and not Islamic art. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think it's going to be quite difficult to have sensible discussions about the educational value of visual representations until the offensiveness question is resolved; we would only be engaging the former issue because of the latter dispute. Would you argue under some specified ceteris paribus condition that we should try to avoid offending scientologists about Xenu? Should we cater to the preferences of Haredi Jews not to see pictures of women? (Some factions now digitally remove them from newspaper photographs even when there is no problem of tzniut). I really don't think it's possible to have a consistent/coherent position along these lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I remember that editors agreed to remove one or two cartoon images from the Xenu article a while ago, because of undue concerns. Not to avoid offending Scientologists, as Scientologists would still be offended by the images that remained, as well as the existence of the article itself, but just because it was over the top and actually detracted from the article. --JN466 18:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but from your description it would appear that the handling of those images ("not to avoid offending scientologists...") reinforces my point rather than the opposite (as perhaps you intended). In any event, I am curious to know Griswaldo's answer (anyone else's, of course, but Griswaldo's especially) to my question about Haredi Jews: should we (say, in editing articles on Jews in general or on Haredi Jews specifically) pay any attention at all to their preference not to see pictures of women? To be a bit more specific: should we give any weight at all to the fact that they are offended by pictures of women? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

While we're waiting for Griswaldo. There are 90 people depicted in Haredi. One and two halves of them are women. At least I think they're women; I can't make out their faces but they're looking at dresses. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity I'm not sure how you missed the fact that I've already answered the question. "All things being equal ..." is what I wrote. I have no idea what you mean by the Xenu comment so I can't really address that, but with Haredi Jews, clearly we don't remove all images of women from Wikipedia to satisfy one extremely small religious group. That's not "all things being equal," and indeed that's quite clearly diminishing the educational value of the project. Do I have to write specifically, and you will need to use common sense, for you to understand that some manner of rationally considered discretion is necessary when figuring something like this out? But I'm not sure either why you are forcing me to answer this question in the first place, when I've already said that all things aren't even equal in this matter, and that educational value is diminished by not following the lead of other reliable sources on presenting information about Muhammad. Indeed, that was the reason I "objected."Griswaldo (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pressing this issue because I (as I said above) I don't think it's possible to have a coherent and consistent position that gives weight to the offense various people take. You wrote "Offensiveness should always be considered". I disagree; when Haredi Jews feel offended about pictures of women, that's their problem not the problem of wikipedia editors, and it should be given no consideration at all in any editing discussion or decision, even when "all things are equal". Really, none whatsoever. Do you really disagree (as your general statement, quoted here, would imply)? All the other stuff -- educational value and reliable sources and all that -- is of course worth discussing. But given the origins of this particular discussion right now it will be difficult or even impossible to do so until we can separate it from the "offensiveness" question. That's what this thread is about (see the section heading) and it's what the various other threads on other pages are about. I'm interested in trying to resolve it, and it is difficult to do so when people continue to try to change the question. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You write that "offense" ... should be given no consideration at all in any editing discussion or decision, even when "all things are equal". Really, none whatsoever. If that is your position why are you asking anyone to discuss anything with you? It is an ideological adherence to a extremist doctrine that says never to even consider offense when making editorial decisions. You're welcome to that POV of course, but it leaves no room for discussion with anyone on the issue, ever. My position is that it should always be considered but not that it should always be acted on. Rationally considered based on things like educational value (+/-), levels of offense, and outcomes of offense, different situations will have different answers. Not considering offense, especially if all else is equal, means being willing to possibly damage our reputation and/or lose readership. Of course it is in the best interest of any Encyclopedia to try not to do those things. Also, please understand, that outside of publications that want to offend someone, all publications "consider" offensiveness if the issue is brought up. Sure they have different standards and different conventions for resolving questions of offense, they all consider it. Why? As human being socialized in large groups most of us develop empathy and the ability to consider our actions in terms of cause and effect. If you need to me to expound further on that idea I'd be glad to. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I can only assume (while noting that you decline to address the issue directly) that you would be willing to "consider" the offensiveness to Haredi Jews of pictures of women -- and perhaps, all other things equal, to refrain from causing offence by omitting such pictures. I am not willing to consider it; I don't see how that amounts to an extremist position (quite the opposite, in fact), and I also don't see how it is preventing us from discussing it (what else are we doing??). Of course, I can see why it would be uncomfortable for you to address the issue (Haredim/women/pictures) directly. But that only shows the difficulty of adopting a view on offensiveness that one could describe as consistent and coherent. By the way, lest anyone think the Haredim/women/pictures issue is something I've simply conjured up, an article in today's HaAretz [18] would dispel that notion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"... noting that you decline to address the issue directly." Uhm, no that's entirely false. I addressed it directly and here's what I wrote:

• clearly we don't remove all images of women from Wikipedia to satisfy one extremely small religious group. That's not "all things being equal," and indeed that's quite clearly diminishing the educational value of the project.

Do you need me to rephrase that? The Haredi case is pretty clear cut. Removing all images of women from Wikipedia means a large negative impact to the project's educational value with very little gain in terms of trying not to offend anyone. So there you have it. I "considered" the offensiveness issue you described and in my opinion its not worth the damage. What more do I need to say to address the issue directly? Can you answer my question now? Why are you asking for discussion about something that in your mind isn't open for discussion? I find it disingenuous and a huge waste of time. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

But you haven't answered my question. You've turned it into a different one, one which you naturally find easier to answer (speaking of disingenuous...). You've said, it's not all things equal and so we won't delete pictures of women. But I am asking: if other things were equal (hypothetically), would we give consideration to the fact that Haredi Jews are offended by pictures of women? (If it helps -- imagine that the question pertains not to all pictures of women on Wikipedia but to use of pictures on articles about Haredi Jews.) My question tries to clarify the nature of the principle that says we should consider offence. Once again, I think the feelings of those who are offended by pictures of women deserve no consideration at all. I then find it difficult to embrace the principle in general; to put it the other way around, I don't see how one could embrace the principle in general without embracing the implication that we should care when people (e.g. Haredi Jews) are offended by pictures of women (an implication I abhor). As for your question: I've never said I don't consider the issue open for discussion, and I am plainly interested in discussing it. I'm trying to convince you and others that my position is right; if you've failed to convince me that your position is right it hardly means that I think the issue isn't open for discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity either engage a real situaion or a hypothetical one, but don't take a real subject that I and others have a certain amount of information about and then ask us to make it hypothetical in a way that isn't true to the actual situation and forces us to put aside what we know. You want to make this hypothetical? Group 1 is offended by activity X. All things being equal we could engage in activity X or activity Y here. Either would be just as educational, just as representative, just as easy to do, and only one of them, X causes anyone offense. If that is your question then I have an answer. Do Y instead of X, and that would be my answer every time. The idea of "all things being equal" is something to think with, not something that usually happens in the real world. As I've pointed out in the real situations of Haredis and depictions of women and Muslims and Muhammad all things are not equal. In the Haredi situation it would hurt us educationally to not offend the group (especially since we would need to remove all images of women and not just on the Haredi entry). In the other, when it comes to certain entries, we can actually both offend the group less and increase the educational value by decreasing the number of images in our entry that show Muhammad depicted, and especially that show his face. The Muhammad entry is such an entry. So you have your hypothetical answer now too, just don't ask me to answer about a real group based on unreal premises. I wont do it. It makes no sense and only confused things. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

What appears in other reference works?

There is some mention of this above but it seems important enough to deserve its own section. In this case, what types of images (if any) are used in modern biographical works or articles on the prophet, or similar individuals? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I'd really welcome further source-based research here. (FWIW, I was unable to find any images of Muhammad in Encyclopaedia Britannica.) --JN466 10:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to see such a section, and I think Jayen and I discussed this briefly earlier. I think the issue we may run into is figuring out why they have tons of images/no images/some images. Inotherwords, I think we'd need to find some relevance factor such as that. That being the case, my opinion is leaning towards the "Depictions..." article being a more appropriate place (with perhaps mention in the subsection of the same name that is no longer here). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Other reference works have to pay for images, and the paper they are printed on, and almost all use far fewer in all articles. The most relevant comparison is other wikis, and none of the opposers of all images have yet expained why that hotbed of anti-Muslim sentiment, the Farsi wiki, has 5 images to our 6. In a featured article too. By removing the images would we be abandoning Sunni/Shia neutrality? Very possibly. Anti-Shia POV is very evident among some complainers, as long-term followers of the page will know. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Other reference works would also have to worry about lost revenue: including images might mean lost sales (while including images likely wouldn't increase sales among other market segments). Thankfully this is not something we have to worry about. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

As I stated above, these are wholly unfounded speculations without any evidence of being accurate. IMO they are not just groundless, they are wrong. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Does your opinion ("IMO") have any more grounding than mine? Or are your unfounded speculations supposed to be more important than mine? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Your reasoning is not actually sound, if you think about it. A Wikipedia without readers would be as unsatisfactory as a book without buyers. Whether there is an exchange of money is irrelevant; the common factor is product quality, i.e. meeting the target group's needs. --JN466 19:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

My position is the defacto position of Wikipedia based on its policies around WP:RS and WP:V. We trust mainstream sources to be mainstream, unless there is a well documented reason not to. We don't dismiss them based on idle speculation. Griswaldo (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Here is the list of figures in The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad; it does includes four figurative works of art (figures 3, 4, 6, 7, visible in amazon; the two samples from the Indonesian children's book are not images of Muhammad). --JN466 23:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting - they aren't visible on Amazon where I am unfortunately. 11 figs + 3 maps, so 4/14. Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have academic access to the Cambridge book online and have looked at all the images. There are two figurative images from the world of Islamic art. One is from a Persian manuscript and in it Muhammad (and only Muhammad) is fully veiled. The other is 20th century Senegalese and Muhammad is virtually formless but for his outline (it looks like a white ghost with a halo basically). There are two other figurative images and both are in a specific section of the book titled "European Accounts of Muhammad's Life." Both of these show his face - one is from an early illuminated French translation of the Quran and the other is a photo of part of a frieze from the U.S. Supreme Court building that includes a number of historical lawgivers. The final chapter of the book, before the epilogue, is titled "Images of Muḥammad in literature, art, and music," and I haven't had time to read it, but it contains two images. The first is an example of hilye at the very beginning and the second, towards the end is a photo of the cover of the film The Message starring Anthony Quinn (as Muhammad's uncle). Quinn's photo, in costume, appears on the cover but like I said he isn't Muhammad. Indeed Muhammad isn't depicted in the film at all, and the text discussing it describes the clever techniques used by the film makers to pull that off. As a whole I think the Cambridge book reinforces the educational value of figurative images in context, but surprisingly not the context one might have imagined. It would be interesting to look at the text surrounding the two faceless images when time allows, but I think it is quite notable that they are faceless/formless. I might personally be willing to soften my opinion a bit towards inclusion of one or two images that are veiled or formless, because those images are quite educational when it comes to issue of aniconism ... much more so than the fringe traditions of flouting aniconism altogether. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

But that brings us back to the same problem. Nothing disparaging meant in this - simply pointing out the problem. (1) some people are looking at this article as a biography, albeit of someone who is a religious figure. (2a) some people are treating this as an article on religion. (2b) some people are treating handling images in this article as if the article were about depictions of Muhammad.

Using Point 1, what is relevant is

• portraying the person through (in order of importance/relevance) (a) photographs, (b) portraits, (c) depictions
• portraying relevant historical events through (in order of importance/relevance) (a) photographs, (b) portraits, (c) depictions

Using Point 2 (a or b), what is relevant is

• selecting depictions as represented/applicable to the religion or those who venerate Muhammad - or both (with suitable text to indicate which types of images are preferred by which sect of Islam (veiled, unveiled or none)).

That leaves the big stopping point we keep running into. Do we treat this as a biography, or a religious article?

IMO, Point 2 is a discussion for the "Depictions..." article and any such subsection that we are (above) considering placing back in this article - and this article should be treated as a biography. I'm beginning to suspect that the problem isn't interpretation of policy. The problem is differing camps on what this article is - a biography or a religious article. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect Robert you keep on bringing up this artificial distinction between biography and religion. This is a religious biography. Please have a look at the sources of this entry - the are scholars of the history Islam. "Biographical" information about virtually ancient religious figures is within the domain of the history of religion. It's a simple fact. The distinction is artificial. We do not treat all biographies the same either, based on some magical formula. We treat each subject matter as the mainstream reliable sources do. I've already given you the answer to the false dilemma you pose. Look at the sources we use for this entry and see what type of depictions they use, when they do use depictions, and start from there.Griswaldo (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood my post? The whole first section isn't an argument with you, it is simply fact. Various editors (not just me) think this article should be treated as a biography; that happens to be about a religious figure. Others (including you) do not. Thus, the point is, what you think isn't (yet) relevant to how we treat the images issue in the article. What consensus we come to or what policies we find that will make such a distinction is what ends up being relevant. Perhaps it's your POV on this - perhaps it is not. The point is, as long as there are two decent sized camps who wish to treat the images in the article differently, then solving the "images issue" isn't going to be possible - until concessions or a consensus or some showing of applicable policy takes place.

The last paragraph, starting with "IMO" is simply that - my opinion on the matter - just as you gave yours. I was not trying to start a debate. It was given as additional proof (in addition to others' postings on this and other pages) that your POV on this matter is not absolute or unchallenged. Nothing more or less. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert my point is that you are neglecting how we should be dealing with this issue based on our policies and conventions. We should follow the mainstream sources. Is there a policy on how to write a biography? Once again, I am also treating this as a biography, but just like with all entries, biographies or not, I also recognize that we should follow reliable sources. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, (among others) IUP, which states "In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article." - thus, I would posit, for historical events, images (photographs, depictions, etc) of those events should be used. I would further posit an image or three of the article's subject would be applicable as well. There are sections on historical events in the article. There are images related to those historical events currently in use. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, MOS/Images is a guideline that covers such... which ironically is written with a blurb that (for this article, since it is not about depictions) seems to be against using images of "flame and veil" as I am pretty sure no one would reasonably assert that Muhammad's head was both veiled and enshrouded in flame. It also covers the "false" depictions vs "we have no photos" issue. "Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images." All we have are depictions. Muhammad's head did not look like a veiled flame. The article is not about "Depictions of Muhammad" (there is an article on that topic already). There are other sections in policies and guidelines that touch on this topic too - which is why I keep reiterating that all such need to be applied. Far better than to keep picking and choosing one policy or another. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You are surely aware that many of our images of Jesus feature a halo, a very similar artistic device. That's entirely traditional, and arguably representative of something that can be seen. --JN466 03:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, while (a) many don't have such, and (b) you can still see his face. The halo has no more of an effect than a hat, and even such images as those portray a depiction of what he looked like. OTOH, a "no face, just a flame and a white spot" or "just a flame head" or "veil and flame" are arguably not what he looked like. But that aside, I am not arguing for not using such pictures. I'm arguing that they all (including Jesus and other articles) should be balanced by policies and guidelines - including images of him in historical settings, a couple showing how he (not how a flame) was perceived by others, a couple of how through religion, he was perceived. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion of the sources. Someone did make the argument that other biographies might not be perfect comparisons for some reason or another. That is true, but it is still something to compre to. I would also compare it to biographies of other persons from the period. I think it quite likely that anyone from that period who is portaryed in any medium, would likely have those depictions in any modern biography. Most cultures, east and west, don't seem to have anything against figurative portrayals of persons and certainly wikipedia does not. Almost any picture does convey information and it does seem to me encyclopedic to include it for that reason (there is little need to so vastly value written information over pictoral). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course there is if that's traditional, and I mean traditional in scholarly accounts of Muhammad not religious ones. If we included written information that is fringe in terms of how mainstream scholarship and mainstream reference sources deal with a specific subject that information would be removed. Why is visual information any different? If certain subjects are not known through visual information for whatever reason, then it is not up to us to unduely weight our entries on those subjects with visual information. This is why we need to look at other reference sources. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I am the one who asked for the discussion of other sources but I see no reason to limit it to Mohmmedan biographies, to analogies the types of images used. It is true that pictures have not "traditionally" appeared in scholarly writing, in general, but that was often for technical and economic reasons (and perhaps to bias against pictures), which do not apply to us. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, here are lists of illustrations from other books on Muhammad, searched for using "Muhammad in the title" and "List of illustrations/List of figures" as search arguments [19]:

• • [20] No images of Muhammad (Oxford University Press)
  • [21] Calligraphy only
  • [22] 21 images, none of Muhammad as far as I can see (images of the Quran and various mosques)

The Britannica online article on Muhammad has an image of the Kaaba, two images of mosques, and one of calligraphy. (Incidentally, the vast majority of secondary literature on Muhammad is written by Muslims, who would typically refrain from including images.) --JN466 03:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• A book by Carl W. Ernst, "Following Muhammad – rethinking Islam in the contemporary world", is here; no images of Muhammad, but includes a discussion of such images (and their tolerance in Iran) on pages 184–186. Lots of calligraphy. --JN466 04:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood, but your second, third, and fifth source don't appear to be biographies of the Prophet, and your second has a figurative human illustration of Muhammad on the cover of the book. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You're correct, and I overlooked the (veiled) cover image on the second. It's tedious to do in Google Books; getting an overview is probably easier in a book shop or library. Looking at title pages itself is not without interest [23][24], though it's a bit inconclusive as it doesn't tell us what's in the books. --JN466 14:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad#European and Western views

As for Western reception, I'd favour replacing the present "Muhammad preaches" with a picture of the SCOTUS Muhammad, as the latter's physical place says a lot about modern Western reception. There is room for another image in that section and I'd favour a medieval illustration of the medieval European view. Perhaps "Faith stepping on Muhammad." [25] It shows the disrespectful tone without the ghastliness of the Dante illustrations. Placing the latter above the former would, in my opinion, show the historical shift away from demonisation. Thoughts? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I do think we should avoid plainly disrespectful depictions - this is something that has been aired various times in the archived sections. They are rightly covered at the depictions article. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Johnbod here. SCOTUS is fine. --JN466 04:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I should have said, I don't support SCOTUS here, as a) It's a tiny little photo you can hardly see, b) it's already used at "Depictions", c) unlike Gagarin it has been a focus for (ok, very limited) Muslim protest already. Johnbod (talk)

I agree with regard to the quality of SCOTUS. But I don't agree with leaving out two images exemplifying the the very essence of the section – the shift from demonisation and disrespect in the Middle Ages to a more tolerant treatment in the modern era – on the grounds that Muslims or any others are offended.

This may seem to contradict my wish to remove the black stone image but the consistent thread is relevance. Western treatment of Muhammad in the Middle Ages, and the later shift in that treatment is quite important to the topic, especially in an English language encyclopedia, and the images I'm suggesting are not mere artist's impressions of some event, they are examples of the very treatment being discussed: very highly relevant. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The one reference source about Muhammad that has had it's images cataloged (the Cambridge book above) had two images in it's Western views section and one was the SCOTUS image. The other, however, was of Muhammad preaching. Anyway I figured I'd bring that up here because it is an example from a quality reference source. Those images, in the Western views section, were also the only two in the entire book to show Muhammad's face. I think that is another example we could follow. Even in the depictions section, I think a veiled Muhammad would be best because it illustrates aniconism in action.Griswaldo (talk) 11:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Black stone image

I removed the black stone image with the edit summary "Per WP:IUP and WP:DUE." It was restored by Nomoskedasticity with "Surely we would want to discuss removal of images, under current circumstances." Which is fair enough. The rationale is that the incident depicted is not referred to in the section, which makes it redundant. Discussion on this page includes

• I personally think this one is fine, if it were actually illustrating material in the text. It isn't, in fact the story of Muhammad moving the Black Stone is not even mentioned anywhere except for the cryptic reference in the image caption. nableezy - 19:00, 25 October 2011
• The one about showing the Black Stone episode may be a remnant of a time when the article had a description of that. It was removed as being unimportant, and we already have an article on that event. Amatulić 13:33, 27 October 2011
• I would genuinely be happy with a picture by picture proposal as this allows the weeding out of irrelevant works (kicks black stone again.) Tivanir2 17:55, 28 October 2011
• If historically relevant to Muhammad (as opposed to Islam or such), I'd support additional content to support the image. Otherwise, I'd support image removal. ROBERTMFROMLI 20:06, 3 November 2011
• I don't mind including it and it is another picture of him but if we are referencing a specific event we should at least have a line or two and a link if it is important enough to warrent a picture of the event in my mind. Tivanir2 20:11, 3 November 2011

So there is agreement it does not support the text. On that basis it should go. If after a discussion of different elements of the topic – particularly with regard to the relative importance assigned to the different elements by reliable sources – it is decided that scholarly reviews of the Prophet's life of this size, or reputable encyclopedia articles on him, tend to include a description of the black rock incident, then I'd favour adding a section on it and discussing whether an artist's impression of the event is WP:DUE. Presently it doesn't belong. May I move it out? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Fine by me as well per reasonings given above. The image is present in 6 other articles. --JN466 10:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best if people commenting said how they feel on the overall issue as well - as a strong supporter of removing all images of Muhammad here, it is hardly surprising it is "fine" by you. That goes for Anthony too. Johnbod (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If I were as single-minded about it as you intimate, I would not have drawn attention to the presence of such images in the Cambridge Companion in the preceding section. I do feel we have too many figurative images; I'd be quite happy to have none here, as long as we have a link to the depictions article, because we have plenty there and in other articles; and if we have some here, I think they would be best housed in a section on depictions of Muhammad and the European reception section. --JN466 11:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see the above thread for a clarification of my position on images of Muhammad in this encyclopedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• First, about the text. I personally feel the incident should be mentioned, in two or three lines, whether or not the picture is kept. If the picture is just removed we won't even have a link to Black Stone. Incidentally, that article gets 37k views per month, is illustrated by the same picture, and the talk page shows only one complaint (Jan 2011) since 2009, when it was moved to about 1/3 of the way through the article, below most people's first screen view but right next to the account of the incident. Before that there were about 3 complaints since 2006. That the incident was felt important enough in the 14th century to be one of only about ?12 scenes from the life illustrated in this manuscript is significant I think, and the hits our article gets suggest it remains significant. Personally I find the image unusually good as pure illustration of the incident by medieval standards, once one knows what is going on. Against it is that it is from one of the Jami' al-tawarikh manuscripts commissioned by its author Rashid-al-Din Hamadani, as is the first image showing Muhammad above. Note that there are two such manuscripts, one dated 1306 & one 1314 in Edinburgh (article here) with presumably one here from each, explaining the date discrepancy noted by someone above (1314 vs 1315 in our caption may be a calendar issue). These are absolutely key volumes in the general history of the Persian miniature (the JSTOR page explains this well) as well as the specific subject of illustrations showing Muhammad, but maybe two here is excessive. Personally I would keep it, as one ok with the status quo, but it may be the best candidate to go if we are looking for a reduction compromise. But then we should add text to cover the incident. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• I notice that Amatulić believes a description of the incident was removed as being unimportant. The first case to be made is the case in favour of including a description of the incident. That will involve assessing whether reliable reviews of similar size to this article, or other reputable encyclopedias tend to mention the event. We can't rely on the assessment of individual editors here. In the meantime, may I remove it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm trying to think if there is an incident in the life of Jesus that gets an equivalent nearly 10% of the views of the main bio that isn't mentioned at all in that bio. I would be surprised if there were. Our views seem a perfectly good way of assessing importance to our readers. You should let this section run for a few days - what's the rush? Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm referring to the relevance of the story in the illustration to articles about Muhammad. Is it usual to relate that story in articles this size about Muhammad? Do reliable sources of this scope usually mention it? I don't know but that will need to be established if you are asserting its relevance to this article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• So am I, but the very high level of hits our article gets is also a measure of relevance. We should be careful to include Islamic sources too, as I'm sure you would agree. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The stone is central to Islam. It's more of a focal point than Calvary is to Christianity. The relevance we need to determine is the relevance of this charming and enlightening anecdote to this topic, does it, the tale of the four-cornered blanket usually feature in articles of this size and scope? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The story is only a small part of Black Stone, which is of interest as a central element of the Islamic faith. I don't think it's correct to infer that the article's page views are predominantly due to high interest in this particular story. --JN466 22:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• What's the worry with removing it? No one is putting the image up for deletion, and it can be added back. IMO, the only serious argument for keeping images of Muhammad (that offend some people) in the entry is to increase it's educational value. Images that depict scenes that aren't described in the entry clearly have no such value.Griswaldo (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• It's irrelevant, and doesn't belong here per WP:IUP. That may change once (a) the importance of the event has been established and consensus arrived at, and (b) a thoughtful, relevant mention has been added. I realise that may happen in a matter of hours or days, or it may never happen if, generally, it's not considered important enough to mention in most similar reliable sources. Right now, it's not compliant with policy. May I remove it until its relevance has been established? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Per WP:BRD it should now stay until discussion has been given a reasonable chance. Given the number of active sections here, & the exhaustion of many of the regulars after so many thousands of words in the last 2 weeks or more, that should be a good few days, not 3 hours. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• A couple of days is fine. I've notified the regular editors here. Except one. (I just can't stand the noise.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sure we can wait a couple of days but let's be clear about something. WP:IUP is a policy and WP:BRD, while a great practice to live by when we can, is only an essay. No essay trumps policy, if there is a policy violation. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I see two different ways that I'd like this resolved, and I don't greatly care which one people prefer. One would be to add in some context by mentioning the event itself. If we decide not to do that, I think it should be replaced with another image. I'm on an iPhone right now, so I can't really look for replacements, but I'll try to do that in the early afternoon EST. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Blade. Can you please explain for me what is the reasoning behind your proposition that, if this picture turns out to be unsuitable, we should replace it with another image? Is it because you want to maintain the same number of Muhammad pictures, or the same number of pictures in general? And, in either case, what's the rationale there? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

More images in general; if the paragraph stays, then it should be an image of Muhammad, but if we remove it then just a related image would be fine. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)

Actually, just so we're on the same page, per various policies, content needs to be relevant: i.e., related and important to the topic. Is there a particular part of the text that you believe needs an image to make it clearer? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've had a chance to look at it from my regular computer screen, and now I can type normally. I think the best thing to do would be to move an existing image into the place where this one currently is; people have indicated we're a little calligraphy-heavy in spots, so we could perhaps stick one of those images there and balance it out a bit. I agree that if we remove the section on the black stone that this image should go as well (although it could certainly fit in Depictions of Muhammad, that would be a matter for the talkpage there). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• As far as image by image discussion goes, I would note that there are probably too many images in this article (26 at last count), so an overall reduction may be warranted. Given that this incident is not currently covered in prose, this was an image I had figured could be removed. There is also a ridiculous number of calligraphic images that also need to be cut back. If we are not considering overall reduction/balance, and it is felt this image is unnecessary, I would like to see it replaced with another depiction. Resolute 14:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Why's that? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Balance of the debate. As I have stated on both your talk page and here, I favour an overall reduction of images. That would, one would expect, include a depiction. But I don't want to see a debate that simply removes this image, then another debate about too many images that attempts to axe another depiction. Resolute 16:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm only trying to impose relevance here. My precise agenda, as you know (but I'm open to persuasion) is to have two very relevant and, incidentally, offensive images of Muhammad in the Western reception section, and one (or two, including one natural, if two looks OK) images of Muhammad in the Images section, and one or two images of Muhammad as flame or veiled elsewhere. But I haven't arrived at this number of depictions arbitrarily, it's the outcome of addressing the text. The above plan has the inestimable advantage over the present situation in that it only places natural depictions where they are deeply relevant, where they don't just illustrate what's in the text, but exemplify it.

My objection to the present image use, and the objection of every person on this page with an objection, isn't that it offends Muslims, it is that it offends Muslims gratuitously, they're mere artists impressions, mostly misleading in terms of appearance and dress, of virtually no didactic value. I'm proposing an alternative that, sadly, will still offend some, but for a justifiable, compelling educational reason. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• I trust your intentions, but not those of a couple others. Certainly, if a better depiction that is more relevant to the text - or one for which the image caption can be of educational use - is available, I readily support such a replacement. Resolute 23:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Johnbod. I've added a paragraph on the Black Stone, and moved the image to there. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. That looks good. I think the reference link in the caption is broken. Is it necessary, or will the reference cited in the text cover it? Could you please justify the addition of that text, in terms of importance? Only, it's been mentioned that this story was removed in the past because it is unimportant. Is this story usually included in scholarly or encyclopedia articles about Muhammad? I'm sure you'll understand I have a reasonable concern that that text has gone into this article in order to justify the insertion of a picture, rather than based on its own relevance. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I am still good with removal even reading the black stones article directly I could see no reason to keep the entire section as more than a few lines in the life of muhammad. So as long as no one comes up with a good reason to keep it (I may have overlooked something - it happens) then I support removal of the picture in question. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been asked to comment, but after reviewing the text and the discussion here I don't have strong views either way. I am only pleased that it is being discussed in a reasonable manner (surely due in part to the way Anthony began this thread). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it is a nice to see a bit of rationality that is absent elsewhere. As for the image, it seems that when this was up foe debate earlier this year, the general tone was that it was acceptable if there was mention of it in the article. I tend to agree with that sentiment. Tarc (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole asked me to comment (I haven't had time to follow the intricacies of the wider debate recently). I'm in agreement with the majority above: if it's not covered in the article, we don't need a picture. Actually, I would go farther and say that if we do include it, but only do so at the level of 1 or two sentences, then it still needs to go, as it is not common practice to try to illustrate every point in the text. Plus, I'm with the group that says that the overall number of images (both figurative and non-) is too high. For me, any time an article ever has a substantive amount of text squeezed between two images (or an image on one side and an infobox on the other), then the article has too many images. Heck, I don't even think it's appropriate to have running images all the way down one side. As to whether or not the story itself belongs in the article and to what degree, I must simple bow out and say that I don't have the knowledge or the time to do the research necessary to make an informed comment on the point. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the religious opposition to pictures, it seems as likely that in the past the incident was declared unimportant to justify removing the picture. Per Black stone in comparable works below, there are any number of comparably good articles this length that could be written on Muhammad. I don't think deciding what to include should be driven by whether or not that will lead to a picture of Muhammad. It seems to me we should include material and pictures or not on the same basis we would in Julius Caesar. Including pictures of Muhammad in the article about Muhammad needs no greater justification than including pictures anywhere else, though neither should we add pictures (here or anywhere) only to annoy people. The picture of Mount Uhud seems of little value. I don't see how it could increase the reader's understanding enough to justify its space. Likewise the picture of the Quran, and the multiple calligraphic representations. Any thoughts on those? The reference seems to work now; thanks to whoever fixed it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The text was removed by AAA765 (talk · contribs) in this major cleanup back in 2008, in response to a {{too long}} tag but they retained the image. So the image has been in article for three years without any relevance whatever. All the images you mention, are related to the topic but most, like most of the depictions of Muhammad, have no real educational value. But they do make the article look nice. I disagree with the removal of the landscapes, though. They, at least, tell us something about the actual topography and scale of the landscape in which the events described took place. I've restored them but am more than willing to discuss their relevance. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry so long... very busy next few days, so, here's all my thoughts at once. Sure you all will work this out in the meantime

On to the image at hand and the section removed. Here's my feelings. Some or all of which seem to be feelings in part by one or more. Some might not be. The text that is "missing" seems like a relevant event that should be in the article. As for the image, without the text, since it is a depiction of a historical event, I do not think it relevant to the article and should be removed. With the text, I'd like to see it stay, but it isn't a strong feeling.

As for the removal reasons (too long): I personally (various of your opinions may vary) think that certain articles (such as Thomas Jefferson) should not be constrained by such. When a full fledged "sub-article" can be created, great... summarize and jump-link. But if not, on such an important figure as Jefferson, lobotomizing an article because of a guideline thatsuggests the article may be too long seems silly. Now, back to the topic at hand, now that my thoughts (and bias on the article length issue) are known. This article is about a very very important religious figure, and one of the most important religious figures in Islam. With my thoughts known on lobotomizing an article of someone important simply because of some suggestion in a guideline, I am guessing everyone can theorize I am for reinstating that section, as well as any other information of suitable historical importance that has been removed. IF the content is enough for a sub-article, then a "jump-link" to that before a short summary is great - if not, that's still no reason for not including any important historical event, even if it means a bit more work for all of us in reorganizing the article to flow a little better (currently engaged in just such an effort on another article, piece by piece - we just finished the lead and are moving on).

Which brings us back to the image (to summarize): if we don't reinstate the text, I say delete it. It's not a depiction of (just) Muhammad - it is a depiction of a historical event with no relevant text to support its inclusion. If we doreinstate the text, I'd be for leaving the image - but not strongly so. In that respect, for those who are more knowledgeable on the topic than my memory of my studies from years ago, I'd leave that to your judgement to determine how important the historical event is. Inotherwords, let's say it was a biography of Jefferson; I'd fully expect there not to be a picture of him eating breakfast by himself on a regular morning, even if there was a blurb about "Jefferson ate breakfast in the morning - he enjoyed (whatever) with each such meal". Not a big deal, don't need an image of it. So, I'd say if you all deem the event is of historical importance, we should leave the image (with text reinstated), if of minorimportance and the text is reinstated, image, no image, whatever - I've got no real feelings either way. What's sad is I actually extensively studied this stuff - and then my computer and other careers took off and I've let all of that lapse. :-/ Best, ROBERTMFROMLI |^TK/_CN 06:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Anthony posits that the picture was made irrelevant by the removal of the text three years ago. I don't think that is the only way to look at this. I think it just as likely the editors thought the incident relevant and decided to represent it pictorially instead of in writing. Perhaps, they should have left in a sentence about it, too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Alas, IUP and MOS\Images indicate requirements that images are relevant to the article topic or the text. In this case, the article topic is Muhammad and not "The Black Stone", thus making depictions of Muhammad (that fit within the rest of the policies and guidelines) relevant by nature of what they depict. I'm still firmly of the opinion that an image of a historical event isn't relevant to an article not about that event unless that event (for relevant reasons) is mentioned in sufficient detail to allow an image. Inotherwords, a single sentence (to me) does not create a reason - and no text on the historical event creates to relevant reasons for including the image in an article that isn't really about the event itself. But that's my interpretation of this issue. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not understand this. In a biography, if a picture is of the person, does it somehow become irrelevant because it also depicts an event? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

My opinion would be that the picture is of a historical event, and happens to include the person (and possibly other people). Thus, the key element of the picture is that it is of a historical event - with the "relationship" element being that the person happens to be in it. Inotherwords, each picture has a point of most significance/relevance - in this case, the historical event depicted. Per IUP and MOS\Images, whatever is the primary depiction factor should be relevant to either (a) the article, or (b) the section. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but I am having a hard time thinking the artist painted that event (or anyone would care), if not for the importance of the central character, he chose to portray in his picture. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter why they painted it - it matters what it is. It is a picture of a historical event that happens to have Muhammad in it (central figure or not). Inotherwords, it's not "here's a picture of Muhammad" (that was not the artist's intent). It is instead "here's a picture of a historical event that centers around Muhammad". And alas, policy and guidelines constrain such use (and I think my understanding of it is pretty accurate - as others seem to agree). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Black stone in comparable works

I've been rooting around on the web, & I must say have found plenty of accounts of the early life that are either a good deal longer or shorter than ours, but none really comparable in length. I've noticed there is very little consistency, even in considerably longer accounts. Incidents like Bahira (who we mention; his article gets only 2K hits per month) and his uncle's well (which we don't seem to cover anywhere that I can see) are either given at some length or omitted completely, and the accounts of the Mi'raj are wildly variable in length and completeness. On the whole, as in this article, the space devoted even in full length biographies to the first 40 years of his life is remarkably little (there are exceptions). There is no consistent attitude to what is admittedly a difficult range of source material, with few universally accepted elements and some that even few modern Muslim scholars seem to regard as not likely to be true. So I think this comparison will be unlikely to produce a clear result. On the whole, we seem to cover his first 40 years pretty rapidly, & I would lean in favour of some additions. Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica includes the event in the entry on "Muhammad." The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad doesn't mention it. Brill's Encyclopedia of Islam doesn't mention it in their "Muhammad" entry. Britannica is closest to us in type, and in size, but it's odd that the other sources, which treat much more information about Muhammad, don't include the event.Griswaldo (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually the Encyclopedia of Islam may be referring to the story when it says, "Equally little confidence is to be placed in the story of the part said to have been played by Muḥammad in rebuilding the Kaʿba," which would support John's point about scholars questioning the veracity of the story. If that is the case I wonder if we ought to include it here.Griswaldo (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find the Bahira story is equally questioned by some, and often omitted. As I say, there seems no unanimity in what is included - a striking contrast to the early life of Jesus, where a few incidents are in the gospels, and other stories were stamped on hard relatively early on, and excluded from the main tradition, only surviving in things like the Protevangelium of James. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If Britannica mentions it that's good enough for me. It's a delightful story that, apocryphal or not, is an important enough element of the tradition for mention in an encyclopedia, so I have no problem with us mentioning it.

Now we need to seriously address the question of educational value. Leaving aside the fact that we happen to have such an image at hand (that's no argument for inclusion), that images make articles more readable (there is no shortage of images) that this image is a fine representation of the art of this era or that tradition (this is not an article or section on art, or depictions of Muhammad), does this artist's impression increase the reader's understanding of this event enough to justify the limited space it takes up? How does it add to the reader's understanding of the event? Does it mislead the reader?

Please understand I'm not on a campaign of stripping images of Muhammad out of this article. I want to ensure all image use here is relevant and as educationally potent as possible. I argue (above) there are much more useful, educational and relevant images of Muhammad that deserve inclusion here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

General discussion of present image use

Kufic script, 8th or 9th century Quran

There's four fewer pictures: an open Quran, redundant calligraphy, and two landscapes that might be anywhere.[26] Please restore any that should be kept. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I restored the landscapes, per thread above this. I'm unsure about the calligraphy and Koran. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The calligraphy is useful, as that is how Muhammad's name is written in full. I would consider the Quran image one of the most essential images in the article (even given that we have an image of a page in the Quran further down), and where it was it related to the text. Restored. --JN466 03:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the name calligraphy, a strong & certainly key image, could go lower down the page, where there are actually sparsely illustrated stretches. I didn't think that half-open Quran image was optimal. Personally I'd go for a single early Kufic page at this point (example shown). Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've redistributed the navigation templates on the right-hand side, putting each into the section it relates to; they are no longer bunched up the way they were. I've deleted one such navigation template: the one on wives of Muhammad. All the wives are listed in the infobox, so there is no loss of information. I've moved some images as well, always keeping in mind that they should relate to the content of the relevant sections. For example, the image of the Medina mosque containing his tomb was at the beginning of the Life section, i.e. the section on Mecca; I've moved it to the section covering his death. The images are now better distributed. --JN466 04:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree the Kufic page would be a nice image to have, but I would suggest that a contemporary image of the Quran is essential. The Quran has a more immediate significance to Muhammad and contemporary Islam than the Bible has to Jesus and contemporary Christianity. Muhammad "is" the Quran in a way that would not apply to Jesus and the New Testament; partly because it's his own words, rather than a collection of third-party accounts. How about adding the Kufic image where the Quran image is now, and moving the Quran image to the legacy section? --JN466 04:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that there are numerous images of the Prophet Muhammad in the article Mahomet on fr.wikipedia.org. Did somebody suggest otherwise? Personally, if images are to be chosen, I would hope that at least one could be of the Night Journey through the Seven Heavens on the mythical steed Buraq, such as this veiled one File:Miraj_by_Sultan_Muhammad.jpg, a featured image on the Turkish wikipedia, used in the French article and numerous other articles. (There is also an unveiled image File:Muhammad_1514.jpg from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.) There are plenty of sources that describe these images. which were frequently fontispieces in illuminated manuscripts. The section on "Religious painting in the Islamic period" by historian of Islamic art Ernst J. Grube in the book Peerless Images: Persian Painting and its Sources (Yale University Press) contains a number of descriptions of several of the miniatures in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France. There are a large number of images available on their website.[27] Here is one of the images there from a whole volume illustrating the Night Journey. [28] Mathsci (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have uploaded that last image here File:Miraj-BNF-1436.jpg. It is image 20 on the online guided tour of the BNF exhibition above. There a French lady can be heard discussing the miniature at great length. Mathsci (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are other plates from the same manuscript: [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58]. Mathsci (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Paintings and sources focused on them do exist, but let's not lose sight of the big picture. See e.g. [59] / [60], also [61] / [62] --JN466 11:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Above Jayen466 has suggested using "Islam for dummies" as a source while at the same time dismissing Ernst J. Grube, the eminent historian of Islamic art. That seems contrary to wikipedia policy on secondary sources. Could he please explain what is going on? Mathsci (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Islam for Dummies, despite the engaging 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. I don't think I suggested citing it for anything, though it clearly meets RS. The other source I linked to is by Kees Wagtendonk, from Amsterdam University, and one of the foremost European experts on Islam. It is entirely proper for historians of art to be interested in depictions of Muhammad. It's a notable topic in its own right. But none of these historians of art would argue that these images reflect the Islamic mainstream. They are all aware that such images are (comparatively) rare, and that the Islamic tradition is generally word-based, with calligraphy as its main artistic medium of visual expression. Grube himself, in the book you mentioned, states: "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 ... 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 ... 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 ..." (p. 133). It's iconic, not unexpected images that we are interested in in a high-level article like this, just as we use iconic images in the articles on other religious founders. --JN466 23:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

One interesting thing about the night flight image uploaded and the sources Jayen mentions, is that the image appears to be Ottoman (likely Sunni audience) and not Persian or Moghul. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the BnF ones Mathsci links above, In fact the MS is Persian/Afghan, Herat 1436 [63], but yes Sunni (the Persian rulers were Sunni at this period & until after 1502). There are plenty of Ottoman and Sunni illustrated Mi'raj manuscripts. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that it was from Harat but I thought that Tamerlane's empire was Turkish, although he did rule over Persia, and I was noting that the illustration was captioned in Turk (and Arabic) and thus, not clearly directed at Persians. And perhaps I misunderstood that some were saying, that images were limited to Persian Shias or to the later Mogul Empire (1526).Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It is in Turkish/Uighur, Arabic & also Persian, reflecting the mix of languages used in the Timurid courts. There is indeed a common misconception limiting such images to Shia use. In fact surviving historic images - Persian and Turkish mainly, are more often from a Sunni context, though modern images of Muhammad are nearly all Shia. Ottoman ones are more common than Mughal - but both are Sunni dynasties with few Shias at court. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If the captions on the night journey photograph include languages other than those listed, when it was uploaded, would you be willing to clarify the description? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Done, it should be on Commons though. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion on the picture of the koran. Instead can we find an actually closed koran with the front script shown? From the view on the open one you can't make anything out and it looks like it could be any book in existence. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If you do a Google Image search for Quran, you'll find it's customarily depicted with its pages open. It's the pages that show Muhammad's words, not the cover. --JN466 00:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to get a picture of one from (at the very least) a better angle. The one in the article has a somewhat off-kilter perspective; if we want a picture of the koran open, we could at least try to get a shot of it from straight above or standing directly in front of it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This page is strange

As far as I see, all the images of other articles (Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, etc) in the info box are paintings or photos. This article is the only article on wikipedia that presents just a written name as the infobox image. 203.81.67.182 (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It's because that is the most common visual representation of Muhammad, and WP should try to use such a depiction in the infobox (just like how we prefer infobox pictures of sports stars to have them either playing or at least in uniform, when we can get them). There are paintings of Muhammad's body further down in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, you should also add a picture of Muhammad in the infobox, the same way you did for Jesus, Buddha, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.99.42 (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Using the same logic, one could say that the most common visual representation of anyone is their name in writing, rather than a picture. In fact, it is patently clear Muhammad is treated as a special case here, so as not to offend Muslims. ðarkuncoll 15:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's not at all for that reason. If we didn't want to offend Muslims, we wouldn't include the Prophet's picture anywhere in the article, but, of course, we do. We get people commenting here every few days telling us that we have to remove the pictures of Muhammad because they are false and not allowed, and we tell them every time that we don't follow their rules. No Muslim is going to say "Well, it's okay to use the image, so long as its not the lead image of the article". They either accept or reject images of Muhammad entirely. The image in the infobox is not Muhammad's name in writing. It's the image you would see of Muhammad if he were depicted in art. It's not like it's just "Muhammad" in 12 point Times. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That argument is just plain silly all the current "image does is prove you can write Mohamed in calligraphy and make it look stylized and it is clearly an unsuccessful attempt to appease the religious fanatics, a proper image was in that box for years, there is no credible reason other than appeasement that it has been changed. This place used to be proud to resist censorship, not ant more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.163.174 (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Other historical figures get an artistic depiction of them. So does Muhammad; the artistic depiction is most commonly rendered in calligraphy, so we use an example of the most common artistic style. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that both sides of the argument are offended by the current article's content, I believe we have reached a fair and balanced approach. Singularity42 (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Good way to look at it. Everybody gets equal treatment! ~Amatulić (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The most common "image" or representation of Muhammad in the world today is the calligraphy version, so I see no problem in using that at the top of the article. Note also that the God article has no image at the top, even though many suitable, classic images exist, some of which are used in the article. Rklawton (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And I think the article reflects a well thought out compromise on the issue. One the one hand, Wikipedia is not censored and how Muhammad has been depicted historically is of encylopedic value. On the other hand, there is no policy that a historical painting of the subject should be at the top of the page in the Infobox, and the most common modern representation of the subject is the version currently in the Infobox. Singularity42 (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not an artistic depiction it's just written words in a foreign language , it is still just written words even if added to paintings often. By the above logic all info-boxes should not be photographs but copies of the written word that have been published in newspapers as these are most common way of representing the subject. It's amazing how the need to appease overrules common scene in this PC world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.163.174 (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You're not understanding. It's not "added to paintings." It is the painting most commonly used for Muhammad. If you took all of the artistic renderings of Muhammad in the world, and counted them, you'd find (warning: completely made-up statistic coming) that 99% of them look like our infobox, and well less than 1% like the images farther down the page. As a good comparison: the picture on Jesus is absolutely not what he actually looked like (the image is too European, and, of course, he didn't actually walk around with a halo shining behind him). Nonetheless, its a very good representative of how Jesus is normally depicted in art. And, again, your PC argument fails miserably, because if we really were being "PC" (which, btw, is considered an offensive term by many) then we wouldn't have any pictures of Muhammad in the article. In any event, this issue has a very strong consensus, so your desire to replace it with a image is about as likely to succeed as the desire of others to remove all of the images in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"Added to paintings" "is the painting" whatever, it is still just a word in a foreign language and in that case has no artistic element, it's just type not art so your comparisons to the Jesus article are completely irrelevant, no misunderstanding on my part, just a reply that willfully ignores the issue and facts of the matter. and I am afraid my PC arguments do add up as the format of the article would not have been changed if there was a desire to appease and in doing so finding a PC compromise and further just because "In any event, this issue has a very strong consensus, so your desire to replace it with a image is about as likely to succeed as the desire of others to remove all of the images in the article." does not meed I should be dissuaded from raising an issue your post does attempt to do this and is not really in the spirit of a reasonable discussion. If you must reply please address the isues raised rather than willfuly ignore the issue posted about just to get the last word — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.169.30 (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And I have to say comments like "wrong again" in the page history section are immature and not constructive is there not a basic civility code in force in this place to stop posts like that? can I respond by saying grow up? or does that make me ass bad as the poster of the imature comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.169.30 (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that you're wrong. And, no, saying that is in no way a violation of WP:CIVIL. It's pointing out that you are still misunderstanding the image. It's not just a word in another language. It is a very ornate and specialized calligraphic representation of that word (that is, if you simply looked in a normal copy of the Qu'ran, that is not how it would look). My point on the consensus issue was perhaps a bit strong, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that you're going to need an extraordinarily strong argument to reverse a very well held consensus than just saying that we're "PC". In any event, I don't think I have anything else to add unless you have some new evidence or line of argument. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I am not wrong and the manner in which you put "wrong again" (hidden in the page history) was very much uncivil and immature, if you have a point here is the place to put it. I as I have said above "all the current image does is prove you can write Mohamed in calligraphy and make it look stylized" can you not see this? it is still not artwork just text again no mistake of the nature of the image (why is there a need to claim I misunderstand the image?) (please can you let that sink in your brain before further comment), and again and again you ignore the issue being raised use logical fallacies like straw man and contribute nothing to the argument except show a need to get the last word, I'll say again to try and communicate to you If you must reply please address the issues raised rather than willfully ignore the issue posted about just to get the last word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.9.235 (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

the latest coment inj the page history is "sigh" how is that a constructive comment? that is clearly uncivil and immature, i'll say again is there not a basic civility code in force in this place to stop posts like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.9.235 (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The arguments concerning popularity of usage are specious. Otherwise, for example, Jesus would be represented with the ☧ symbol, rather than a picture. Artistic representations of Jesus are certainly common, but the ☧ (chi rho) symbol is far more common, considering its usage on coins, etc. ðarkuncoll 16:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

When most Christian artists go about making a painting of Jesus, they paint the current European, haloed image. They do not paint the chi-rho symbol. When most Budhist artists go about making a painting of Buddah, they usually paint the sitting cross-legged, meditating image. They do not paint a version of the name "Buddah". When most Muslim artists go about making a painting of Muhammad, they usually paint an artistic, caligriphay version of his name. It is the most common image that representes the subject. Singularity42 (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you're wrong. The ☧ symbol has been used far more often to represent Jesus than any picture of him. It has been used on untold thousands, perhaps millions, of coins, for example. You are making artificial distinctions in order to justify the current position, rather than looking at all the evidence. ðarkuncoll 23:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Where do you get that info, exactly? Where is that evidence of the symbol being used more than the image? You kind of have to back statements like that up on Wikipedia. —Digital Jedi Master (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That is just stylized writing not art, therefore the creators are not artists just people writing, my doctors handwriting would not normally be considered art a new definition of art applicable to only Muslims has been created here in order to appease in this special case . furtherer the current image does not even show a painting, no artist is listed in the image file, no original work seems to exist in a gallery or collection. it is not a reproduced work of art.

To TharkunColl: Interestingly, ten years ago, I would have recognized Jesus by one of the stylized images long before I recognized him by the symbol. I suspect for those who would recognize Muhammad by either, the symbol would be recognized more than largely varying artists interpretations. Just my opinion though. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a little history might help here. People who joined up in the last couple years might not realize this, but a lot of us had to fight for years to get any pictures of Muhammad displayed. It was a long, hard argument, but we did finally win. Before that, the consensus was to not display pictures, and anyone adding them would be reverted as quickly as people removing them now.

So when the consensus was finally changed, it ended up being something of a compromise that the images would be added, but kept "below the fold", so to speak. It may well have been an unspoken compromise, but I think everyone was basically tired of fighting at that point. So none of us pro-image folks really kept fighting to have the images higher up, because we'd won on the main issue.

It's not ideal, and I agree with the original poster that an image should be at the top of the page, just like for anyone else. But if one side got everything they wanted, it wouldn't be a compromise; it's only a compromise once everyone's unhappy.—Chowbok ☠ 18:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree it is not ideal. We should never be compromising core principles/tenets of Wikipedia. Either they get changed, or they get unilaterally and indisciminately applied. At least that's my opinion. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Chowbok that's not a history I have witnessed, the image of Mohammed was in that infobox for years and the core principle of no censorship was observed. the religionists were correctly ignored. It does not make sense to change wikipedia's core principles to appease religionists just because it's perceived as easier. All the current situation shows is that a special case has been made, it looks wrong, is inconsistent and no amount of false reasoning (as witnessed above) will change this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.160.10 (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

We're not say "how is Muhammad represented". The question is, as an image, as art, as a visual medium, how is Muhammad represented, and the answer is, "As a special form of calligraphy". If you went looking for actual images of Muhammad, you'd find, as far as I can tell based on having looked at this and related pages, less than 100 in the world. Total. However, you would find hundreds of thousands, if not more, of stylized, specially formatted, calligraphic representations of Muhammad. Let me draw an analogy: the company IBM, for its trademark/logo, uses a special calligraphic representation of the letters IBM (see File:IBM logo.svg). That's the image we use in the infobox of IBM, because that's the image that the company uses to represent themselves. We don't pick out a picture of their corporate headquarters, or use the original logo (see File:Original IBM Logo.png) just because it's more of a "picture", or anything else. Of course, there is no such thing as an "official" picture of Muhammad (or, really, most people except for maybe some politicians). But there is an image that represents, by a majority by a super-majority almost 100% of the time. I also argue that this is exactly like the fact that we use a European-looking Jesus in Jesus, rather than one that is "historically accurate". Now, I could be wrong, so go ahead and start up an RfC or some other similar form of dispute resolution. And I apologize if my words have been blunt, but to me changing the infobox image to a non-calligraphic painting of Muhammad would actually be a violation of Wikipedia core policies, not the other way areound as IP has presented it; this just seems blindingly obvious to me, which is why my words have been strong. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That figure of 100 is complete nonsense - there are many more than that, old and modern, and thousands if you include images that have a veiled face, some probably added to an originally depicted face. Johnbod (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Now, THAT makes perfect sense. As indicated above, I can buy into it wholeheartedly. And in following the examples we used, I betcha that if I lined up 100 images of Jesus, they'd all look relatively the same (minus some small amount of artistic license) - but if I lined up 100 images of Muhammad, they'd all look very different (as this very article demonstrates). Also, as Muhammad is, to a larger extent, a topic that is discussed (etc) largely by those of the Islamic faith (which is quite large in numbers), I could easily see a calligraphic representation as being the most prevalent. In such case, I think Qwyrxian has hit the head right on the nail - using something other than such a representation would be against policies and guidelines. So, if that is the reasoning applied to choosing the infobox image, I'm all for leaving it. If that isn't the reason, but is still a valid reason, then I am still all for leaving it. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Moore false reasoning the IBM logo is made to be EXACTLY the same and reproduceable many times it's not intended that people construct the IBM Logo by hand, writing isn't like that, more false reasoning to justify the special treatment given to this case, again Qwyrxian words have not been blunt but childish and immature a big difference that most people could see and no matter how much Qwyrxian ignores that fact and calls his behavior something else it still remains uncivil. and unjustifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.107.64 (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You're the only one being uncivil in this thread.—Chowbok ☠ 03:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how you can construct that comment from what has been posted above, it's just that certain people with an agenda do not like being presented with the facts. It wasn't me who posted "sigh" but you choose not to see that because you do not like the facts I state — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.224.56 (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Enough of the uncivil remarks. Your original topic has been answered to, you have no reason to comment further, you just seem to be attacking people now. --Nutthida (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree with you and not Qwyrxian on the main issue. That doesn't change the fact that Qwyrxian has been exceedingly patient and courteous, and you have frequently been rude and accusing him of bad faith.—Chowbok ☠ 03:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There was no uncivil remarks coming from me I did not put "Sigh" If I have been blunt well I guess i thought that it was normal around here or is it that there one rule for people who agree with you and another for those that do not? Guess so given that post. you actually do not comment on the issues and you just seem to be attacking people now and your post is hyporcritical. The actual fact is that the origional topic has not been answered far from it infact. there is no credible reason other than apeasement of religionists that a proper image should be shown in the infobox. as for "Qwyrxian has been exceedingly patient and courteous" how does that square with the "sigh" post selective reading does seem to be at play here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.64.122 (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you felt that my "sigh" was uncivil. In my past experience, I've never had anyone take a term of that nature as uncivil. I don't understand why it bothers you. It certainly wasn't attacking you in any way. If you want to pursue my remarks further, you should probably do so at WP:WQA, which is our usual forum for discussing issues of incivility; in fairness, you should know that if you do so, your own behavior can come under scrutiny. If you want to pursue the actual issue of the image further, since there seems to be a general consensus supporting the current image, you'll need to pursue dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And besides, the image discussion page is thataway → Talk:Muhammad/images.

~Amatulić (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see how "sigh" could be interpreted any other way but an uncivil remark, I can not see another point to be made from this remark and I have to say that after the amounts of posts on this page it's a bit late to show a redirect to another page. there may be a general consensus supporting the current image amongst religionists and those guided by appeasement rather than wikipedia's core values but that isn't actually a genuine consensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.89.148 (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What is "genuine" consensus, in your opinion? One that agrees with your viewpoint? This issue has been discussed to death repeatedly. I appreciate that you may be new to the conversation, but this is not a new or novel question. If I may be very frank, I do not anticipate that you or anyone else commenting here has anything new to add to the discussion -- thus, the "sigh". – Luna Santin (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, characterizing those to disagree with you as "religionists" or "guided by appeasement" is not only false, but insulting and offensive; and a gross violation of Wikipedia's core Wikipedia:Civility policy as well as the guideline Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I have rarely seen a clearer case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Contrary to your assertion without an accompanying rationale, the presentation of the lead image in this article does represent Wikipedia's core values, as others have repeatedly explained above and in the talk page archives. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually the only reason to have no real image is either a religionist reason or to appease religionists stating that fact is not a violation it's just stating a fact weather you like it or not, most likely you are only getting wound up because I state the truth and you don't like it so are now thyrowing toys out of pram and accusing me of "pot calling kettle black" in page history, thats extremely childish immature and unquestionably uncivil, no matter how upset you get with me stating the facts it happens to be the truth nether the less. So one side of the argument is allowed to be "blunt" as they put it but the other isn't even allowed to state their view by your childish rules, if I may be frank even thank (although only people of other opinion are allowed to do this by your terms) if you think the issue has been discussed and resolved why are you not just ignoring my posts? and It was not you who put the "sigh" remark so why try and justify it? it remains unconstructive. your post does nothing but attack me and even if i'm pott calling kettle black (as you so childishly put it) this is only as a response to posts like yours. The stupid thing is I had exepted User:Qwyrxian's explanation that if I wanted to discuss it further I should work out how to use dispute resolution, that is a reasonable comment. you post is just inflamatory, you have no constructive comment to make so why do you bother? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.169.96 (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I (and I am sure others) are of the camp/opinion of "I don't care what your or anyone elses or even my personal beliefs are - this is policy. We follow policy or... we follow policy. Period." Thus, personally, if I thought there was any validity to your claim, I'd be screaming bloody hell in this discussion (or more likely, politely point it out). But I do not believe that to be the case, as has been discussed ad-infinitum above and in archived discussions. After reviewing the numerous discussions on this matter, I believe, whether people against having an image of Muhammed think it was done to appease them or not, that in reality, policy is simply being followed (which may just happen to coincide with their desires). ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 15:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No policy is not being followed people are avoiding raising the issue as they will just be attacked (like you post), people are ignoring the fact special treatment is being applied here because it's easier to appease then anything else, look how much the bad guy I have become! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.6.130 (talk • contribs)

Please try reading this thread from the beginning. If you can find a common visual depiction of Muhammad, feel free to add it. Those of us who would like to see such an image have tried valiantly, and failed to find one. So go ahead, nobody is stopping you. You have yet to suggest anything specific. Find an image and present it. Otherwise your complaints aren't relevant, and starting to border on WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Anon: Be careful who you accuse of attacking you (I don't particularly care, but others might). I suspect I did no such thing. Like Amatulic, I'm all for an image if a common visual depiction can be found. I too couldn't find any. Help us out in this matter and find one, and you've got my !vote. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, all. This article isn't part of my field of expertise, but I just read it for the first time and want to chip in my short opinion. I must say, the usage of images in this article is quite strange. I understand the reasoning "his calligraphic name is the most common representation of him" - that seems reasonable for the infobox. However, to not have any artistic depictions of Muhammad until halfway down his main article is very odd, particularly when no other similar articles does so (this has been noted already). A few images, like the image of the Quran in the first section, seem unnecessary, as well. I think everyone knows images of Muhammad are offensive to some, but that's never been an issue on Wikipedia. There are a number of other places where images considered offensive by certain groups are used prominently in articles. Thanks, and happy editing.  White Whirlwind  咨  00:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, though Wikipedia is supposed to be, this article is not treated secularly, and has a number of exceptions to minimize or decrease religious offense. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

remove the pictures

--براء داغستاني (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• All but 2 of the current 9 sections on this page actually relate to images, and should have been moved there. On the other hand currently there is discussion on the images question on about 5 different pages, and a posting referring to these here might be useful. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of Muhammad p.b.u.h should be removed

• all the pictures protayed Muhammad p.b.u.h should be removed because Muhammad cannot be illustrated. It had been stated in al - Quran. Wikipedia should have sensitivity regarding religion and accept others people opinion. Those pictures are too offensive to all MUSLIM,, there are no such things in Islam that Muhammad p.b.uh can be ilustrated. Please remove the picture as soon as possible. 175.144.81.9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC).
  • There is an ongoing discussion about this here and here. Peace. --JN466 15:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Nowhere in the Koran does it say that Muhammad can't be depicted; that's the opinion of some scholars after his death. Otherwise, I'd take the advice given to you above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• (also posted on User talk:Jimbo Wales) Several of the images under discussion here appear in the 2009 book on Muhammad by the Islamic scholar Omid Safi, "Memories of Muhammad: Why the Prophet Matters".[64] 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 [65] (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) 05:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • He is from Iran, where images of the Prophet are tolerated. Safi also reports in his book that he is wary of telling some of his Muslim friends that the image in his home is of Muhammad, because they react badly to it. Cf. 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. It's a significant minority view in Islam, but far from a majority view, nor representative of how Muhammad is most commonly portrayed. --JN466 06:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but this part "where images of the Prophet are tolerated" isn't relevant to anything. OTOH, I contend my post on Jimbo's page is relevant to this matter - here it is with a little more clarification: 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 or create religious offense. A biography has pictures of (a) how someone looked, or (b) failing the availability of such, how others perceived him to look.

I'll be honest about something else. The other thing that has hurt the response to the opinions of some editors here is that pictures of a veiled/flamed Muhammad are ok and more suitable - but if it comes to unveiled pics, they're "false depictions". Obviously, there are two reasons such hurts their stance - the first is (a) that, correctly or not, it implies that the editor is applying a religious bias of some sort, and (b) a head of fire is far less likely to resemble what he looked like than a depiction of an actual head - which may possibly even be drawn from what descriptions are available on how he looked. Thus, the "false depictions" argument doesnt hold out well when those editors trot out support for one and wish to remove the others. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Image deletion nomination

I would like to nominate the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Surat_An-Najm.jpg for deletion out of the text. It does nothing to enhance the readers knowledge of the subject. Tivanir2 (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose _{^{(05:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC))}} Withholding !vote: until someone can translate the specific text. If the text creates a relevance point to Muhammad or the section of the article, then, with appropriate caption indicating such relevance in English, I'd be against deletion. If no relevance, I'd be for deletion. This is not an article on the Qur'an, and only needs representations of such as relevant. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose removal The image is in the section on the Quran, and it shows a page from the Quran. The Quran is what Muhammad is famous for – to muslims, it's the word of God, as reported by Muhammad, his messenger. Muhammad is omnipresent in Islamic culture through Quranic quotations. --JN466 05:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• You had me at "The image is in the section on the Quran, and it shows a page from the Quran." ;-) Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Mm. :) If we want a more meaningful caption, we could add that An-Najm marks the first time Muhammad asked his followers to perform a prostration (prayer is mentioned in the text). The last line on the page means, "So prostrate to God and worship him." Best, --JN466 05:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• I note that the "aniconic" argument of "it does nothing to enhance the readers knowledge of the subject" applies just as stongly, or just as weakly, to images of the Quran or calligraphy as to figurative images of the Prophet. I don't buy this argument, & I think we should have at least one image of a Quran, though I don't think the current ones are the best choice. Commons has a huge Category:Qur'an from which better images can be chosen. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't follow that. Showing a page of the Quran shows words Muhammad actually spoke. That in itself is a pretty immediate connection to Muhammad as the subject of the article. The loving way they are reproduced indicates in what esteem they are held, and the significance attributed to them, which is part of his reception, as well as communicating cultural flair. --JN466 15:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sadly, I think you just won Johnbod's "argument" for him - let me work from your statement: "I don't follow that. Showing a depiction of Muhammad shows how many people have perceived Muhammad through the ages. That in itself is a pretty immediate connection to Muhammad as the subject of the article. The loving way they are created and reproduced - much less commissioned by noble families, indicates in what esteem they are held, and the significance attributed to them, which is part of his reception, as well as communicating cultural flair."

See my point? Side note, we do not know that the Qur'an page in the image is an exact faithful replica of his original words or of earlier printings, do we? I mean, I am sure we can assume such (as people do with the Bible). But I am wondering if (just like the Bible) we'd be wrong. Either way, it's not something we can definitively say. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The Quran and the Bible are quite different in that respect: while the Quran is Muhammad's work (and scholarship generally doesn't doubt that), none of the New Testament was written by Jesus. So there is an immediacy here that does not apply in the case of the Bible. The Quran continues to be studied, memorised, quoted, inscribed and recited to a degree the Bible is not. The problem with applying the "how many people have perceived Muhammad through the ages" argument to figurative images is the "many". By all accounts (see comments on Jimbo's talk), figurative images were rare to begin with, were used in non-public contexts only, and most Muslims refrained from making such images. So while they are part of Muhammad's reception, they are a very small and generally unrepresentative part of it. The reproduction of Muhammad's names and words in the Quran in contrast is central to Muhammad's artistic reception. --JN466 00:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Rarity is irrelevant to "is this a picture/photo/sitting-portrait/depiction of the article subject?" Nothing suffices as a substitute for such except more of the same. ;-) Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, If you can read Arabic your knowledge may be directly enhanced (by images where the text is actually legible) but if not not. Logically the "enhance the readers knowledge" argument would dictate images of an English translation in the English article. But I think there is much more to illustration of articles than this somewhat fundamentalist approach. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually I would like to point out the koran was written after muhammads death so no it isn't his work. It is written by his companions before his death as the word of god passed through muhammad. So it is almost exactly like the bible in that aspect since neither were written by the person in question. The reason I added in the question is to show that an image may be informative without necessarily having any supporting text. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies i think faster than I write it is suppose to say it was partially written after his death. Also for the biblical references I doubt they started writing after death so we can summarize they are similar in creation. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• oppose per wikipedia is not censored. Pass a Method talk 19:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant comment. This isn't a censorship issue. Nobody is offended by this image, nobody is proposing censoring anything. Have you looked at the image at all? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Amatulic I think you've missed the point entirely. More of a statement than an earnest argument if I'm not mistaken. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's a statement. I got that point. However, it appears to be irrelevant to this discussion, as far as I can tell.

For my part, I have no opinion yet. The article would not be worse off without the image, but it certainly isn't harmed by it, either. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I think this image is probably a copyright violation. The uploader also uploaded a bunch of copyvio calligraphy, participated in the deletion discussions, and then when they were deleted as copyvios at commons, immediately uploaded them to ar.wiki. Same with another photo he uploaded to commons. Given the border/vignetting and that he is not a trustworthy user, I bet this is something just snagged from the web. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed image solution

Flowing from a discussion I began at Anthonyhcole's talk page, and moving onto Jayen's, I propose several ideas that should, in my view, represent a reasonable solution to the ongoing debates as well as present an opportunity for a better balance of images throughout the article. The proposal is based on two opinions that I hold: 1. We will not remove all - or even most - depictions, full stop. 2. There are too many images overall (26 at this time), which are crushing the text in places.

Without veil (1494–5)

With veil (1539–1543)

First and foremost: the depictions. Presently, there are five Muslim and one western depiction in the article. I propose to change this to three Muslim and two western, net reduction of one. The three Muslim images would represent the three ways in which Muhammad has been depicted at some point in history: fully rendered, defaced, and as a flame. The full render and the defaced image (example to right) would be placed in the Islamic depictions section where they can be used to show not only that such images exist - which I hold to be valuable educationally - but with solid captions can be used to show the progression from full rendering to none throughout history. File:Muhammad destroying idols - L'Histoire Merveilleuse en Vers de Mahomet BNF.jpg, the image of Muhammad as a Flame, would remain in an appropriate position of his historical biography. This should be acceptable to all sides, as it is still a depiction, but does not actually render Muhammad. This allows us to display the three ways in which Muhammad was depicted, once each in the article.

Western tradition obviously has no such restrictions on imagery, and we have space in the section, so I suggest to add File:Scotusnfrieze.jpeg, which shows one western view of Muhammad as a bringer of laws. In our discussion, Anthony suggested replacing the existing Russian image with one showing Muhammad in hell, but not nearly as "ghastly" as the one that was removed, showing historical Western perspective.

The reduction of one depiction would be, in my mind, part of a greater redressing of the balance. Between the 26 images and several templates, the text gets crushed in several locations. My view is an overall reduction of at least three images. For instance, do we need 6-8 calligraphic renderings? We could eliminate one by removing or completely collapsing {{Islam}}, especially since it is redundant to the {{Islam topics}} navbox. It is a nice looking template, but why have two that points to the same links? Especially when removing the side bar will open space up to move images around. Additionally, it is currently oddly placed in the western views section. I would also favour collapsing the other two templates in some fashion, as they take up a remarkable amount of real estate that could be better used in organizing the images we have.

Thoughts? Resolute 00:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Jarkeld (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I would oppose replacing Islamic images with Western ones. What is the point of that supposed to be? Especially the two specifically mentioned, which I have commented on above. Apart from other considerations this will clearly increase the "offensiveness" of the page to those who find it so. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it would change the offensiveness of the article at all. The people complaining of "offensiveness" will not be satisfied until depictions = 0. Given that will never gain consensus and therefore such individuals will never be satisfied, I do not see any point in worrying about that viewpoint. My goal is to address arguments related to value and placement of the images used. Resolute 01:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That's naive frankly. There are a lot of Muslims who don't complain now, but would complain about an image in Muhammad in hell. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I brought that up as Anthony's suggestion, and there is a point to be made that it is a legitimate historical viewpoint. That said, I have no issue with using another image (such as retaining the Russian one) if that is preferred. Resolute 01:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's covered at Depictions of Muhammad, with 2 hell images, which is where it belongs imo. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The image of Muhammad being tortured in hell was removed previously from this article by consensus, as being needlessly provocative. The discussion is at Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 17#Proposed removal of deliberately provocative images. I would oppose its re-introduction. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That was never an image up for consideration. In fact, I specifically stated the discussion was about a less-provocative image. Either way, I have struck that part, as people are getting caught up on one little piece, and ignoring the overall suggestion. Resolute 02:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Semi-related question. Is the picture with veil actually a picture that was without veil and painted over? Has that happened in the past? I note that the outline seems to be of facial features and not of a veil. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  It might be. I know in Commons, there is an unveiled image that was altered to be shown defaced - with Muhammad's face painted over. Resolute 01:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  That has happened to some images, but they can't usually tell unless the paints starts peeling or turns transparent, or you can see under light from behind etc. At this date veils were probably standard anyway - Gruber gives the Safavid takeover in 1502 as the rough date of the change. Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• That brings up an interesting point (I'll leave the relevance of it up to others to decide). Muhammad was probably never perceived, portrayed or viewed by his peers with a veil. Of course, the guidelines in MOS\Images does not favor either, regardless of that. Interesting... ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, Resolute. I support this as a compromise proposal, and one that better reflects Islamic ways of portraying Muhammad. I agree with Johnbod about a picture of Muhammad in hell being needlessly provocative here. Incidentally, about the veil, there were also pictures where the artist painted a calligraphic symbol of Muhammad instead of a face, and then covered the symbol with a veil, as a mark of respect. --JN466 16:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with collapsing the box. I don't think I agree that the flame image is better for his historical biography section. Not to be funny, but the sources agree that he had a human face when he was alive. So, editorially, I would prefer image(s) with his face in his biography section. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I lost that argument... though my newer one above leans in the same direction. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Images showing a face were in a minority compared to veil/flame images, and images were rare overall, compared to calligraphy; we should reflect proportions accurately (roughly at least). --JN466 18:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Where is this? Commons is not a meaningful sample of anything much. It is simply a matter of dating. Before about 1500, mainly face shown. After then mainly veiled, until recent times when images are rather more mixed. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

See Safi. You're right about the 1500 watershed though. --JN466 21:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

See Gruber for a less vague treatment. Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at Gruber, but is it your impression that she is contradicting Safi on what's the most common type of illustration? I've seen nothing in her work to suggest that. And there are other sources saying much the same as Safi, e.g. [66]. I'm not against showing one unveiled Islamic image, as per Resolute's proposal above. --JN466 22:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

When the difference is one of dating, as she demonstrates pretty clearly, it is unhelpfully vague to talk of what is most "common" without specifying a period. Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought it didn't matter in this context. Due weight is a question of absolute numbers rather than particular time periods. But you are of course correct on the facts of the matter. --JN466 20:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• [67][68] I thought we had a semblance of consensus. --JN466 20:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I would have hoped so too. Hopefully a few more people opine in this section, as I think we would all like to move forward with this article. Resolute 23:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with this - if we do this we can avoid any escalation from me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the preceding discussion as responsive to my point. Obviously, people round the world have illustrated the human Mohammed. I still view this as a biography, generally in biography we (and most sources in biography) illustrate the person. I can see no reason not too (other than religious scruple). You say they are "rare"? In every other biography such claim would ensure that the image is included.Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This proposal still includes some images of Muhammad in the article. The point is that in this case lots of biographies apparently don't include images of Muhammad where you'd expect them to for other figures. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The proposal is to eliminate all such images from the biography sections and the reason given for the don't is religious scruple. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be content to allow a single image to remain in the biography section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Alan, the compromise Resolute, Anthonyhcole and I worked out is that one image would remain in the biography section. It would look like this, perhaps with a second image subsequently added in the European reception section. The change is not actually motivated by religious scruples, but by a desire to reflect Islamic representations of Muhammad in something approaching correct proportions. If this lessens offence to muslims, that is a welcome side effect, but it isn't actually the rationale for what's proposed. Cheers, --JN466 17:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Given we currently have three actual images of Muhammad in the "life" section which show his face, wouldn't it be reasonable to still include one there. Alan makes a reasonable point and there is value in showing his face in the biography section - and I think that wouldn't be gratuitous and that most reasonable people (including hopefully most muslims) would be OK with that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

We wanted to have three images showing the main types of depiction in Persian book miniatures – flame, veiled, face. The two mi'raj images work best side by side to illustrate how conventions changed around 1500, from facial depictions to veiled depictions. --JN466 18:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

And I presume the flame/veiled ones significantly outweigh the others. Damn :(. We could add another image to the European and Western reactions section - the US supreme court one could work well there. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jayen: I am aware that it would eliminate Mohammed Kaaba (at right)

, (which consensus above recently confirmed should be here) in favor of NO image illustrating his early life. Since this is the only image we have illustrating his early life, the correct proportion would be to have it. We should stick with the prior consensus, above. I am also aware that it would eliminate The Revelation (at left)

, illustrating the very text which makes him MOST notable, again in favor of NO image. I see no pedagogical reason for that. There is one other, which no one has made a claim does not belong.

IMO The pictures you wish to remove should be individually put up for review (except for Mohammed Kabba, which recently successfully went through such review) and the basis for removal should NOT be based on some claim of "Islamic representation" - that IS an explicit religious motivation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The goal of my proposal was to organize a layout that would be acceptable to a majority of the involved editors. I think that if we can agree on this being a viable framework, we can then discuss which specific images work best, if the ones contained in this proposal are not found to be the best choices. Resolute 19:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the basis for your framework "Islamic representation," and if so, why do we need to eliminate illustrations of his early life and his revelation? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the basis for my framework is to try and achieve an image layout that most will accept. Resolute 19:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Then, I amend my opinion, we should put them up for review in one section all at the same time, with separate support or oppose rationales requested for each. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Given we need to balance the overall article I don't think that's a good idea. The refutation of my suggestion above is overall balance and not whether individual images are acceptable. This has been a contentious issue for a long time and we are all going to need to be prepared to compromise on it if we want to get a resolution to this matter. It has been an issue for far too long already.

Resolute's excellent proposal above is the sort of thing I would expect to come out of mediation - why force us through that process, including topic bans for anyone who is uncooperative and all sorts of other nastiness if we don't have to? I was premature about suggesting mediation given this discussion, and I also probably haven't explained my position as clearly as I could have done (part of that is that I am internally torn as to exactly what my view is) but resolving this is not something that can be allowed to slide indefinitely. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Re balance. If you put them up all at the same time, then people can argue balance. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Potentially, but I think what counts to the people who want a reduction in the number of images is a reduction in the total number of images, not which particular images (within reason - so the hell ones aren't included) are included in the article.

Letting those who know the most about the topic to pick the exact images to include sounds the wisest course of action. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If the consensus is wide and it is based on policy and reason, it has a better chance of sticking (provisionally) on a wiki than if it is based on a narrow group of people (one who claims their proposal is based on "Islamic representation" and one who claims it is not). We can't hope to solve the dilemma for all time of correct representation of the Prophet for the outside world, we can only do what we do based on our core policy and mission, using the processes we have to gage consensus and reason. As long as we have this article, and whether it has 0 or more than X number of representations, this page will be subject to this controversy (unless the world changes), we can only hope to put it to bed for a reasonable time, if we find a way to gage the most agreement, grounded in policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Alan, we are using both Islamic and non-Islamic images. To the extent that we are using Islamic images, it doesn't make sense to focus on a rare type of image, to the detriment of showing mainstream imagery and art associated with Muhammad (for example, we still don't have a single image illustrating a Quranic inscription on a mosque, despite the fact that these are ubiquitous throughout the Islamic world, and we have hundreds of beautiful examples in Commons). Jimbo summed this up quite well, after voluminous discussions on his talk page, drawing on many sources putting these images in their wider context. Please let's just implement the consensus and get on with other things. --JN466 12:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a single (or at most two) non-Islamic images is a reasonable coverage of non-Islamic Muhammad images, we only have a single non-Christian cultural image of Jesus in that article - File:ChineseJesus.jpg. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't object based on whether any image is Islamic or not. I have stated my objection based on the fact that this is his biography; I also have no objection to telling the reader that any particular image is rare, if RS says it is so (and if someone thinks that is important for the reader to know). I have also suggested a way to gage wide consensus (if you want to show there is a consensus that is different than the one already evident in the article), based on policy, in the appropriate forum, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As a further observation, objection, or point of discussion depending on how you wish to take it. The images in the Muslim depiction section don't actually have the room to fit there (which makes sense as that section is a squib for another article) and it seems to me they are not needed here, in this article, at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want to know what the wider audience who reads Muhammad thinks to gather a consensus take down the discussion suppressing headers and start an RFC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I intend to implement the above compromise proposal shortly. So far I've seen nods from 7 editors – Resolute, Anthonyhcole, Mathsci, myself, Eraserhead, Jarkeld, and RobertMfromLi, and I see only two editors (Johnbod and Alanscottwalker) opposed. --JN466 01:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't do that. Most of the editors you mention are very recent arrivals here, and most of the many longstanding editors have been taking a break since the torrent of words got too much to read a few weeks ago (which with threads like today's below remains the case). I see there are 13 editors with over 100 contributions to this page, of whom only I think 5 have so far commented, with 2 against. And there's a bundle more with 50 plus. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I also don't see the support you claim. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Resolute posted the proposal, based on discussions he initiated on Anthonyhcole's and my talk page, with participation from Mathsci. Statements on this page:
    • "There was an agreement about the use of a limited (probably reduced) number of images between Jayen466, Anthonyhcole and me, amongst others. There has been compromise and flexibility; and in this case criteria have emerged, depending on secondary sources, for deciding when images are appropriate and where they should be placed." Mathsci (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC) (below)
    • "Sounds good." Jarkeld (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)"
    • "While I might be able to sign on to that proposal as well, I am leaning to believe it is a stopgap measure ..." ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 21:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "I'm happy with this - if we do this we can avoid any escalation from me." -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Ludwigs2 is in support as well (I've asked him).
    • From Jimbo on his talk page: "To be very very specific rather than abstract, we should be careful not to allow political views held by almost all Wikipedians (in a particular language) to distract us from the demands of NPOV. So as an example, if reliable sources suggest that depictions of Muhammad are rare, we shouldn't as a "political act" shove a bunch of them in just to prove some kind of case against censorship - if we do so, then we misrepresent history. True NPOV in this area would involve finding a consensus about what reliable sources do. Depictions of Muhammad needs to have some historically relevant and important ones because that's what the article is about. Muhammad though, should not mislead the reader into thinking such images are common if they are not. This doesn't mean that the number should be zero, necessarily, just that it should reflect what is found in reliable sources." --Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC) [69]

    --JN466 12:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

After all the electrons that editors have fired around the world over this I don't think it's acceptable to retire into a corner and claim a consensus that seems so inconsistent with the consensus of the community. It seems clear to me that are many editors who have been participating in discussions elsewhere but who may not know that this discussion is going on. I only became aware of it a few moments ago.

For what it's worth, I think a compromise proposal is the right way to go. But it mustn't look like censorship, which I think this one does, by removing images of Mohammed where the face can be made out in thumbnail and by taking the first occurance of images even further down the page.

I think any proposal that is to be put ought to be put by way of an RfC, since there is clearly wide community interest. --FormerIP (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to do that then the discussion suppressing headers on this talk page and the Muhammad main talk page and the FAQ have to go for at least the length of the RFC. Any attempt at gaining a wider consensus without doing that is invalid as you are making it significantly harder for one side of the discussion to contribute equally.

Additionally the discussion should be listed with the appropriate WikiProjects.

If you guys want to go to that effort I don't have an issue, but I don't think its going to make a significant difference to the outcome. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with much of what Former IP wrote; I also find it untoward, Jayen, that you are claiming !votes for this proposal based on cryptic statements of what others have said elsewhere. I think there has been consensus for compromise (including from me), but several of the comments above don't clearly state support for this particular proposal, and one (Robert) is against. As for Jimbo's comment, it's not supporting this compromise, at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The statements quoted are from this page, with the exception of Jimbo's, which is linked. --JN466 01:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think my view on this proposal can be inferred from what I've said above but

Support. This elegant solution respects the relevance provision of WP:IUP. By using figurative images as examples of Islamic depictions or Western reception (highly relevant and edifying), and not using them to "illustrate" the action of the story, comic book style, (didactically virtually valueless), we demonstrate that we are not censored while avoiding giving the impression of being pointy dicks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I had hoped to find a solution to this tedium. Guess we aren't there yet. Lets see what comes next... Resolute 23:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think trying to work through it in a more structured, policy-guided way may be less tedious. I have to say though, that I don't have a detailed plan for doing that to present. I do think that this is a significant discussion which affects Wikipedia as well as the article. I would compare it to the current discussion on the intro to WP:V, which have gone on for a long time and may go on for a while longer. Seven questionable supports for this type of decision is not a consensus.

It would be good to work towards an RfC in which mention of either religious sensitivities or WP:NOTCENSORED could be banished. I'm not sure whether than is realistic, but my sense is we will not get anywhere otherwise. Thoughts anyone? --FormerIP (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, that has been the argument all along. This is not about religious sensitivities, or censorship. What it is about is representing Islamic art—given that many of our illustrations are Islamic art—appropriately, and proportionately. Figurative images of Muhammad are rare in Islam. Those that existed, were mainly of three types: early Persian art showed Muhammad's face, while later on, Muhammad was shown as a flame, or with his face veiled. The main representations of Muhammad are through calligraphy of his words, included in practically every mosque in existence, and through calligraphic art, either of his name, or of quite detailed descriptions of his physical appearance (as in the hilye example), based on recorded accounts of his contemporaries. This also reflects the illustration style of reliable English-language sources on Muhammad. Standard images include calligraphy, mosques, muslims in prayer, etc., and then there is a division between books that feature some figurative images, and others that don't. (This is about English-language sources; mainstream Arabic sources for example would never feature [figurative] images.) Now, we can't be neutral in the sense that we both feature images of Muhammad and don't feature images of Muhammad. The best compromise we can arrive at is that we feature some images—because there is interest in them—but do not overwhelm the article with them and give due prominence to mainstream Islamic art (which is mainstream throughout the Islamic world, whether Shi'a or Sunni). Anything I just said only applies to the Islamic images we use; Western images are a different kettle of fish. That, FormerIP, was what this compromise proposal was designed to achieve, and there have been voluminous discussions, here and on Jimbo's talk page, for the past few weeks. Every one of the images that this proposal retains has an encyclopedic justification. In particular, by featuring two images of the mi'raj—one of the most popular subjects depicted by artists—side by side, we can illustrate to the reader how representations of Muhammad changed around 1500, moving from depictions of his face to veiled images. It's a good compromise, don't you think? --JN466 00:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No, let's not be naive. It's about religious sensitivities (or, more correctly, editors' assumptions about what those might be) vs NOTCENSORED. Even if a claim to the contrary were justified, no other perspective has had room to breathe. What I'm suggesting is that it would be a useful exercise to put that entirely to one side and see where the rest of it takes us. --FormerIP (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't force you to actually research this topic area, but it might help if you read the sources I added earlier today to the Islamic depictions section. Figurative images are rare, and offensiveness should not play any role either way in how many we feature. We shouldn't feature more of them than is justified, nor less. --JN466 01:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That's one of the arguments that hasn't had room to breathe. I happen to disagree with the argument. But what I'm saying is give it some space, unencumbered, and see where it may lead and what consensus or compromise might emerge. --FormerIP (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

We've been discussing it for weeks, to death. Have you read the discussions on Jimbo's talk? Have you read the sources? --JN466 01:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to force me. What's taken place on Jimbo's talkpage and elsewhere is an argument about censorship. Even if it editors have tried to make it otherwise, it has been about nothing more than that. --FormerIP (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

So, if I understand this correctly, you have never edited this article, have never contributed to its talk page, have never contributed to this sub-talk page, have not followed any of the week-long discussions that led up to this proposal, have not read any of the sources, don't understand the subject matter, but make two reverts of a compromise proposal interested editors worked hard to arrive at here, based on some general idea of censorship? --JN466 02:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't understand it correctly, and it's not about me. I'm just politely replying to your comments. --FormerIP (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry, at this point it is about you, because you have never edited this article, have never contributed to its talk pages, and are clearly not au fait with the status of discussion, yet choose to make two reverts of a compromise proposal supported and accepted by a majority of editors, without having read the talk page. --JN466 02:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm totally on top of the status of the discussion, Jayen. You should respond to the points I have made, rather than coming up with reasons why I may not be entitled to make them. --FormerIP (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, then you also know that your reverts were against majority opinion here on this talk page. The only point you have made is that what we do should not "look like censorship". I am sure you are not the only editor capable of assessing that. We have three Islamic images of Muhammad, representing the three main types of images there have been. One of them clearly shows a figure with an unveiled face, and is located in the appropriate section, Islamic depictions of Muhammad. In addition we have a European image, also unveiled, and are contemplating adding another such image (probably SCOTUS, below). --JN466 02:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

As I've explained above, I do not think a community-wide discussion involving countless editors overall which, though not perfectly coherent, came down with a clear consensus against removing images, can be overridden with a dubious self-declared 5-2 majority here. That's the crux of what I'm saying and it seems that other editors agree. You can ignore my suggestions for moving forward if you like. I was only trying to be helpful. --FormerIP (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate that, but you weren't. :) And I do not know which discussions you are referring to, unless you are referring to generic discussions about censorship at WT:NOT. This is not about censoring this article. The discussions on Jimbo's talk page, summarised by Jimbo himself, did look at a slew of sources specifically about this topic, and did lead to the suggestion to use mi'raj images, and the formulation of this compromise. --JN466 02:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's much of a connection between the discussion at Jimbo's and this proposal show very much relation. The overwhleming consensus there was that censoring is not a basis for changing the article. There may be other bases, which have not yet had proper discussion. My view is that the proposal, admitting defeat in the objective of removing all the images, selects the most censor-friendly, relatively speaking, for inclusion. That's not a correct reading of community consensus, which I think is to reject censorship entirely. --FormerIP (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci made the suggestion of using a night journey image at 18:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC) on Jimbo's talk. That's why we have night journey images here. The outcome of the discussion was, in Jimbo's words, and based on numerous sources looked at in the course of that discussion, "we should be careful not to allow political views held by almost all Wikipedians (in a particular language) to distract us from the demands of NPOV. So as an example, if reliable sources suggest that depictions of Muhammad are rare, we shouldn't as a "political act" shove a bunch of them in just to prove some kind of case against censorship - if we do so, then we misrepresent history. True NPOV in this area would involve finding a consensus about what reliable sources do. Depictions of Muhammad needs to have some historically relevant and important ones because that's what the article is about. Muhammad though, should not mislead the reader into thinking such images are common if they are not. This doesn't mean that the number should be zero, necessarily, just that it should reflect what is found in reliable sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)" --JN466 03:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I find these claims about implied messages in the article concerning religious art to be fanciful constructs. Anyone can find implications about anything they choose to concerning hidden messages, if they ignore what is explicitly claimed: this is a man's life; these are the important things about him; these are illustrations of that life; end of article. The reader need not even concern herself with who painted what or why (and many will not). If she is curious, she can link through page after page, explaining almost everything about the art, the religion, the controversies, etc. etc. Even if enough editors agree that an unwanted implication is so apparent it should be preemptively warded oeff (a rare occurence), it is simple to do so, with a brief annotation, or a few words. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

We're not talking about implied messages. At present, we're simply overrepresenting a rare and specialist type of imagery, and underrepresenting common, mainstream types of imagery associated with Muhammad. --JN466 02:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not true. No one has produced other images that illustrate his life.Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It is clearly true that these images are rare. Sources to that effect have been provided. It is also true that Muhammad has had a tremendous influence on Islamic art and architecture, and that that has primarily been through the medium of his words, which are unquestionably the most significant and enduring aspect of his life. Again, sources to that effect have been provided. --JN466 03:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Rare images of the man's life belong in his biography. As for the other things concerning writings they are represented primarily and best in writing, and architecture, to squibs on other articles about architecture. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

See Jimbo's argument above; he said it better than I could have. We have a Depictions of Muhammad article where these images are treated in full detail. The images that belong in the biography of a person are the types of imagery most commonly associated with that person in reliable sources. --JN466 03:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

And these would be that, since these are the images that have been produced about his life in reliable sources.Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Alan, there are many, many images of Muhammad depicted abstractly (veiled, as a flame, through calligraphic representations of his name). I don't understand why you're suggesting these full-faced images are better, given that they are a distinctly minor form. How could that position possibly conform to NPOV? --Ludwigs2 05:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Because we are illustrating an article about a man's life, not about art, and not about theology. Besides, the point of abstraction is not to inform about a person (unlike a biography), it is to abstract them (generally as a means to some claimed higher, or at least different, philosophical truth -- thus, by means of losing their individuality, they become a Form). As to the mechanics of the present proposal, it is not presently to replace the images in the biography sections (with the "many, many" others you claim), it is to delete them in favor of nothing in those biography sections. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

In favour of one, actually, not none. The rationale was that we have too many of them, considering their marginal status. Do you accept that these images (1) were rare, and not representative of Muhammad's artistic reception, and that (2) they were not public art, but occurred as book illustrations privately commissioned by weathy patrons, who wanted to have their manuscripts illustrated? Or would you like me to show you sources? Just so we know what's understood and what isn't. --JN466 14:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Alan, I'm sorry, but that makes no sense on at least two dimensions:

1. The full-faced images are abstractions just as much as the veiled, flame-headed, and calligraphic images; remember, no one knows what Muhammad actually looked like. All the images suggest (really) is that Muhammad was a more or less 'human-shaped' human being, which isn't really something that needs to be pointed out. In fact, the full-faced images actively misinform the reader:
   • They lead the reader to think that these images depict what Muhammad looked like (they don't)
   • They lead the reader to think that images of this sort are common in Islam (they aren't)

   Why should we misinform readers that way?

2. Granting that the Islamic philosophical reason for abstraction is that they don't want people to worship the form of Muhammad (the way that Christians are often encouraged to worship the form of Christ), your comments sound more like you are opposing Islam's philosophical position rather than trying to write an encyclopedia. You seem to be arguing that not adding a lifelike image of Muhammad reduces him to a de-individualized form, which is hardly true in the first place (I've never seen an image of you but I clearly recognize your individuality), and seems to be a philosophical attack on Islamic tenets rather than anything pertinent to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not the correct place for you to engage in philosophical combat with a major world religion.

Do you see what I'm getting at? --Ludwigs2 15:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What you're getting at is misdirection. This entire shitstorm was began by you yelling about offense of Muslims, and when that didn't stick it has now morphed into "that's not how Muslims view Muhammad". We're not engaging in "philosophical combat" here; what we are doing is ensuring that "Islam's philosophical position" as you put it is not a possible or potential consideration when making editorial decision here. Their views are irrelevant. Tarc (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Per NPOV, their views count just as much as anyone else's. No more, no less. Or are you saying you want to specifically exclude Muslims and Muslim sources from Wikipedia, but are fine with Jews, Chrstians and Buddhists? If so, I'd be very interested in your reasoning, and how you square it with project principles. --JN466 20:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The part beginning with "Or are you..." is simplistic baiting, and will not be responded to. As to the first, no, they do not count. This is a peculiar twisting of NPOV that you two have begun to twist, once the "they're offended!" shtick didn't win anyone over, that a neutral presentation of Muhammad in the Wikipedia somehow must acknowledge Muslim sensitivities regarding his face and overall appearance. We are free to address the fact that some Muslims do take offense to images of Muhammad; that is a recognizable and identifiable fact of history. But we (the Wikipedia) do not need to adhere to that religious belief in order to talk about it. Do you understand the difference? TALK about the concept of depictions being offensive, you don't have to actually BE deferential in order to discuss the deference in Islam. You position is utterly indefensible, it'd be like demanding we write out "G-d" instead of "God" in an article on Judaism. Tarc (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no a-priori requirement that these be artists' imaginations of scenes of his life, or that we should not show anything else (cf. William Shakespeare, Goethe). If sources frequently show something else, so should we. Many English-language books on Muhammad (not to speak of Arabic or Indonesian ones ...) do not show any such scenes at all, preferring different imagery representative of mainstream Islamic art and architecture. Muslims have different sorts of monuments – where Westerners might build a statue, they produce representations of Muhammad's words. That's the format monuments to Muhammad take in Islamic art. --JN466 05:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There are reams of images of words in this article. This article is also not about monuments. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(1) Well, appropriately so. Muhammad is famous for founding a word-based religion, much more profoundly word-based than any other of the major religions. Do you understand what that means, or would you like me to explain it to you? (2) Of course the article is not about monuments, but our biographies of people for whom monuments exist regularly show them. There are probably more monuments to Muhammad (word-based, not figurative ones) than any other historical person. No other person's words have been reproduced in so many public places. --JN466 14:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"more profoundly word-based than any other of the major religions"...isn't this an argument for removing all images from the article? --FormerIP (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make that argument, feel free. I'll be opposing you, based on NPOV. --JN466 20:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let me put it another way. Bases on NPOV, is it an argument for removing any images? --FormerIP (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying my position

SCOTUS Muhammad - Muhammad depicted among history's great lawbringers on the frieze surrounding Washington DC's Supreme Court building

For the record, in response to Resolute's comments in the above thread, regarding the section on Western reception, I said, I favour replacing the present "Muhammad preaches" with a good picture of the SCOTUS Muhammad, as the latter's physical place says a lot about Western reception. I agree there is room for another image in that section and would favour a contemporary (medieval) illustration of the medieval European view. Perhaps "Wife scolding the drunken Muhammad" or "Faith stepping on Muhammad." [70] They show the disrespectful tone without the ghastliness of the Dante illustrations. (Dante illustrations = illustrations of Muhammad being tortured in hell.)

I still hold this view. Such images would be highly relevant examples of what's being discussed in the section (the shift from demonisation and contempt in the Middle Ages to tolerance and respect in the Modern period).

This gives me an opportunity to clarify my position vis a vis some others in this discussion. I argue that, where a controversial image has little or no relevant didactic value, its lack of real educational value should be taken into account and it should be removed, replaced by something uncontroversial that has the same didactic value or replaced by an image that has real relevant educational use. This, I believe, applies to most of the present figurative portrayals of Muhammad in this article. Where an image is controversial but has significant real relevant educational value, it should be used. This, I believe, applies to the SCOTUS Muhammad and medieval depictions in the section on Western reception.

My position seems to diametrically oppose Johnbod's: include figurative portrayals that have no direct educational use relevant to the sections that contain them (anachronistic artists' impressions add nothing to the readers' understanding of the section topic); and exclude images that are highly pertinent examples (not just illustrations, but examples - understanding this distinction is essential to understanding my position) of Western reception from that section because they are controversial.

As I explained in my discussion with Resolute referred to above, following my preference would result in just as many figurative portrayals of Muhammad in this article. They wouldn't be mostly the pretty Persian and Turkish ones presently favoured by John and Mathsci, and one or two would be decidedly more offensive than those presently illustrating the article, but unlike most of the current image use, all would be solidly justified on the basis of relevance and real educational value. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

2 questions

Just a couple of quick questions for me. Is there a reason to have 2 separate timelines for the important events in the life of muhammad? We have one as mecca one as medina (I am aware there is a large difference in attitude and what happened.) I was wondering if there was any solid reason as to why they aren't combined instead of devoted to two separate places.

Also while it is an important event do we need this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mount_Uhud.jpg? If we do decide to keep it is there any artist renderings more in line with the time period that might serve as a better one? (i.e. like the picture of muhammad not looking like him I very much doubt the town looked like this in the 6th century.

Again just random thoughts I come up with as I am trying to figure out a better way to display the article. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Bueler? Tivanir2 (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No comments in 4 days and change going to be bold. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts comments complaints? Tivanir2 (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I was about to revert you for the unexplained blanking (lack of edit summary) until I saw this section. What is your objection to that picture? It isn't in the way of anything, it isn't crowding anything, it isn't competing for space. I don't have a problem with its removal, but if you'd rather have a picture to replace it, why not keep the old one there as a placeholder? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That is a good option to. I have no issues with a revert I just haven't had time to dig up any portraits of what it historically looked like. I am fine with it either way, just hadn't received any info one way or the other so I figured I would give it a shot and see if anyone wanted to keep it for now. Tivanir2 (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a better alternative at one time. It's unfortunate that the Commons File:Gabal Uhud.jpg was changed by the uploader from a beautiful picture of the mountain with no modern foreground artifacts to a nondescript close-up of that mountain. You can still see the old version on that page in the upload history, but since it exists only in the archives I don't think it's available for using in articles. There's another good picture here: http://www.2mfm.org/pictures/img26.htm but unfortunately not available for free use. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why the other can't be put under another name. It was the same user that uploaded both - his own work he says - & it was probably a mistake that he overwrote the old name with the new pic. Johnbod (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, its public domain. I've been WP:BOLD and created the originally named File:Gabal Uhud 2.jpg and added it to the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• And nothing personal, but I will have to remove it. Please read the image use policy.[71] You cannot utilize such an image with a website or other such markings on it, unless specifically warranted by the content in the image (for instance it is a logo where such is part of the logo). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 07:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Damn :(. I should have seen that. Quite right to remove it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Done so with regret. :-( I like the image. Do you think perhaps you can ask the image creator to upload one without the watermarked logo? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 08:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the uploader holds the copyright to the image. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

As suggested at WT:NOT I have proposed taking this images case forward to formal mediation. About 600,000 words have been spent discussing this matter over a period of 4 years on this page alone, and the matter has spilt out into other pages as well - leading to a 100,000 word discussion at WT:NOT which is even by itself extremely long.

The primary advantage of this escalation is that it should allow some sort of decision to be made which doesn't involve continued discussion about this topic forever, and it certainly seems like its well worth a try. Mediation currently seems like the best bet as this is a content dispute and not a conduct dispute - but if conduct is made apparent to be an issue then the case can be escalated to the arbitration committee. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any need for this initiative, since there seems to be a consensus on this page for the use of a limited number of images for this article (as described by Jayen466 for example). Nobody has so far objected to that proposal on this talk page. It is true that various other users have been arguing in very general terms about wikipedia policy elsewhere, but that does not affect this particular discussion. Please look at the discussions on this page about the Prophet Muhammad's Night Journey before making proposals of this kind, which do not seem helpful. As the saying goes, if it's not broke, why fix it? Mathsci (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree, especially as in the case of one editor involved this would seem to amount to feeding the troll. Nor would mediation prevent continued discussion, one can be sure of that. The "not censored" aspect of the matter can really be discussed in the abstract, but there are many other sides to it. Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually it would stop further discussion. Once mediation has got a result you can point out to the new person that the discussion had gone to mediation and that the result was a compromise. If you say that you don't have to engage in any other discussion with the person for at least a few years.

If we pretend that the only discussion on WP:NOTCENSORED has been at WT:NOT then that topic (with regards to this article) is definitely ready to go to some level of mediation as well.

If you guys ultimately refuse to engage in mediation I'll be disappointed as that will change the matter into a conduct issue, also involving you guys. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is already abundantly clear on the matter, there is nothing to actually mediate on the issue of Muhammad and images. Tarc (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

If consensus was ever "abundantly clear" on something you wouldn't have a 600 thousand word discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this comment of yours at WT:NOT is a very good basis to bring anything to mediation (beside the fact that you have not stated what proposition you want to mediate):Mediation will make it blindly obvious who those editors are though, and then Arbcom can sanction them. --Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC) - Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Eraser, I suspect you do not understand want mediation is for or how it works. Also in agreement with Johnbod and Mathsci's statements above. I've taken on mediation cases, and I can assure you, it works differently and is for different purposes than what you and some at NOT seem to think. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As with others, I do not think mediation is a valid next step. It does not exist as a forum to try and overturn a consensus that is against you. Resolute 01:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Look guys we've written six hundred thousand words on this talk page. This doesn't look like a matter that is getting resolved by this discussion by any stretch of the imagination.

Lets not forget that only a few weeks ago when this issue was taken to the arbitration committee that this was a content issue. I highly doubt that that has changed, and if its a content issue mediation is definitely the right approach.

That said the discussion above (which I hadn't seen) looks like it might have got results, so we can definitely see if that is enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There was an agreement about the use of a limited (probably reduced) number of images between Jayen466, Anthonyhcole and me, amongst others. There has been compromise and flexibility; and in this case criteria have emerged, depending on secondary sources, for deciding when images are appropriate and where they should be placed. That is the normal process by which consensus is formed. Those discussions have not ended. On Meta Jayen466 is also discussing aspects of the proposed image filter (in both English and German). I don't see an impasse here at all, so please allow time for the Night Journey discussions to continue. There is no rush. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I came at this from the discussion on WT:NOT which appeared to be about the same topic and which has become significantly less productive and there has been a lot of refusal to compromise there.

It looks like the discussions here are progressing surprisingly well, that wasn't made clear enough to me at WT:NOT - if I misread the discussion there I apologise.

If the discussion above doesn't resolve itself reasonably quickly (say ~3 months) then I'll come back and we can discuss escalating it later. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I think secondary sources is the right approach in general. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between a situation being resolved and a situation being resolved to your satisfaction. Something to keep in mind for when you consider the situation three months from now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Eraserhead1: I dont think that matters. Numerous secondary sources have been brought up that use the images we use. NUMEROUS times. When that happens a handful of ones that dont are brought up as reasons to remove the images. That battle was already won in favor of leaving the images - but those who are using that argument to remove it still won't let that argument drop, as if a handful of sources outweighs dozens more. In addition, some have even went so far as to imply that "this sect of Islam should be ignored - and this other sect doesnt do this, so let's follow their lead" - which obviously we can't do. That'd be like picking one sect of Christianity as "the true Christianity". Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus can change. And while it is one "sect" who are mainly offended it does cover 90% of muslims, its not the same as christian sects, which are generally more numerous. If we need to do a serious source count and we can come up with a good way to count them - then so be it, I think that's a different but still good way of solving this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Why would we have mediation? We have a good compromise proposal above, the one by Resolute, that most of us can sign up to. I believe Ludwigs2 would be fine with that too. --JN466 21:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• While I might be able to sign on to that proposal as well, I am leaning to believe it is a stopgap measure when efforts to continue this beyond said proposal are well underway.[72] To be 100% honest, that makes it seem like the compromise is nothing more than a distraction until the efforts to remove all "offensive" images continues. Now, while no one may have that exact intent in mind, you and I can probably agree that such will be the exact results of such. Kinda makes it all seem pointless. Honestly, if an outsider looked at this, don't you think the first thing they'd see was "Look a truce (compromise)!!! Oh, wait... the next attack is already being planned by this side." - again, whether that's the intended reasoning or not; we know that will be the end result. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, I herewith put it in writing, linkable to for all the time Wikipedia continues to exist, that I will defend this compromise as a reasonable one, and will not take any active part in overturning it. ;) --JN466 23:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Same here - and I'll put the page indefinitely on watch. I don't believe mediation would produce a significantly different result from the one suggested above by Resolute. Even though I was extremely keen to have mediation in this discussion given Resolutes proposal is basically what they will produce, ±1 image or so and its a lot of hassle too what's the value?
    • If you can get the established editors to accept it, coupled with the extremely strongly worded templates I think that will stop or highly limit discussion. It would be good to tone those templates down a bit if there isn't a flood of discussion, but that's a trivial issue in comparison. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Additionally - even though it isn't his reasoning - I'm perfectly happy that the images suggested by Resolute, ±1 image or so, fits the balance reasonably well between avoiding offending people for no reason, and the value that images bring to the article even given a future rule change to WP:NOTCENSORED that has a plausible chance of passing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:NOT

There is currently an extensive ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not about a proposal that is intended to affect the choice of image(s) on this article. Your comments in the discussion would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Quranic inscriptions

As mentioned above, we currently don't have a single example of a Quranic inscription on a mosque, despite the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of such inscriptions throughout the Islamic world. The Quran is the message brought by Muhammad. To illustrate the impact he has had, we should at least have one or two such images. Would anyone like to propose one? Many are significant architectural art in their own right. --JN466 13:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Too off-topic for a biography. Would we illustrate Jesus with a similar inscription? One or two would be fine for Quran. We have the name of Muhammad on a mosque (last time I looked) which is more relevant. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if that would be considered completely relevant IMO. While he was the founder of the religion he also did other things. In the Islam article it would make sufficient sense, but unless the image was a mosque of the time I don't know if it would make sense, as this isn't the article for the Quran or the religion. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I like this idea. Islam and Christianity are different and should have different images used. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

They are different but jesus is best known for the bible and scriptures, but it would still be something I consider as almost irrelevent to the biography part of the main article. In the quranic and islamic sections it makes perfect sense and I am all for inclusion but I don't see how it makes sense here. Tivanir2 (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with Eraserhead1 that there are differences between Islam and Christianity, I'd posit, as Johnbod and others above did, that such isn't relevant to this article, since this article is not the article on Islam or Christianity - it's a biography. And regardless, I think this article needs less images - not more. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of images in Jesus are Christian, we should use at least some of the typical imagery used by Muslims to show Muhammad. That muslims don't have the same artistic traditions as Christians means that calligraphy is appropriate to include. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts on that: (1) Calligraphy is NOT an image of Muhammad. It is an image used to avoid depicting how Muhammad looked. (2) Find other images of Jesus. Far as I know, they all look roughly the same. (3) there ARE Muslim images in the article - but the debate used is that they apparently aren't Muslim enough/true Muslim/etc, which isn't for us to say. :-( ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 09:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that insight, Eraserhead. If you read the 600,000 words on this page (you keep telling us), you will find that most of them are discussing that very point. There is only one non-Muslim image currently in the article (though some people want to increase that). Johnbod (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I believe all the images currently on the page are of Persian origin, and the Persian/Shia tradition, while important, is only followed by about 10% or so of muslims, it would be like having all our imagery of Jesus at Jesus to be from the Eastern Orthodoxy denomination (about 230-300 million worshippers out of 2.1 billion Christians) - personally I would consider that really quite odd. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong wrong. See above or actually look at the image files, why don't you? Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Which images in the current article aren't from the country currently known as Iran? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Please forget all about religion for a moment. Let's just look at this in purely secular terms. Imagine an author whose book has made such a tremendous cultural impact that quotations from it, in countries spanning about a fifth of the globe, are everywhere to be found on public buildings. For argument's sake, let's imagine that Shakespeare, himself a giant of world literature, had had such a defining influence on English-speaking culture that you could not find a single building devoted to learning anywhere in the English-speaking world whose masonry was not adorned with quotes like "To be or not to be, that is the question: Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune, Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles, And by opposing end them ...", "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? Thou art more lovely and more temperate ...", "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts", often reproduced in full chapter length, running around the entire circumference of a building. Would you really argue that showing examples of such adornments, demonstrating the tremendous impact Shakespeare has had on English-speaking culture, would be undue in our biography of Shakespeare? --JN466 13:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I would start by considering several points: are there other articles which deal with his legacy or "impact on culture", because the primary mission of this article is his biography, making the image less pertinent (mosques and their architecture and adornment is certainly a vast topic, by themselves), generally other topics beside his life, should have limited illustration (perhaps none) and text here, because his life is so important on its own; are there other text or images in the biography, illustrating or explaining the importance of his words or writings, if so, should those be replaced, expanded, or perhaps yoked together, with your preferred image, or else, just annotated in written form about use on structures (this last seems an especially good way to deal with it since we are talking about words); and is there room in the appropriate place or is an appropriate place important enough to be made, here. But first, I would ask for the image, text, RS and placement that is proposed, and if anything is proposed to be deleted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In the William Shakespeare biography, we have five paintings illustrating scenes from his plays, and two statues of him – and rightly so. It's a featured article. Quranic inscriptions are the direct cultural equivalent in the case of Muhammad, except that they are thousands of times more common than either statues of Shakespeare, or paintings of his plays. --JN466 18:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Also (I just realized this, sorry if I am a little slow) technically we already have something along those lines in this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sahadah-Topkapi-Palace.jpg as it shows the muslim profession of faith on one of their buildings. So while it has precedence I also would say that one image should be sufficient if we include it to explain that other writings are common on mosques and buildings in Islamic lands. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Even under the compromise approach above we have 3 images covering the Persian tradition (~10% of Islam) and only 1 covering the other 90%. We should have some imagery from the Arab world, from South Asia, from Malaysia/Indonesia and ideally from China/central Asia at a minimum. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Note that the Islamic profession of faith is not actually part of the Quran. --JN466 19:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Shakespere also contains pictures of him and yes, he was a play write (or impostor, if you've seen the movie). Is there a choice between his picture or his plays in his biography? But I doubt your "direct cultural equivalent" argument is sound, whatever you mean by that: the Qur'an are the words of Allah (according to the "culture") not Muhammad (which is why they are on Mosques). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No-one has actually suggested here that we remove all images of Muhammad from the article, just that our illustration is in some vague proportion to how the images are used - if we have 3 Shia images, and 4 non-Shia images we are still being massively bias in favour of the Shia position - given how much discussion there has been over this that is still a reasonable compromise - but as that's the case you can't really legitimately argue that that's unfair to your position. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Eraserhead, you seem to be under the misimpression that the, so-called "Persian Tradition" is Shia and Persian, it is not, or not only, it is (also) Sunni and encompasses many different peoples, who are found in many of those places, you list, further up. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there are Persians living outside of Persia and Sunni's in Persia. And I'm sure Persia has influence on Islam in central Asia and possibly China, does that really affect the substance of my point? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think so, as certain of the images were created for non-Persian peoples, who were Sunni. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The ideas in the Quran were expressed by Muhammad. In assessing his influence as a historic personality, we don't have to get into the question of religious faith, and whether the words in the Quran are God's words, or Muhammad's, or both. Seen in secular terms, the Quran is a work composed by Muhammad. And excerpts from that work are found on thousands and thousands of mosques throughout the Islamic world. Calligraphy, not figurative imagery, is the primary medium of Muhammad's artistic reception. People didn't make statues of him, as they did of Shakespeare, or drew images of events told in the Quran (with some exceptions, we know). They reproduced verses from the Quran, endlessly. Why should that be irrelevant to his biography? Islamic art is different; it has taken a different approach. We are not serving the reader by pretending otherwise. --JN466 21:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

@Alan, are you arguing that the strength of the Persian influence on Islam is similar to the Catholic influence on Christianity? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If we go with my "compromise" we'd be having 3 Persian images and 4 non-Persian images, logically to support that position you must think that the Persian influence on Islam is nearly as great as the rest of the Islamic people's put together or something similar to the Catholic influence on Christianity as a whole.

If you are going to argue that the current position, or the compromise above without any calligraphic representations is appropriate you must therefore logically believe that the Persian influence on Islam is greater than the Catholic influence on Christianity.

If you don't believe its influence is that great then you need to change your position. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What he's saying is that your using "Persian" the way you do is inaccurate bullshit from every angle (and I would add possibly echoing Sunni anti-Shia rhetoric you have picked up somewhere). Is that clear enough for you? Johnbod (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for my poor choice of words which comes from not being a muslim. Does my poor use of the word "Persian" in any way affect my point that the vast majority of images in the current article come from the country currently known as Iran? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that's still completely wrong. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In what way? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Johnbod, please let's try and conduct this conversation civilly. Share your knowledge, and state your sources; don't just tell people they're wrong. --JN466 21:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, it's a tradition in Persian literature (which covered a greater area than modern-day Iran, extending to Afghanistan, Pakistan and parts of India). However, it's a courtly book miniature tradition; wealthy patrons would have manuscripts illustrated by an artist for their private enjoyment. The images were a niche art form; public art (e.g. in mosques) was aniconic even then. The patrons in question were Mongol-influenced Sunnis. Much of the area concerned converted to Shia Islam later, and in Shia Islam popular images of Muhammad can be found today, whereas they're absent in modern Sunni Islam. Calligraphy is widespread throughout the Muslim world, and the prime means of artistic expresssion. --JN466 20:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The best of your knowledge isn't that good Jayen. You don't mention the two Ottoman images. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If we included the two ottoman images, and only kept a single Iranian image, then we'd probably be roughly in cultural balance (other than with a bias towards the Ottomans). Obviously the current article is still untenable and totally out of balance as two ottoman images and one piece of calligraphy still leaves four "Iranian" images, which would only be appropriate if the Iranian influence was as great as that of the catholic church. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

See page 78–79; page 207–209 --JN466 20:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

And yes, we have an Ottoman book miniature, and another one from an Ottoman copy of an Ilkhanate (Persian) work. --JN466 21:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. This "cultural balance" standard is imo, untenable, it's not based in any policy, it's grossly imprecise, it mixes terms with a need for very specialized expertise in every reader and editor, it's possibly entirely wrong, it is extremely ad hoc, and I can't imagine it working either here or anywhere else on the project. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Johnbod (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be rather bizarre if on Jesus the majority of our imagery was Eastern Orthodox or if the majority of imagery on Buddha was of Tibetan buddhism? All we are suggesting is following the same line we follow at Jesus and the same line that we follow (mostly - though there is probably too much South Asian stuff - but that's where the religion comes from) at Buddha. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone ever tried to culturally balance images at those articles, and what decisions were made and on what basis? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I would imagine it followed from common sense that images from different cultures were needed in balance. If you were taking pictures of churches and someone had taken a lot in the US it would be pretty obvious that some European, Latin American, African and Asian churches were needed as well. The issue with this article is that its way out of kilter with a neutral image balance that covers all of Islam.

Its so obvious that even non-experts such as myself can see that its completely out of balance. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

But this is a BIOGRAPHY, not a survey of Islam! Actually I think you could make just the same argument for the pictures at Jesus & similar Christian articles. The figurative images (not photos) we currently have are 2 Persian, 2 Turkish, 1 Kashmiri/Indian, 1 Russian. I think we've now lost 2 that were there before. It is agreed that there are many parts of the Islamic world that do not (almost ever) produce images that would be suitable for illustrating this biography. I'm about to go away for 5 days, which is rather a relief. Johnbod (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it is a biography and we are not limited to any culture in illustrating it. I also found, how Eraserhead imagined they settled it on other pages unhelpful. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well except that one of the Turkish pieces is a copy of a Persian work, and the Kashmiri work has at least some connection with Persia, putting the article text and the French description together leads me to believe it was found in Kashmir, but is actually Persian. And its not as if the rest of Islam doesn't use imagery to show Muhammad, they just use calligraphy instead.

And lets not forget Jesus and Buddha are biographies too and they seem to have a reasonable range of images. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

@Alan, other than going against your point of view how was it "unhelpful"? @John, no-one has been uncivil or unreasonable here, I don't know why you are getting so worked up about this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Because if someone plowed similar ground before we could look at it, but imagining them doing it I found unhelpful.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure most of the time there would be no controversy about it so it would just get fixed WP:BOLDly - its pretty obvious that we should cover how different Christian traditions view Jesus and how different Buddhist traditions view the Buddha.

I see no problem with a (slight) bias toward Persian imagery, but we shouldn't have half of our 7 images of Muhammad (including the calligraphy) from a Persian background unless it was as influential as the Catholic church is. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

So, even assuming that cultural balance has been achieved on those other articles (a big assumption), you posit that it happened organically and was not by prior agreement. Is that the way forward? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't know if it is a good fit but let's see where discussion goes from here. Also as a side note I am not particularly fond of the idea of churches on the article of Jesus since no churches existed until after his death. That is part of the reason why the bible comments on when he would do his sermons in front of temples. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

We have a lot of religious art on Jesus that's much newer than he was alive - this picture for example is from the 19th century. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

To this specific dilemma (an "image" of Muhammad for biographical purposes): Frankly, I don't care where people find the images... Persian, Iranian, European, Vulcanian, whatever. I only see two things in this: (1) it's a biography, are we going to have an image/depiction of the subject of the biography? (if yes, proceed to #2) and (2) Is this[73] a person? (No), or does this show how Muhammad was perceieved to look?[74] (NO, it USED to, until it was defaced). Pick an image, from whatever source, that shows an unveiled face and the problems are over. Instead of arguing over where the images were made, simply find a suitable image for this one tiny task... then we can move on to determining what the other images in the article should be.

Now, before this happens, as I know of one or two people who will try this route: I would posit that the first person who now deems we don't need such an image is probably applying a bias based on not wanting an image that depicts how he was perceived to look. A lot of this seems to get right back to that one point. Depictions on other biographies are not problems... but on this biography it's (a) not a problem if it isn't really a depiction, but instead an avoidance of such (such as calligraphy or a defaced image) or (b) suddenly a problem if those aren't being accepted as "substitutes. Again, there's only one or two who I think may try reversing course on this - my opinion on such is thus noted before you choose to take that road. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think having an image showing his face in the biography section is a good idea if we can find one. We can make the other stuff balance around it. If you mean the lead image, well the only argument against it would be offensiveness, which I would be inclined to say shouldn't be added - but it is a weaker argument than that discussed in this section.

To add to my previous point, at Jesus we have 20 images of Jesus, we could therefore have ~20 images of Muhammad here, the fact that ~14 of them would be calligraphy should be irrelevant. We could easily stick 12 of the pieces of calligraphy in a gallery. There are two issues here for me, offensiveness, and not covering the content properly. If we aren't covering how muslims view Muhammad in some rough proportion we aren't doing the latter, and thats a much more serious charge than offensiveness ever could be.

If we did that then our 3-4 Persian images would be in about the right ratio - perfect - we'd be at least covering the content properly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert, we've had this discussion, above, in Resolute's compromise proposal, which includes an image that shows Muhammad unveiled. I seem to recall that was a compromise that was acceptable to you, and most everyone else. This section is for discussing whether we should include Quranic inscriptions, given their prevalence throughout the Islamic world. The fact is that Muhammad has been received more through his words than imagined likenesses. We should reflect that; otherwise we're not informing the reader properly about his reception. Cheers, --JN466 00:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No one says that we should be limited to Islamic representations of Muhammad. But if we're showing Islamic religious art, just as we're showing Christian religious art in the Jesus article, we will have to show the most representative types. Quranic inscriptions and other calligraphy are the equivalent of religious paintings in Christianity. Figurative images were rare in Islam. And the idea that because this is a BIOGRAPHY we should not show artistic representations of the work that Muhammad is famous for, when such representations exist in their thousands, and we have examples in Commons, is frankly strange. We show images of Shakespeare's works in his article. We show images of how artists imagined Shakespeare's works. We feature quotes from Shakespeare's works in call-out boxes. But the same thing is not supposed to be alright in Muhammad's biography? How about a call-out box with the light verse? It's one of the most famous ones. --JN466 00:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As Eraserhead keeps praising the balance at Jesus, I've done a count of the "art" images. I make it: 34 European, 1 Chinese, 1 Armenian, 1 Syrian, 1 (Bible card) unknown. Latin & maybe North America, 0, Africa 0 etc. Not that I think that's a problem. I've seen some lame threads on this page, but this one tops the chart, although we're keeping the daily word count high for sure. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I am frankly puzzled how you can argue that Quranic calligraphy should have no place in Muhammad's biography. Can you explain your thinking? --JN466 01:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You find everything puzzling. I have no objections to several images, which we currently have. And that's enough. In fact we currently have nine calligraphic images, which is probably too many (plus 3 more in templates). Including one on a building. I've said above I don't think the choice of Quranic images is very good. They have the obvious disadvantage, in the English Wikipedia, that few people can actually read them! Johnbod (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I make that 6: lead, name, ayah, hilye, shahadah, PBUH. Plus 3 in templates (and we can't really blame Muhammad for those!). It's one of those facts of life that Muhammad wasn't an Englishman, and that his greatest influence is not in the English-speaking world. It doesn't prevent English-language sources on him from showing Arabic writing. Cheers! --JN466 01:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, 8 with the 2 Quran images. So 11 with the templates. It's not a case of blaming, but of whether more are needed, as you seem to think. Different ones I would support in some cases. Not being intellible to most readers seriously reduces the illustrative value of the images, as one should not have to explain. Johnbod (talk)

Ayah is one of the Quran images. (You probably counted the seal. I wouldn't call that calligraphy, just foreign language writing.) The fact is, these images are popular in English-language sources. Examples: [75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82] If you go into the Muhammad/Islam section of a bookshop, images like that abound. The calligraphy is beautiful, even if you can't read it. And I can't read any of that writing in the Jesus article either! (I wouldn't mind reducing the size of his name, and the PBUH calligraphy.) Cheers, --JN466 02:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As an aside there should be no issue with classing calligraphy as an illustration/art. We live in a world where a pile of sweets on the floor or a dirty bed counts as art, if that's the case then definitely so is calligraphy (For what its worth I think modern art is generally interesting and thought provoking, so I'm not bashing it). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As an aside if the consensus is to include the image what area would it go in? Tivanir2 (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes T, I guess I need to repeat the questions I stated way, way up, "But first, I would ask for the image, text, RS and placement that is proposed, and if anything is proposed to be deleted." Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been wondering that myself. There is no obvious place; in those places where it would relate to the text (sections on the Quran and depictions), we have too much clutter already Frankly, the three large templates on the right are a pain. The design of the Muhammad template is nothing to write home about, to put it charitably. The Quran template is not that brilliant either; the image is nice enough, but the template itself is so-so. The Islam template is the only one that is beautifully designed. But, worst of all, the three nav templates along the right hand margin all have completely different styles that don't go together, and they take up an awful lot of room. In addition, we have the two timelines, also on the right-hand margin. Alanscottwalker suggested collapsing these, and I agree. Maybe we should look at collapsing some of the other templates too, or throwing them out altogether. In terms of content, they are in part duplicated by internal links in the article, and the nav boxes at the bottom. Thoughts? --JN466 01:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The caption would say something to the effect that calligraphy of Quranic verses plays a very important role in sacred Islamic art, equivalent to that played by images of Christ and the saints in churches, sourced for example to page 120 in Wagtendonk. The image wouldn't replace any of the images currently present, or any of those left after implementation of Resolute's compromise proposal (if we end up going down that route), but be an additional image. --JN466 01:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to collapse the Quran and Islam boxes to show the main link and image and the rest be a show feature? That might help with space issues and I don't like the idea of shortening or removing them since they pretty much go hand and hand with the biography article but they take up a ton of space. Also do we know if it was common during his life to put inscriptions on buildings or was that something that happened post mortem? If it was more common after he passed away it might do well in the legacy section on impacts. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Collapse timelines and Islam Box

FYI discussion of this started on main talk page because it did not quite seem to fit here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)