Talk:Muhammad/images

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. [1]. 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)

• [2][3] 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) [4]

    --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)

Section break

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)

This article is not about artistic reception. The article is not about not about the economics or the publishing of manuscripts. It's not about public or private things (except to the extent that the images are in the public domain). The subjects you mention are very widely tangential, at best. It's enough to know that people wrote about Muhammad's life, and they illustrated it -- we are, too. But the case for removing these images on the basis that some are offended, or speculation that some may be misled about thing we don't say, or the arguments advanced so far that they are uninformative or irrelevant, I am unpersuaded by. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Alan, while I may have said I'd prefer to reduce the number of images to reduce offence Jayen466 has not. He is just following sources, as we do everyday elsewhere on the project. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't "follow sources" in that way. We follow sources to get information, not to make the information more abstract and tangential, and not to editorialize that pictures don't exist, when they do. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That isn't true. We use sources to find out what title to use for example. Other than following our sources how do we make sure we are following the non-negotiable policy WP:NPOV. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

By taking what reliable sources publish "appropriate for the content in question" and putting it in the article. These images are published in reliable sources and appropriate for the content in question. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

At WP:DUE weight. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:34, 4 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)

I do see what you're getting at. You choose to criticize me, based on nothing but your unsupported guess work about implications for readers and for me, as well as factual error. None of which are true. You are wrong about me and wrong about facts. 1) I do not oppose Islamic art in any sense. 2) People physically described the living Muhammed. 3) People drew those descriptions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

He's criticising your argument, not you. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, he did a terrible job of it. Next time someone tells you, you're attacking religious tradition based on their misinformation and ill-consideration, over an editorial disagreement, I doubt you'll not take it as personally as it's meant. I wouldn't choose abstract art of any tradition, to primarily illustrate any biography, as I find it ill suited to the task. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:41, 4 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)

The fundamental difference is that there is no on-wiki controversy about that - there is only a single discussion I can find talking about it at Talk:Judaism and there is no FAQ on it or anything else. We are currently taking the views of Jews into account of the use of the word god and they don't appear to care, so there is literally zero reason to change it - even on grounds of offensiveness. There certainly isn't even enough controversy to even look and see what our sources do. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, you either misread or did not understand Jayen's argument. We're not talking about offense or outside protests at the moment, we're discussing NPOV. There is a contention amongst the image-deleters that since Muslims do not typically show images, or at least the face, of Muhammad that to adhere to NPOV we must follow this view when writing this article. I am trying to untangle the notion that to discuss the deference/offense, one does not actually have to be deferential. If you have a comment on that, feel free. Otherwise, what you posted above is a bit of a strawman. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

On wiki there is clearly no controversy about whether we should use g-d rather than god. If no-one has an issue with it, then there isn't a issue for any reason, whether we are considering offensiveness or NPOV or whatever. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The tangle, Tarc, stems from the fact that you're trying to advocate for an inflexible black-and-white perspective. You've been arguing that any consideration of Muslim worldview - no matter how minor or common-sensical - is tantamount to deference to Islam. This is a similar argument to that used by those radical Atheists who pop up every Christmas to say that town councils can't set up Nativity scenes, grade schools can't do Christmas plays, TV networks shouldn't spend so much time on Christmas programming, and etc. What Jayen and I have been trying to point out is that there is a line where concern about censorship stops being a positive defense of the project and starts becoming mere intolerance of difference.

You can see that difference, right? that it's a good thing to keep the Islamic worldview from dominating the project, but a bad thing to be intolerant of Muslim beliefs?--Ludwigs2 14:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

My argument is quite different. It's always been about sources, not Muslim sources, but the entire pool of sources. Muslim art has developed in a different direction. Its most prominent imagery associated with Muhammad is aniconic. That prominence of aniconic art quite naturally filters down to Western sources writing about Muhammad, simply because writers and researchers tend to show prominent, representative images from a culture – images that are invested with cultural meaning – when writing about a key figure of that culture. My argument has always been based on what sources – not Muslim sources, but sources of any provenance – show. It has nothing to do with deference, except deference to sources in general. --JN466 15:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Following sources is generally the right approach - I see no reason why it isn't the right answer here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I certainly would accept that approach as a workable compromise. I mean, I still think we should hold out for common sense and common courtesy, but I recognize that there's more than a bit of idealism in my attitude. matching our visual tone to that of reliable sources will go a long way in that direction, and is far easier to apply. --Ludwigs2 16:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Common sense while sounding nice is generally unworkable as its very difficult to get people to agree what it means - especially on Wikipedia, where we have a multi-cultural project with people from different backgrounds. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's not primarily about multi-culturalism - I suspect there's far less cultural diversity amongst the editors participating here than we would like to think. mostly this is philosophical/emotional conflicts over where Wikipedia stands with respect to the ever-present tensions that exist between the individual and the collectivity. Wikipedia editors tend to be stark liberal-individualists who object to anything they perceive as an undesirable social constraint on their behavior, and take desperately strong stances against positions construed as repressively conservative. However, we forget that the vast majority of our readers are social moderates who have a healthy respect for a broad range of conventional mores and standards. As the foundation resolution suggests, the average reader doesn't want to be nonplussed by a wikipedia article: They want to get whatever information they after and not have their senses assaulted by things that anyone with common sense would recognize as unnecessary.

Common sense usually asserts itself naturally. However, on topics like this where bunches of people get their goats up, well… As they say, common sense is often the first thing sacrificed on the alters of the gods of certitude. --Ludwigs2 17:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think an approach which says "lets follow the sources" is only going to lead to interminable discussions about which sources we should follow and why sources that depict Mohammed don't count, for whatever reason. --FormerIP (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think that? What's the evidence? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a prophecy rather than an observation. Flicking through Google books, there are sources that refer to M but don't contain a lot of images of any kind. So the first argument is about whether these tell us very much. Then there are some that do seem to have taken an editorial decision no to show pictures of M. So the second argument is about whether or not it is a breach of NOTCENSORED to take sources that censor themselves as a guide. Then there are sources which do feature images of Mohammaed. I don't yet know what the argument against relying on these is. --FormerIP (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that books would be likely to include some images or calligraphy even if only on the front cover. If they don't include any imagery or calligraphy or anything then it may well be legitimate to exclude them.

If they are clearly censoring themselves there seems no particularly good reason to exclude them - they are one part of the source makeup along with all the others.

If the percentage not using any imagery or calligraphy at all is high you could compare and contrast the number of books without any images to books about Jesus or the Buddha without any images - as there is no stigma there.

Additionally - while it is less serious - a comparison of which sources covered the danish cartoon controversy with images of them, and which didn't is also useful - that shows how our news sources cover Muhammad. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it would be practical to go as far as counting the number of books that depict various religious figures. Imagine how many books you would have to survey.

I'm also not aware that anyone has an issue with including caligraphy or abstract representations in the article. If a lot of sources use them, that doesn't really lead anywhere except to confirm that it's appropriate for us to do that surely?

All the suggestion of surveying sources will give us is examples of one kind vs examples of another. Which should we then prefer? --FormerIP (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought we could balance the amount of calligraphy against the number of real images, and how those images are presented based on the sources. If (say) 10% of our sources use images of muhammad's face, 20% use flame images, 20% use veiled images and 50% use calligraphy then we can go with 5 pieces of calligraphy, 2 veiled images, 2 flame images and an unveiled image, or something else that's roughly in proportion.

Obviously we won't find all the sources, and its likely to some extent that our sample will be bias one way or another, but it should be a reasonable sample. Jayen466, who looks to have found a lot of sources already looks to have presented evidence pointing in both directions.

I would say that we should try and have at least one image in each of the categories, unless the percentage using such imagery is extremely low. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a meaningless exercise. You get the ratio you're looking for according to the methodological choices you make (primarily what types of source you choose to survey and in what relative proportions). --FormerIP (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really, even if I was obsessed with pushing a POV there would be nothing stopping you finding reliable sources to add to the list which backup your ideological viewpoint. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I referred above to "interminable discussions". It would just degenerate into each of us arguing that the other was taking into account the wrong sources, which is something that would have no objective answer.--FormerIP (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think it will be a massive issue. If it is then we can take the case to mediation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, NOTCENSORED does not override NPOV. That is even stated in NOTCENSORED itself. If we have sources that do contain material other sources do not, we try to balance the overall pool of sources, presenting material in due proportion to its prominence. --JN466 21:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't extend to giving satisfaction to religious viewpoints. But that aside, I see no problem in principle with discussing the inclusion and exclusion of different images. I just don't think this method of doing it promises any sort of solution, because it is question-begging and open to enormous variance depending on exactly how you choose to carry it out. It can give you any answer you want it to. --FormerIP (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth would that be? NPOV means we have to be neutral and its non-negotiable. It doesn't say that any particular viewpoint can be ignored. NPOV can be frustrating, but it is non-negotiable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, NPOV says we should balance all viewpoints in their proper proportion, and has no provision for excluding viewpoints of a particular type (there's nothing there that says we ignore religious viewpoints). Plus, we assume that editors are going to try to discuss things fairly; an editor can reason his way to any answer he wants in amny kind of discussion if s/he tries hard enough. We can't start from the perspective that editors are going to lie and cheat to get what they want, otherwise we'll never get anywhere. --Ludwigs2 23:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, you seem to have noticed yourself, from your comments above, that images of Muhammad are not terribly common in RS, and that many sources do without such images altogether. We needn't worry whether that is because these images are marginal phenomena of no cultural significance in Islam, whether it is to avoid offence, whether it is a combination of the two, or whether some other reason is involved. We simply note that this is so, and do not give them more prominence here than they have in sources – just like we don't make most of an article's text about something that is not a main concern of reliable sources. That's what NPOV means. --JN466 01:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, we have a difference of opinion here. From my flick through Google books, I think images of Muhammad are fairly common in RS, although some RS also decline to use them. Perhaps we have not looked at the same sources.

Wikipedia routinely excludes or marginalises religious viewpoints per WP:FRINGE and WP:PRIMARY. I would think that this is uncontroversial.

I call the proposed method "question-begging" because it seems to be presented as an alternative approach to censorship. But I doubt that it can be whilst at the same time delivering the result you are after.

Wikipedia is not censored, and can be distinguished in this respect from many of the sources it is based on. There is clear consensus, with regard to this specific issue, that Wikipedia should not practice censorship. To my mind, that isn't an invitation for us to moderate our censorship, but to practice none whatsoever.

So, there is no validity to an approach that attempts to ascertain the average level of censorship in sources and then try to force that on Wikipedia as a standard to be followed. It would be a terrible mistake to think of this as an application of NPOV. NPOV attempts to ensure that our content is unbiased, not that our behaviour as editors should conform to an average standard.

It follows from this that any attempt to base the image content of an article on the image content of sources which are routinely censored goes against WP policy unless those sources which are censored are excluded from the survey. I appreciate that you guys would not be interested in such a survey. So I would suggest that the best thing would be not to carry out any survey.--FormerIP (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, how would you suggest we differentiate between due weight and censorship? Because anyone can come with any idea that has taken their fancy and claim that the only reason that idea is not as prominent in sources as it is in his own mind is due to censorship, and therefore his valuation of the idea's importance should take precedence over the weight it has in reliable sources. That way lies madness, and it's simply not how we work. When we do encounter such arguments, we call them what they are: POV pushing. --JN466 02:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No, because in this case it is completely uncontroversial to state that some sources are censored (i.e. it is nothing to do with "in his own mind"). These sources are of no relevance in determining how information in Wikipedia should be presented.--FormerIP (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed. What you don't seem to understand is that images were rare in the first place, and those that existed were made for a fairly small number of individuals, and viewed in non-public settings. They lacked wider cultural significance even in their own time. I'll leave you with what Jimbo said: "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." You don't seem to have any qualms about the latter, just a lot of misplaced enthusiasm for the former, and a fatal lack of the requisite basic knowledge to tell the difference. ;) Cheers, --JN466 03:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC

Jayen466, my understanding is that a limited number of images would appear in the "Depictions of Muhammad" section, possibly from the Night Journey or the Ship of Faith. Since this is currently an active international area of scholarship, well represented in WP:RS, the issue of rarity is not applicable (any such claims make no direct reference to secondary sources and could in principle be applied to all art produced under patronage). I hope that the decision on the limited use of images, within an appropriate context, to which Resolute, Anthonyhcole, you, myself and others agreed has not been abandoned. Mathsci (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I would hope that if we have to go for the source finding approach that the data would allow that, and if we include news sources I think its extremely unlikely that such imagery will be used so infrequently that we using that imagery can't be justified, however if we do go for the source finding approach and the percentage that use such images is so small that it can't be justified (say ~1% of sources use unveiled imagery, and we want to include 20 images) then we'd unfortunately have to skip them. Explicitly looking up the sources and following the results advantage and disadvantage is that we have to follow the result. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci, I stand by that compromise proposal, for precisely the reasons you outline. I tried to implement it twice [5][6], based on majority support here on this talk page. On each occasion I was reverted by FormerIP, who had never before made a single edit to this article, or any of its talk pages. [7][8] --JN466 13:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that reassurance, Jayen466. As for Eraserhead1's comments, unless a secondary source has made those statistical estimates about historical images or even phrased issues in such anachronistic terms, it is pure WP:OR for wikipedians to attempt to do so. Mathsci (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to list a whole bunch of sources and see what they do we will be making a statistical analysis of their result - one way or another. That's not OR, far from it. If only a tiny percentage of the time they use such imagery then it would be WP:UNDUE weight to include them. If its something that is being covered by a lot of researchers I highly doubt that would be an issue. I am happy to accept that my use of '1%' wasn't necessarily sensible, but I'm not sure how else to express my point. -- Eraserhead1<talk> 18:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to Islamic scholarship, a statistical survey of that kind would indeed be original research. No wikipedian is in a position to make any judgements or weightings for such sources. There are many academic books and journal articles, possibly in Arabic, Farsi, French, German, Italian, Turkish, etc, which are inaccessible and impossible to evaluate. Similarly the Shahmanah project[9] cannot be assessed by wikipedians, statistically or otherwise. Content is never based on statistical surveys of this kind: one good source can be enough. Mathsci (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

How else can we look at our sources overall and see how they show images of Muhammad? Because looking at our sources overall to see what they do is exactly what we're trying to achieve here and what I'm saying. Unless you look at multiple sources and see what they do (and therefore make some level of statistical inference) I don't see how you can ever argue WP:DUE unless its blindly obvious. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That is a flawed argument and has always been a flawed argument though. We don't need to follow "what reliable sources do" in order to use images in this article. That is not how image usage has EVER worked on this project and it is not something that is going to be blindly adopted now just because you and Ludwigs are STILL harping about "offense to Muslim". And speaking of you two, I find it rather deplorable that there is edit-warring and badgering of other users going on on their talk page. Your comments on Alanscottwalker's talk page are without merit. Tarc (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not what Ludwigs, myself, Jimbo Wales, or Jayen466 thinks with regards to this case. And going through the sources to find out what they say is exactly how the Arbitration committee intends to solve the pro-life/pro-choice naming dispute, and it has been used to great effect in other perennial naming disputes such as China/People's Republic of China and Burma/Myanmar.

Following sources may not produce the answer you most desire, but it produces a solution that everyone can accept. If you don't like the solution of going through sources, or Resolute's compromise bring something else to the table. Obviously its a bit more complex with images as we have to see how our sources balance their image use, but I fail to see how it won't produce a workable compromise in fairly short order - and hopefully without having to take the case to mediation/arbitration.

I would obviously prefer Resolute's compromise as its less work, but if that isn't acceptable this seems like the next best option. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

PS following WP:DUE and WP:NPOV which I am arguing here has nothing to do with offensiveness beyond what our sources consider, which is ultimately up to them, as it is on all matters for which we rely on sources - i.e. basically everything in the whole project. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

well, even though it's not my ideal, I think there's more than enough consensus for this compromise position that you all worked out. I'm going to edit it back in. --Ludwigs2 16:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

And I will revert. There is also much support for retaining at least one of the "History of the World" images and perhaps one of the Ottoman. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That is of course your choice. but you'd best provide a good rationale for reverting a consensus decision here on this talk page, and it would probably be a good idea for you to re-read wp:tendentious editing first. --Ludwigs2 16:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't get to declare a consensus, when things are under discussion. The proposal by Resolute was in particular prosed as open ended in several respects, asking for further discussion in several particulars, so there is no final work done here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to avoid being disruptive you either need to walk away or propose an alternative serious step forward. Given 500,000 words have been written about this its clear the status quo isn't going to be enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sure I did the right thing there and in the interests of the project but I did not enjoy doing it, or the controversy. What I am sure of is it's not me or the editors who have spoken that will have to be satisfied with what comes on this page, it will be the wider project. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

We certainly shouldn't be shoving images into the article to prove any point. Or removing them. But we shouldn't be looking at censored sources as a model. --FormerIP (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP: I see no evidence that we are dealing with any 'censored' sources here. I'm afraid you're going to have to demonstrate that a source is censored rather than merely opine about it. And please keep in mind that the current system for deciding these things is broken - I mean, a four-year long dispute over these Muhammad images, with no resolution in sight? That is not an effective system. Jayen's approach may require some discussion to hash out details, but at least it's likely to have reach some sort of conclusion in short order. It's senseless to complain about the potential difficulties of a new approach when the other approach is a complete and utter mess. --Ludwigs2 07:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The censorship discussions have not personally interested me, mainly because I view this as whether the images produced serve our purposes in illustrating a biography, which obviously books with no pictures don't. But although it was not a biography and not I guess directly on point, I did dimly recall an episode which suggests that censorship (or extraneous concerns) plays a role in scholarly publications of images of Muhammad. The decision was by Yale University to remove all images, from a scholarly study, after expert consultation: "The book, “The Cartoons That Shook the World,” should not include the 12 Danish drawings that originally appeared in September 2005. What’s more, they [experts consulted by Yale] suggested that the Yale press also refrain from publishing any other illustrations of the prophet that were to be included, specifically, a drawing for a children’s book; an Ottoman print; and a sketch by the 19th-century artist Gustave Doré of Muhammad being tormented in Hell, an episode from Dante’s “Inferno” that has been depicted by Botticelli, Blake, Rodin and Dalí." Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Alan: academic presses are incredibly rigid about the issue of intellectual freedom; an academic press which gets a reputation for excluding pertinent information (much less indulging in active censorship) will not be an academic press for long, and will damage the reputation for scholarship of the university that it is associated with. It doesn't happen, period. If a Tier 1 like Yale chooses not to show such images you can rest assured that there is a solid academic reason for the exclusion that has nothing to do with censorship.

Besides, if you start asserting that our most reputable scholarly sources are untrustworthy, then you might as well dispose of wp:V, wp:RS, and wp:NPOV. At that point you are basically giving up on the notion of Wikipedia as a tertiary source and turning it into a primary source based on your own understanding of 'truth'. Is that where the project is headed?

Still waiting on FormerIP to justify his claim of censorship… --Ludwigs2 16:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It was a huge controversy when Yale did that and they were called out for impinging upon academic freedom by the Professor's Association. They said they removed the images based on fear of violence. So, it was a problem in this particular area: images of Muhammad, not all areas. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If in fact this is the case, then Yale Press stops being a reliable source for this article. so we ignore them and look at others. You cannot use one case of censorship (assuming this actually is the case) to question the reliability of all academic sources, not withiout destroying the very fabric of Wikipedai in the process. --Ludwigs2 17:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not clear what you want a cite to but if it's the head of the Prof's association statement it is here: Academic Freedom Abridged at Yale Press Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I severely doubt, without extraordinary levels of evidence that Yale would engage in censorship. One reliable source isn't enough - even if it is the New York Times - and that article doesn't make it clear that censorship was the reasoning for it. If it can be shown that Yale engaged in censorship here then I agree that we shouldn't treat them as a reliable source for this article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Exercises for the interested reader: (a) Find the wikipedia article about this book and the controversy, with a whole series of sources and commentaries by Islamic experts. (b) Find other places where this particular point has been discussed on wikipedia. (c) Explain why this is now being discussed for an nth time, where n is a large and tiring number. Mathsci (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree we've talked about this a lot :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci, I am sure it has been talked about on those pages because it was a pretty (in)famous case. Since it deals with images of Muhammad it seems pertinent, here in this discussion, too.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't help in any way. Almost all these arguments are outside wikipedia policy. Eraserhead1's claim to be representing the views of Jayen466 and other editors is incorrect. I confirmed this by asking a direct question of Jayen466 above. If Eraserhead1 can produce books which discuss the "depiction of Muhammad" (the section under discussion) without accompanying images, that might be significant. As for Yale University Press, what relevance do side issues with The Cartoons that Shook the World have here? (See also exercises (b) and (c).) Mathsci (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was replying to another point. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

@Mathsci, I think that's a good point. I can't think of a way to cover it. I retract that part of my argument. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That is an encouraging sign that we are gradually approaching consensus on Resolute's compromise proposal ... Mathsci (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Section Break 2

In reply to "And these would be that, since these are the images that have been produced about his life in reliable sources."

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)

Yes, it is an argument for removing or replacing some images. The fact that Islam is a word-based religion has led to copious amounts of word-based art taking the place fulfilled by figurative art in other religions. Quranic inscriptions in and on mosques e.g. are the direct functional equivalent to Christian iconography in churches. Mosques are not decorated with images of Muhammad as churches are decorated with images of Jesus, but are decorated with Muhammad's quotes—the word of God according to Islamic belief—executed as calligraphic art. Reliable sources naturally reflect the prevailing aesthetic. They include examples of the available wealth of such art on their covers and pages. Figurative Islamic depictions of Muhammad have always been rare, and rejected by many Muslims. Many English-language sources on Muhammad don't use figurative depictions of Muhammad at all. That may be by conscious design (because they're written by Muslims and/or are at least partly targeted at a mainstream Muslim audience), or because figurative art is simply too marginal in present-day Islam to merit their attention. Instead, they show calligraphy, including masonry work or hilyeler, architectural images, or pictures of muslims at prayer, because those are the iconic images conveying what the religion Muhammad founded looks and feels like. On the other hand, a significant proportion of (mostly Western) sources do feature at least some figurative images, sometimes because they're pretty and make an appealing cover image for Western readers, and sometimes because they are discussed in the text as being of interest to art historians, or in the context of modern controversies about images. What this means is that there is clearly no NPOV mandate to exclude figurative images. They occur, for one reason or another, in a large enough number of sources. However, there is equally clearly no mandate for them to be the dominant type of Islamic illustration we should use. The role they have to play within our set of Islamic images is a secondary one. As it is at present, they are too dominant relative to mainstream Islamic images; hence the proposal. --JN466 22:11, 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." [10] 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.[11] 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.[12] 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[13] a person? (No), or does this show how Muhammad was perceieved to look?[14] (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: [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] 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)

In HTML terms it's trivial, but we might have to change the templates a bit. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There are basically two sections where Quranic inscriptions would fit: the Quran section, and the Legacy section. --JN466 06:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Collapsed timelines per discussion with Jayen on Main Talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That's better already. --JN466 06:27, 5 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)

Resolute's proposal

Let's try this differently. Who is opposed to Resolute's compromise proposal? Here is what the proposal would like. It has a total of 4 figurative images in the article, one in the biography section, two in the depictions section, and one in the European reception section. Another European image, like the SCOTUS image, might be added subsequently. Please give a brief reason for opposing. Thanks. --JN466 06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been lurking here for the most part. In my view, I don't particularly like having no images whatsoever in the section Muhammad's early life. I also don't want images of significant events removed (examples being the revelation from Gabriel or the black stone episode), regardless of whether their inclusion results in someone perceiving "imbalance" in representation of sources or time periods. If depictions of those events have representation mostly from a certain period or culture, so be it; I am skeptical of the arguments that make an NPOV issue of this. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that the image for the Black stone episode is up for removal (I personally think it's fine). Perhaps Jayen466 could clarify this. Mathsci (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't in the version that Jayen linked at the top of this section, even though that version devotes an entire paragraph to the black stone incident. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

When all of this started, there was no text at all in the article re: the black stone, thus why it was targeted as a potential removal candidate. Obviously that scenario has changed. This was also proposed as a compromise solution - one that probably nobody would be extremely happy with, but which most person could accept. Perhaps the better way of going about this is to decide how many images (including those attached to templates) is the ideal number for the size of this article, then decide how many of each type we want to use, then pick the specific images. Resolute 20:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a matter for which compromise can be avoided. Half a million words is far too many.

With regards to the black stone image, maybe there is another image we can use instead? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, "avoid" isn't the word I'd choose; "decline" or "reject" would be better. So yes, a proposed compromise can be rejected, your calling for it to be accepted simply because of the volumes of words that one side has used is a bit of a ridiculous assertion. There is now text in the article regarding the Black Stone, so the version that Jayen links to above is pretty much rendered moot at this stage. So, no, I wholeheartedly oppose reverting to that version. Tarc (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No. I am not asking you to accept this exact compromise. Just to accept that you will have to compromise in general.

And in the post you have just replied to its pretty clear I think that some kind of image for the black stone is important. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No, eraser, no one has to compromise; no one should be subjected to such an absurd condition if the compromise is inherently unworkable, unjust, or unfair. That is the problem from the outset of this, that there are some, i.e. Ludwigs, who have made blatantly outlandish proposals, and then demand "compromise", which just shifts the goalposts from the the realm of "absolutely out of the question" to "not very likely". Tarc (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

From the current status quo you have to compromise. If individual editors have made particularly unreasonable proposals that's different as there would be a strong consensus against their position. If there was a strong consensus for the status quo then there wouldn't have been all this discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What part of "no" did you find confusing? We do have a strong consensus that is ignored by a couple of loudmouths, is all. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I would also note that the current state of the article is a compromise. That there is little appetite for huge changes does not show a lack of flexibility on the part of image-supporters. Quite the opposite, the fact that opponents continue to push shows a lack of flexibility on their part. Resolute 15:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In which case why on earth did you make the compromise proposal if you think those who want to remove images are being unreasonable? It should also be noted that all of those who wanted images removed, including Ludwigs, have gone along with your compromise. The same cannot be said for the other side. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, my proposal was not meant for the likes of Ludwigs. The easiest, and only, way forward is to remove him from the equasion. I've seen enough of his style to know that he starts off with an extreme position, sets others against him, then moves ever so slightly toward the middle and tries to paint his opponents as unreasonable. If he gets his way, I have no doubt that he will try the very same game again at some point in the future, and will continue to do so until he either gets his way or gets (topic) banned.

My proposal was meant more for the likes of Anthony and Jayen - reasonable people - as a bid to try and create a framework that can reflect the viewpoints of most editors in some fashion. My personal preference is also for more depictive images, but I also feel there are too many images overall, so tried an idea that I felt had minimal overall impact on the number (and value) of images whilst improving the article's balance. But I respect the viewpoints of those who disagree and evidently prefer something close to the status quo. Given this is already a compromise position, I do not find that disagreement unreasonable in the least. Resolute 00:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And yet Ludwigs, regardless of how much you dislike him, supports your proposal. As do I. Complaining about those who want to reduce the number of images and yet support your proposal is a bit silly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

@Resolute: There's probably a number of ways a compromise solution could be approached. I think it's important to pick the one that is likely to be the most efficient and is least likely to just end in confusion. So, I don't want to seem like I am backing the process you are suggesting until I have thought about it a bit.

That said, I think what you say seems workable, with the important caveat that the final stage should be an RfC on the proposal that has been worked up, so that the change has the backing of the community. --FormerIP (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Truth be told, I see such an RfC as unnecessary at this point. If we hit on a solution that all of the regular contributors can live with or support, we should be doing alright. If that local consensus is subsequently challenged, then yeah, perhaps an RfC. Resolute 21:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think that's a high standard, but if everyone here agrees and no other editor raises any objection, the maybe an RfC will be unnecessary. I'd drop my demand for an RfC if there's an understanding that the first objection will be met with "OK we'll RfC it", rather than, "you're too late, there's already a consensus". --FormerIP (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If we have an RFC what would be a good question? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If Resolute's method is used, I guess it would be a choice of two options, one of which is the status quo, one of which is the new proposal, and a rationale for each. --FormerIP (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, no. If we're going to have an RfC, then we'll open it up all the way. That's just natural. --Ludwigs2 00:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "open it up all the way"? What would be the question in that case? You must realise by now that "no faces" has a snowball's chance. --FormerIP (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

He's not going to drop the stick until he gets his way or gets topic banned. The best solution at this point is to simply ignore Ludwigs and hope that the reasonable editors can come to an accord. Resolute 00:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Robert Resolute, you're being a jackass. stop it.

FormerIP:

• First, makes you think I want all the images removed? that's what people say about me, not what I've been reaching for.
• Second, this is not about what people want, this is about what's appropriate for the page. You're too much on one side to credibly and effectively evaluate the odds here, so don't waste my time with snowball talk.

What I meant by 'open it up all the way' is that if this comes to RfC I reserve the right to make the same arguments I've been making all along - that we should only offend well-established religious and cultural mores where there's a clear encyclopedic advantage in doing so - in the belief that the broader community will respond to that common sense approach in a way that the emotionally invested editors here cannot. Maybe they won't, but if they do that may generate outcomes that don't fall between the 'no compromise' and 'mild compromise' positions that have been lain out here. If you want to try to reach some real consensus without an RfC, fine, but don't try to draft up one of those milk-sop RfC that don't address the article issues or offer any choices except the 'pre-approved' ones. --Ludwigs2 01:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable on its face, but I see two problems with that position: (1) offending people should never be a consideration when building encyclopedic content, and (2) there is no agreement on what "clear encyclopedic advantage" means. It could mean anything; such as (a) the image clarifies or supplements the text, (b) the image simply illustrates something in the text, (c) the image is interesting and relevant to the article topic, or (d) breaks up the monotony of a wall of text. Perhaps, if there were an RfC, those two points should be addressed instead, because that's where discussions involving Ludwigs2 always seem to break down. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

We just had that RfC at WT:NOT, actually. Unsurprisingly, consensus was not in favour of Ludwigs' interpretation. Resolute 01:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sitting through yet another tiring round of "we should only offend well-established religious and cultural mores where there's a clear encyclopedic advantage in doing so" bullshit. If that is how this is going to, once again, be kicked off, then this is dead on arrival. Tarc (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with that. There no point in an RfC which has no point.

Ludwigs: Of course, you are entitled to make whatever comment you like when you vote in the RfC. If you dissent from the options given, it's normal practice for there to be a section where you can do that.

But an RfC question does have to have pre-defined options, because it needs to provide a precise answer which can be clearly understood. Holding an RfC where anything is a valid answer would be like holding a presidential election where there are no candidates but you can write anyone's name on the slip. From a practical point-of-view, the type of discussion you seem to be proposing is one that can only ever be closed as "no consensus". There's no point in even starting that. --FormerIP (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well that's fine, but I'm letting you know that I'll be party to the discussion about forming an RfC question, so you're going to have to find some grounds on which to work with me. That's just the way it is. And Amatulić: your point 1 is wrong and your point 2 is a matter to be resolved in discussion. It's no more difficult than any other NPOV discussion, except that some editors are willing to willfully misinterpret things just to confuse matters. that can be dealt with administratively. --Ludwigs2 04:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's simply your opinion that my point 1 wrong. As an analogy, scientists don't consider religious arguments when reaching conclusions via the scientific method. Neither should a secular project consider religious offense when creating encyclopedic content. Consensus is abundantly clear on that point. Point 2 is a valid RfC topic. There's no purpose in having any other RfC about which images are to be included and which are to be removed, unless point 2 can be resolved. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Amatulić: I'm sorry, but it's not just my opinion. This is the way things work in the real world, where being respectful of others is a norm (one that rarely interferes with work and generally improves everyone's quality of life). If you want to go the scientific route, please note that this is a topic in the social sciences - not the physical sciences you seem to be referring to - and in the social sciences the term 'secular' is never, ever, ever interpreted in a way such that people feel entitled to blithely disrespect the worldviews of other groups of people. Physical scientists may choose to dump on religious viewpoints that conflict with scientific principles, but as a rule even physical scientists don't extend that to general disrespect towards religion as a whole, and social scientists are always circumspect, giving even fairly horrendous worldviews a modicum of respect for the purposes of explication and analysis. This is even the way things work on most pages on Wikipedia, it's only ignored on highly contentious pages like this, where editors have mostly given up being reasonable and just looking for an argument they can swing like a big rock. Unfortunately, it's pages like this that need that kind of circumspection the most.

I mean, I understand why you say what you do - it's a mindlessly simple mantra that you can toss at people without thinking about it too much, which saves a lot of mental wear and tear if you have to do it a lot. Unfortunately, short cuts like that sometimes miss the mark and interfere, and you need to be able to recognize when that happens: If four years of perpetual conflict doesn't clue you in to the thought that maybe you're misapplying it here, then maybe it's time you started looking at how broadly you have to distort real-world behavior and attitudes in order to make your position make sense. you ought to recognize that if you were getting paid to write an encyclopedia article and expressed a fraction of the attitudes that have been expressed here, you'd be canned in an instant, if only because willfully ignoring the interests of readers would be considered thoroughly unprofessional.

So, you can continue to hold your belief if you choose, but I know (and you ought to) that you can only maintain that belief by creating an absurd little wiki-bubble where you can assert that odd and unrealistic social rules are actually true. But that makes you far more like a religious fanatic than like a scientist, no? --Ludwigs2 06:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a very accurate description of the academic world, particularly not in a major university. On the other hand I don't see the relevance of any of these remarks. A quick glance at the biographies of scholars working in this interdisciplinary area (Islamic history, art and culture) shows that it encompasses a wide range of disciplines within the humanities: here is a list from an international conference held in Clare College, Cambridge a year ago.[23] Mathsci (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci - I agree with your second point, but I think you'd agree that the humanities are even less subject to the dictates of the "Scientific Method" that Amatulić is referring to. A's point (which is perfectly valid as far as it goes) is that when talking about physics or math or chemistry, religious/cultural perspectives don't have a lot to offer and ought to be largely ignored. This is true, but not for the reasons he suggests (that science must programmatically ignore religion), but rather because when we consider religion/culture by the standards of the empirical sciences, they fare badly: they are just not credible theories. It's one thing to suggest that science should ignore creationism as a scientific theory - something almost every academic scientist would agree to without hesitation - but quite another thing to suggest that science should oppose all Christian beliefs in all cases as a matter of principle. Few empirical scientists go to that extreme, and when they do it's usually not as scientists but as social philosophers; other academics almost always refrain. The only time you find this kind behavior in the social sciences, in fact, is where biological sciences have started to creep in in a fringey sort of way: eugenics, The Bell Curve, some of the sillier extrapolations of sociobiology… Otherwise, academics don't put their scholarly reputations on the line over material that's trivial to their academic goals.

In truth, academics generally use the standard that I've been arguing for: they will quite readily violate any cultural mores or standards when it's a function of their specific thesis - as you point out, you'll find these images used by academics in books and articles that focus on Art History or on the social controversies surrounding the Islamic proscriptions. But academics don't go out of their way to violate mores or standards when it's not necessary for their thesis. They have more sense than to do something pithy and argumentative unless they can leverage a scholarly point out of it.

I sometimes find myself wondering where any of the proponents of these images would still make these arguments if they had to put their real names and real personal reputations on the line over it. It's one thing to say that we should vainly step on religious precepts when speaking from comfortable internet anonymity, but quite another to have to explain that attitude to your wife, your friends, your colleagues… anonymity is good for freedom of expression, but lends itself to anti-intellectualism. --Ludwigs2 13:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering when you were going to stoop down to the "anti-intellectual/academic" angle, what took you so long? The thing is, again, we do feel it is necessary to show these images in this article. That's your sticking point. As for real identities, I edited and argued under my real name...and at a notoriety level only a few notches below Joel Furr or Kibo...on Usenet from about 1990 til 2000 or so when it started to wane. The internet then was a lot different than it is now; nowadays I prefer anonymity for personal safety. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Son, I've been harping the anti-intellectual angle all along; what took you so long to notice? And unlike usenet (where everyone is encouraged to turn themselves into proto-FOX-News pundits), Wikipedia is ostensibly trying to be neutral and informative. It's one thing to attach your name to some arrogantly stupid opinion in a realm where arrogantly stupid opinions are the expected norm; it's another thing entirely to attach your name to such where you are trying to build a reputation for accuracy and respectability. Nobody respects anything that's ever been said on usenet - everyone knows it's a dumping ground for every vapid prejudice that's ever come down the pipe. Are you suggesting we turn Wikipedia into a new usenet? --Ludwigs2 15:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're about to pull an Anikin, no, you're not my father. The Usenet thing was more of an aside, but at one time discussions on Usenet were quite respectable, as 99% of the users there were either from universities, businesses, or the military. It wasn't until the Endless September that it went to shit...and if we're going to stay in this tangent, then really what you have become is a latter-day Serdar Argic. We fundamentally differ on how to present this topic in a "neutral and informative" manner. This isn't really something to reconcile or compromise on, any more than we would compromise on BLP policy to only let a little bit of unsourced material be used. Tarc (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you just seemed like you needed some reparenting (just kidding ).

Look, if you want to go back to 20-year-old internet norms, that would be fine with me. in fact, it would solve our problem immediately: the project would likely be text-only, and our readership would consist almost entirely of computer nerds. But the world has moved on a bit since then: the internet is now pluri-dimensional, polychromatic, and multi-cultural. we have to maintain our reputation within that environment, and we can't maintain that reputation if we close our eyes to the fact that we are stepping on the toes of significant cultural groups. My point still stands: I sincerely doubt that you personally would go into your workplace and tell your boss that the company ought to do X because Muslims are all fanatics and their opinions don't count; I know for a fact that no reputable academic would discount cultural worldviews unless s/he needed to to develop a thesis. so why are you advocating that we do that here? --Ludwigs2 16:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Cultural groups don't get coddled or catered too when we're writing an encyclopedia. I'm not going to rehash your politically-correct approach to this matter for the nth time, as n-1 was more than enough. Tarc (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I can tell you were a long-term usenet junkie… Now why don't you give up the emotional rhetoric (because no one gives a fuck whether or not you want to coddle anyone), and let's get back to the point that this is what professionals in the real world do. I get that you're getting your jollies here, but enough of the amateur-hour crap. --Ludwigs2 21:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That may be what tree-huggers do when they wish for a world where they think they have a god-given right to be unoffended. But out in the actual real world, that ain't how it works. We are here creating an encyclopedia free of religious twaddle, where an article on pregnancy can have a naked woman...though not necessarily in the lead...and where an article on Muhammad does not have to follow a hadith against showing his face. If that isn't to your liking, then by all means begin your own. MediaWiki is free, after all. Tarc (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't an article about environmentalism, so you've obviously pulled out the term 'tree-hugger' in a desperate attempt to find terminology you think will insult me. Unfortunately, all that really does is demonstrate that you're unable to make an actual argument for your position (or to find a decent insult, for that matter). If you're just tossing out dumb comments in the hopes that one of them will strike a nerve, well, whatever… That's your business. But the more you do it, the more you reaffirm that you're just here to cause commotion and blow smoke up everyone's ass. Keep at it; If this is the best you can do you are sure to lose this debate eventually. --Ludwigs2 23:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it is unlikely that either of you is going to convince the other. Please agree to disagree. --JN466 01:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I somehow doubt Tarc would agree with me even on that, but… --Ludwigs2 02:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, the personal attacks you made above are not helping. You have been warned before about this kind of conduct. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci, after your last (I think fourth in the last year) effort to get me sanctioned, it is quite obvious that your opinion about me is far from dispassionate and unbiased. Please do yourself a favor and leave these kinds of comments to people whom it is possible to imagine are not slobbering after my blood. thanks. --Ludwigs2 04:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"slobbering after my blood", "dumb", "jackass". All of this extreme language is unhelpful, disruptive and against wikipedia policy. On wikipedia the vital thing is to use secondary sources, here and elsewhere. That is the norm for editing (your attempts to edit without using sources on Commodity fetishism were tagged as WP:OR [24] and then later deleted [25] by universal consensus). It is no different when discussing the use of images. Please could you learn to use sources and avoid making self-referential judgements or personalised comments about others? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci: I respect you as an editor (always have), but as a person you've made it more than clear that you are carrying an extreme grudge against me. You can deny it all you like, bu your behavior proves otherwise: do you have any idea how many articles I can point to (including this one) where your enter the discussion solely to seek sanctions against me and only start editing after the sanction effort failed? Don't get me wrong, the work you do is good - at lease, I've never found a reason to disagree with you significantly on a content point - but you are so extraordinarily vindictive it almost defies belief.

Stick to content-points where your contributions are valuable and credible; leave handling me to admins (should any deem that act to be necessary), because your damned-near-stalking and endless carping about me just makes you look maniacal. --Ludwigs2 14:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, please reread what I wrote about secondary sources: that is the core policy on wikipedia which gives a concrete method for evaluating the addition of content or images. That seems to be the central issue here. Otherwise I don't have the slightest clue what you are rabbiting on about. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Point 1 is the heart of your tendentiousness, honestly; the refusal to accept that this is an accepted reality of thi removed s project. Also, noone has to work with you if you persist in just proposing the same things that have already been soundly rejected. Finally, it would nice if rather than redirecting your dickishness to who you perceive is the proper target, i.e. this edit, it'd be better if you just removed it entirely. Tarc (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any point in using wikipedia processes like mediation and RfCs in this particular instance. That is a way of creating chaos, muddying the waters. What has emerged is that we follow current scholarship regarding historical images as represented in excellent academic secondary sources. That seems to have been mutually agreed. Whether or not faces are covered in the Persian miniatures, which appear only as thumbnails, seems immaterial. Discussion of images produced between 1300 and 1600 requires some familiarity with the sources used. That is why this topic is inappropriate for an RfC or mediation. I do understand that it's much easier to engage in lively debate when there is no requirement to make reference to those sources, but that's not how we create articles on wikipedia. As for calling other users "jackasses", there is no excuse for poor conduct like that after repeated warnings. Mathsci (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not the first time he's done that, and it's not the worst thing he's called people. Honestly, the process most likely to end this is RFC/U. Resolute 05:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that an RfC would not be useful; we've covered a lot of ground over the past few weeks, and bringing everyone who participates up to speed is not likely to be possible. I wouldn't editors coming in and shooting from the hip, as it were; that would render all the discussions we've had null and void. My view about the black stone image is that it isn't necessary in this article; first, the story is more of a legend than historical fact, and the image is already included in six other articles: Black Stone, Muhammad in Mecca, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Depictions of Muhammad, Kaaba and Jami' al-tawarikh. I think it makes encyclopedic sense to have one image of each of the main types of figurative images – unveiled, veiled, flame; and Resolute's proposal achieves that. At the same time, this may allow us to include one or two culturally more meaningful and iconic images (or failing that, lighten the article up a bit). I've long complained that we don't have a single image of a Quranic inscription on a mosque, despite the fact that such inscriptions are so common and are frequently used as illustrations in reliable sources. I'd much rather have one of those than the Gabriel image in the Quran section, as the style of that image really clashes with the other images there, and a Quranic inscription has more encyclopedic relevance. (The Gabriel image is also included in two other articles already.) An image of muslims at prayer might also be useful in the legacy section; again, an iconic type of image many sources on Muhammad use. --JN466 08:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci and Jayen: It would be great to have an RfC process with your participation, but you should bear in mind that it is not something that needs anyone's consent in particular in order to take place. --FormerIP (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, I'm also unclear about your rationale for wanting to remove the Kaaba image. This seems to be an image that editors have expressed a particular desire to keep. Your first reason is that it arguably depicts a legend, but you have previously wanted to include an image depicting the Night Journey, so this doesn't seem at all consistent. Your second reason is that it is in other articles, but I would suggest that is because it is a good image and is all the more reason it should be used here. Do you have any other arguments against this image, because I find the ones you have given to be weak. --FormerIP (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Since the historic depiction of Muhammad requires some familiarity with sources, which most wikipedians do not know about, there seems to be no point in an RfC. Plenty of other editors are in agreement with this point of view, so please try not to give the appearance of singling out particular editors. Mathsci (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The night journey images are more relevant, since that was a particularly popular scene in depictions. They're also more accomplished artistically, which is reflected in the amount of interest they're getting from art historians. Ludwigs2 said one true thing a while back: if you have such a narrow focus on one thing, you lose sight of the bigger picture. All our discussion is about something that within the wider world of Islamic art is a distinct minority phenomenon. We have lost sight of the forest for that one tree. --JN466 17:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Responding to the initial question in this section, I said the first time we brought this proposal up that I have no overweening objection to the two images, proposed for the Islamic Depiction section; I do object to the proposal if it's take it or leave it in total:

• It is too radical removing multiple images with limited participation, and without consideration for individual images in their sections.
• This is the biography of a man, and the multiple images proposed to be removed fit that purpose, and several are images used across the project in many different languages for this purpose.
• Again this is a biography, and three of the four images proposed are in ancillary sections, not his biography.
• It removes all images from some sections of the biography.
• The single image (at right) proposed for his biography sections (the purpose of the article) is an image of an event, with multiple people and other subject matter, in which it is very difficult to see anything related to Muhammad.
• The objections to the images proposed to be removed, that they are religiously insensitive or culturally unbalanced I find unpersuasive, and the considerations standardless and unworkable.
• It appears, that the images proposed for the Islamic depiction section are being held captive to decisions in other sections -- this is unfair to that section and those images.

Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The intent was never a "take it or leave it" scenario. Rather, an attempt at a workable framework to move this process forward. If you feel the general idea is sound, but would like to see more of one type of images, or in certain locations, please share them. Resolute 14:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that, as it has been represented otherwise. As to the framework, my understanding is that it generally seeks to represent four "Islamic Depictions" (calligraphy, no face, face, and fire) of Muhammad, throughout the article (except in the western/other section). The first word, Islamic, apart from any policy issues (although there have been lots of words on that for many reasons), is not what this article is about. The second word, depictions, is also not what this article is about (except in the small squibs to other articles). I am sorry, i have to leave and don't have time right now to create a gallery here of all images and their sections but I will (sometime later) if as this progresses that would be helpful. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

As a side note in the legacy section I would actually support the idea of the quranic inscriptions (it is something notable that he definitely had major influence on.) If possible can we go through pictures individually? This I think would make it a lot easier for people to weigh in and explain positions for whether or not they find the picture useful and also whether it should stay or depart the article. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

We obviously feature a number of Islamic images, besides others like those of the geography. My concern is that, to the extent that we do feature Islamic art, that selection of images should be balanced and neutral, focusing on the most common types of Islamic art. It is a fact that figurative images of Muhammad were rare, especially in public contexts; there is no mainstream figurative iconography of Muhammad in Islamic sacred art. By featuring so many of the images we are creating an impression in the reader that is at odds with the historical reality. --JN466 19:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

@Alan, I apologise for any lack of clarity on my part in my (extensive) comments here about the compromise only being a framework - that was certainly obvious to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem Jayen is that this is an article on Muhammad, not Muslim depictions of Muhammad. We are not constrained by the latter when writing about the former. Tarc (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that we use Muslim art to illustrate this article, we should show it in proportions that correspond to the real world. In the depictions article, it is quite appropriate for figurative images to dominate, because the article title goes that way. --JN466 01:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And obviously the majority of our art should be muslim as we do for every other religious figure. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, both of you are full of it, concocting an extra provision for this article that exist in no other article is not going to fly. Tarc (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, we're showing typical Christian art in Jesus. We're not showing typical Muslim art in Muhammad. The problem is obvious. --JN466 22:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the Jesus article needs more images from other perspectives then, but that is a topic for that talk page, not this one. We're talking about Muhammad here. Stay on-topic, if you would. Tarc (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake, Tarc. The same is true about the Krishna and the Buddha article. This one is the only exception. What's so special about this one that we have to do something different from what we normally do? --JN466 23:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The more appropriate question to pose is "why is this article subjected to a higher and more exacting level of scrutiny than the others?", to which the obvious answer is that "only Islam has a bee in its bonnet about images of its prophet". This is the underlying motivation to shed images from this article; I can give praise to Ludwigs for at least admitting that offense is a motivating factor, something that you cannot. Their faith dictates to them how they depict their prophet. We are under no such restriction or obligation. Surely there are things that adherents of other faiths find objectionable in their respective articles, and we would not bow to their demands, either. Tarc (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason this article attracts scrutiny is the same reason any article attracts scrutiny in Wikipedia: because it's not NPOV. It goes out of its way to show something other than mainstream art. --JN466 00:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It is quite in line with NPOV. You're stuck in this intellectually devoid argument of "Muslims don't use pictures, so if we use pictures ,that isn't neutral." You're wrong. You have been told that you're wrong many times on this angle, and been shown and explained why you are wrong, yet you persist in the same claim. Over and over and over. Tarc (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I want to use pictures, but I want to use typical pictures. I want us to use pictures in due proportion to their prevalence. I don't want us to use a bunch of images that are rare, just to demonstrate to the world that we can. Jimbo made that point very clear, but it obviously eludes you. We're not here to make a statement about censorship or the rights and wrongs of Islamic aniconism, we're simply here to write an encyclopedic article on Muhammad that represents matters in accurate proportions. --JN466 19:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

We're using them because a consensus of editors have determined that they are not incidental, not superfluous, are germane to the topic, assist the reader in understanding the subject matter, and they satisfy WP:NFCC. Your wish to add another criteria. We get that. That proposal isn't exactly setting the project on fire, your fallacious argumentum ad Jimboem notwithstanding. Tarc (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus can change. A majority of editors have supported, or are fine with, Resolute's proposal, which does open the possibility of adding picture that are less incidental, more germane to the subject matter, and better inform the reader (without misinforming them) about Muhammad's artistic reception. Educational value should be paramount. The images add very little of that to the descriptions of the events in the text. We should have some, so the reader knows there are some, and can see the different artistic conventions, but that's about all. --JN466 21:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad is a historical figure. You cannot view him in the lens of Islam alone. Resolute 15:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

So is every other similar religious figure. Your point? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"Muslim art"? It's art. I can't imagine any policy that restricts the use of art, on the basis of the artist's religion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

So the images at Jesus aren't Christian. 4 serious? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The images on any page are not restricted to any one culture or religion as a matter of policy. There's one image on the Jesus page that is doesn't seem to come from Christian culture. It's appropriate and likely that the Mohammed page should gravitate towards images produced by Muslims, but there is no rule about it or any logical reason why it absolutely has to be the case. --FormerIP (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Point to a religious figure that doesn't have the vast majority of its imagery from that religion on Wikipedia. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

sigh… Eraserhead, do you see the dimensions of this problem? Tarc, Resolute, FormerIP, et al are standing on the principle that Muslims should not be allowed to 'make a statement' by removing images, but they refuse to acknowledge that they themselves are 'making a statement' by adding so many images. They keep trying to cast this as a dire dichotomy in which we must choose between Muslim advocacy and Secular advocacy, when in fact Wikipedia should simply not be 'making a statement' either way. This whole round-n-round is simply the politics of saving face: cognitive dissonance keeps them from ever admitting that they have been using the project to 'make a statement', and so progress becomes impossible. Badgering them out of it is not going to work (that will simply reinforce the cognitive dissonance), and I don't see any way to coax them out of it, so… --Ludwigs2 17:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There are not "so many" images - a number have been removed already and several editors have withdrawn from the argument, presumably satisfied. There are only a fraction of those at Jesus, and they only start "below the fold". Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Johnbod: I'll admit it's getting better; frankly I'm close to being satisfied myself. but there's an issue of rationales here that I am trying to address to keep this problem from resurfacing in the future.

@ Amatulić: In what way is this a misrepresentation? Saying that we cannot allow Muslim perspective to dominate image choice is reasonable. saying that we must oppose those who are 'ignorant of their own faith' is advocacy (who the hell are you to judge who is ignorant of Islam?). Asserting that a well-known and well-sourced principle of the Muslim worldview doesn't matter and doesn't apply is advocacy. If you want to argue that some images need to remain because they are pertinent to particular content points that is perfectly valid. However, if you want to argue (as several editors here have argued) that we must retain some full-faced images otherwise we look like we're 'giving in' to Islam - that is advocacy. If you think that because you're on the side of secularism and science you can't be an advocate, think again: people can be fanatical about any belief system.

16 archives of complaints puts the lie to your assertion that we are not being disrespectful to Islam. Reliable sources put the lie to your statement that we are not being disrespectful to Islam. The only way you can continue to assert that you are not being disrespectful to Islam - which is what everyone on this page does (and you've done just above) - is to claim that anyone who objects is some dumb fanatic who shouldn't be listened to. But trust me, there is no surer sign of advocacy than that endless need to marginalize and demonize all disagreement.

I don't actually mind that you're advocates; we have NPOV to help us balance differing points of advocacy when they arise. But if you don't ever recognize that you're an advocate, it becomes impossible to apply NPOV (as has been amply demonstrated here). --Ludwigs2 18:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV helps us to handle differing or contradictory statements in reliable sources. It isn't really able to operate in the case of differences of opinion between editors. In that case, it's about WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR. --FormerIP (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the "16 archives" bit, I'd say about 15.5 of that is the garden variety "Remove images of our prophet Muhammad (PBUH)" nonsense by SPAs and one-off IP editors, i.e. nothing that we'd pay the slightest bit of attention to or in any way see as a valued contribution to the project. Ludwigs continues to incorrectly equate "volume of complaint" with "credibility of complaint". Also, to my knowledge no one here has ever argued that we MUST retain images to avoid "giving in" to fanaticism. I certain;y have not made that argument. Tarc (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the large number of IP editors aren't sock puppets why on earth wouldn't we pay attention to what they say? WP:HUMAN applies. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We do. We tell 'em to read the FAQ. The problem with those requests is that they present no arguments that the FAQ does not already address. I'll give Ludwigs2 credit for being more creative in that regard. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Even so, even if they are arguing against policy their points should have as much weight as an established editor arguing against policy. Additionally if enough people are arguing against a policy, established or not, then WP:IAR comes into play. Lots of people raising the same point over a large period of time should not be dismissed outright. Additionally saying that IP editors opinions should be dismissed outright is an argument in favour of the class system. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, their opinions don't count for squat. Not just because their are IP editors, but because they come here not for the purposes of building an encyclopedia, but rather to demand that we make this page adhere to their religious beliefs. And the demands are not "can you remove some images" or "can you remove this image" or "can we move this image to another section"; they are invariably "remove ALL images NOW, they OFFEND me". That type of IP editor does not count for a damn thing in terms of discussing this topic. None. Tarc (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a policy or guideline to point at to backup your point? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a thoughtful and relevant response, or is your fallback always the non sequitur? Tarc (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Eraserhead1, have you looked at the archives or the FAQ? The relevant policies (WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, etc.) are continually pointed out to these drive-by requesters, and polices are also mentioned in the FAQ. Requests that demand we violate our core policies in favor of a religious viewpoint do not count for anything in terms of discussing this topic, as Tarc already said. If someone wants to argue for a change in policy, the place to do that is over at the Village Pump, not here. But we don't get policy arguments from the drive-bys, only requests to remove the images because someone chooses to be offended by them. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, and if they are arguing against policy, especially NPOV, then that would mean their argument would be significantly weaker. I also think that arguments that aren't backed up by policy are weaker than those that are. I think it's perfectly reasonable question to ask - especially given how insistent you are that IP editors points are backed up by policy. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, it's bad form to reply to something that was self-reverted immediately after posting it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it was an edit conflict.

And once again, there are so many things wrong with what you wrote that it's rather pointless to point them out to you over and over again. Who the hell am I to judge? You don't even know what the "well-known and well-sourced principle of the Muslim worldview" actually is. The Quran does not prohibit images, and actually says that anything not forbidden is permitted. Some Hadith forbid the creation of images but say nothing about viewing them. Every Muslim I know realizes this, including the ones who have participated in these endless debates you have involved yourself in. And again, you are blatantly mischaracterizing those who oppose you as engaging in "advocacy", using false assertions that we must keep all the images, as well as misguided logic that an absence of religious advocacy, or ignoring a point of religious dogma in editorial decisions about a biography, must automatically imply some sort of secular advocacy. The community has recognized how ridiculous that position is in many more articles than this one. That is why I self-reverted my earlier comment; it's pointless to repeat these things.

Many archives of complaints mean only that some vocal folks are offended. So what? It means nothing. If the volume of complaints bother you, you are free to ignore them and contribute elsewhere. There are even longer archives over at Talk:Intelligent Design. So what? Does that mean we should rewrite the article in a creationist POV because a bunch of vocal creationists got all bent out of shape over it? Ridiculous.

I have no problem with removing some images (and I have done so in the past). I also have no problem with including more. I do have a problem with your flawed rationales for removing them, however. If you want to characterize me as an "advocate" simply because I disagree with you, as you have been doing, it makes further discussion pointless. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If I go to somewhere like the Islamic art museum in Kuala Lumpur, they say that Islamic art doesn't include visual representations and includes patterns and calligraphy instead. You can hardly argue that a) the Islamic art museum in Kuala Lumpur isn't a serious museum and b) that Malaysia isn't a moderate muslim country. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That may well be correct, but it's just not very relevant. This isn't an article about or curated by the Islamic art museum in Kuala Lumpur. --FormerIP (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Also, I don't think anybody ever said those things. I certainly didn't. The references (particularly 11 and 12) in our Islamic art article would disagree with your assertion about what the museum would tell you about Islamic art. Historical Islamic art does contain many depictions of Muhammad. I would defer to Jonbod for a more adequate reply to this, as he appears to have greater expertise in this area. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

@Former IP, except that it does as its muslim and its an authority, in the same way that the Hermitage, the British Museum, the Louvre and the Met are (though admittedly at a slightly lower level).

@Amatulic With regards to Islamic art, as a generalisation I doubt that what you say is correct - especially with regards to Muhammad - the only reason we have as many images as we do is by taking a subset of a subset of Islamic art. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Again. Figurative images of Muhammad are rare in Islam. They are largely restricted to the private medium of book miniatures created for wealthy patrons many centuries ago, and some Muhammad postcards and posters you can buy in Iran. Apart from that, zilch. --JN466 23:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, your understanding of this is over-simplistic and, on a factual level, not accurate. If you want to go into it, I would suggest opening a new section. However, I don't think it matters, because it misses the point. That an image is of a relatively rare kind does not mean we may not include it in an article. If an image is of good quality, informative and interesting that is enough. --FormerIP (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course an image being of a relatively rare kind does not mean we cannot include an example or two. But to fill the article with images of this rare kind, to the point where we have no space left in the article to show the common, iconic kinds of images is just nuts. --JN466 00:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Fill the article? Are we looking at the same thing? If "an example or two" of relatively rare images of Muslim depictions of Mohammed's face is OK, why so much contention over an article which contains three?

I also don't think there is such a thing as a "common, iconic" representation of Mohammed. Islam is largely an aniconic religion, isn't it? --FormerIP (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

We're obviously not looking at the same thing. I see six figurative images, not three. Figurative images as a whole are rare, and the ones showing his face are a minority within that rare type. And it's the minority within the minority that we have most of. Nuts.

As Jesus is omnipresent in churches, so Muhammad is omnipresent in mosques. But while Jesus is omnipresent in images and crucifixes, Muhammad is omnipresent through his words. Abundant calligraphy of his words and names takes the place of images. That's the iconic representation of Muhammad throughout the Islamic world, even though it's aniconic. --JN466 02:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Amatulić: sorry, that was an edit conflict, and I haven't been on project (except momentarily) since. but to the point:

1. In the third line of your response above [26] you are interpreting the Quran in order to support your position. So far as I know you are not a Muslim, nor are you a Quranic Scholar, and you've provided no sources (except 'every Muslim you know'). And yet somehow you feel more qualified to dictate what 'proper' Islamic beliefs are than any of the people who come to complain about your interpretation. How is that not advocacy?
2. Don't suggest I am mischaracterizing the opposition here when I have diffs like the following (I just grabbed a few - there are ten times this number if you want me to dig) [27], [28],[29],[30]. The one most prominent argument made in this discussion is that Muslims are not allowed the simple privilege that editors have anywhere else. I could go right now to the Apple page and start removing or changing images, and as long as I was reasonable about it the changes stand a good chance of sticking, and there certainly wouldn't be discussion of this magnitude over it. But here that privilege is revoked, specifically because editors here make the bad faith assumption that all objections are advocacy.
3. I didn't say it automatically implied Secular Advocacy; I said people here were engaged in Secular Advocacy. My exact quote was: "Saying that we cannot allow Muslim perspective to dominate image choice is reasonable. saying that we must oppose those who are 'ignorant of their own faith' is advocacy." NPOV does not mean deciding which sides are wrong and squelching them.
4. Don't get me started on Intelligent Design (which is another pugnacious article that needs a serious rewrite - but the people dogging that page are even worse than the people dogging this one). Between this comment and the comment I pointed out int he line above, you seem unable to comprehend that there is any middle ground between attacking a POV and surrendering to it. that's just sad. If you cannot see this middle ground, then you do not understand NPOV, and if that's the case you're just getting in the way of writing a good encyclopedia.

Clear? --Ludwigs2 02:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh my. I've been away from this page for a few days and see this. Yet again, another response full of so much wrong there's almost no point addressing it.

I don't interpret the Quran. It says what it says. You would not be able to find a Muslim who claims it says something else that what I stated. And yet, you want to twist this simple fact into "advocacy" somehow. Incredible.

And still you mischaracterize your opponents. Incredible. Not a single one of those diffs you linked support your assertion that "Muslims are not allowed" to remove images. They are. They come here for the purpose of doing so on a weekly basis. And they are reverted, as you would be if you started removing or changing images on Apple. If the rationale is reasonable, the change will stick, and images have been removed on reasonable grounds in the past. "It offends me" is not a reasonable argument. There are ample means for you to avoid seeing images that offend you.

Your assertion that people here are engaged in secular advocacy is so off the deep end that it doesn't deserve a response. Evidently you are incapable of seeing the difference between "advocating secularism" and advocating that religious dogma be ignored in editorial decisions. As an analogy, it is one thing to say "God does not exist." It is quite another to take the scientist's position that "God's existence is irrelevant to what we do." Similarly, advocating that we include images with intention to offend is quite different from what we're actually advocating: that the article be illustrated by legitimate historical artwork respectful of the subject, regardless of fundamentalist religious views. And you don't see the difference. Incredible.

Your own words apply to you more than anyone else: You seem unable to comprehend that the current state of the article already sits on the middle ground between, as you say, "attacking a POV and surrendering to it." It just sad that you cannot see this middle ground, that you clearly do not understand NPOV, and that you're just getting in the way of writing a good encyclopedia.

I have written to you in the past that your reasoning, while giving the appearance of being reasonable, nevertheless amounts to sophistry. You have refused to accept that a community who disagrees with you might actually have a point. You have failed to assume good faith in your misguided personal perceptions of others (hint: a neutral position may appear bigoted in the same way as neutral news reporting is perceived as "liberal" to the far right). I'm done for now, at least for several more day. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

What is clear is that you, and Jayen for that matter, fundamentally and absolutely misunderstand and misuse NPOV as you try to apply it to this situation. It is not achieved by simply splitting the difference between two points of view, this is a common misunderstanding found in new editors, but the two of you should know better. Tarc (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You have not given any good reason why we should choose to show many examples of a rare and unrepresentative type of art, while neglecting to show common types of art that have abundant cultural meaning. --JN466 03:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I do not need to. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

So we are back to flogging the deceased four legged mammal? If possible is there any way to go through each picture so we can make sure we have a good consensus if we need to change anything? I figure that a review of the images would be a good way to get some editing done and arrive at a good idea of which pictures should stay or leave the article (please also note I said all pictures not just the muhammad ones.) Tivanir2 (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Also if I may be so bold we aren't worried so much about cultural impacts since this is the biography article. This article should deal more with life impacts and legacy impacts of the individual (though I think it is key we explain how the aniciosm he inspired lead to an abundance of calligraphy representations of him.) Though on that same note pictures depicting Muhammad should also be retained since they are images of the subject. Just my 2 cents. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

LMAO: see, this is exactly what I'm talking about - you guys are pure unadulterated advocates. Tarc doesn't feel the need to explain his position but argues for it endlessly regardless, Tivanir2 wants to recast an article as a pure biography just to avoid dealing with cultural issues, Amatulić bases his argument on interpretation of scripture and refuses to allow any other interpretation to be considered. If I had to judge solely by your behavior I'd have to think you were died-in-the-wool religious fanatics determined to cast your faith in the 'correct' light. I'll grant that you've gotten a lot of milage by confusing people with the term secularism (most people don't recognize that secularism is a belief system of its own, one which can be pursued as fanatically as any other belief system), but the more you guys speak, the more obvious it becomes that you are operating out of ideological absolutism. It's hilarious!

Well, I guess we'll keep at it. The problem with advocacy is that advocates are constantly forced to extreme positions; that sours the milk for mild advocates (those who don't want to be associated with extremism) and forces the staunch advocates into ever-more outlandish statements. Reason almost always wins out in the long run even where people are being desperately unreasonable, because reason simply takes less energy. It's just a matter of inertia, and time… --Ludwigs2 17:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If we're going round and round in circles then its time we got Resolute's compromise closed by an uninvolved administrator. If the proposal is closed as no consensus or that consensus is unable to be implemented then its time to escalate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is Ludwigs, I think most here see you as the extreme advocate. The notion that secularism is itself a belief system is beyond the pale. Tarc (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes Tarc, I know that's how you see me (and I know that you've put a huge effort into casting me in that light), but that's irrelevant. Factually, I have been proposing the moderate, reasonable solution all along, and just diligently marking time while you and Robert and Resolute jump through all the emotive hoops of trying (and failing) to paint me as a sanctionable editor, and trying (and failing) to paint this as a non-problem that should be closed. Do you think I don't recognize those administrative gambits for what they are? Do you think you're the first editors to try them on me?

You should know that for all of the turmoil that surrounds me on project, I get something close to the goals I want a good 80% of the time. That's because as unreasonable as I may be as a person at times, my goals and attitudes are always impeccably reasonable. It's an unfortunate fact of Wikipedia life that sometimes suggesting the reasonable thing generates a freakout among entrenched, embattled editors, and after that happens there's nothing to do except keep plugging away at the reasonable thing until the freakout turns into burnout. When sufficient emotional burnout has set in, reason will prevail. It's dumb that what should actually be nothing more than a three day reasoned discussion requires a three-month drama-fest just to drain all the emotional cathexes first, but there's nothing I can do about that. Really, the only 'problem' I represent for you is that I have a knack for weathering these kinds of emotional shit-storms intact; but that's not really a problem for the article, is it? --Ludwigs2 19:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually it isn't reasonable or moderate the viewpoint you push is conservative and to attempt censorship for a groups benefit. This is a biography regardless of what individuals may think about it. I am not trying to avoid cultural issues, they just don't matter to the biographical part of this article. Did he create islamic teachings and influence muslims world wide? Yes. However that goes into the legacy portion of the article and not into the main portion. The main points of this article is what he did during his life, which has significant impact on multiple areas within the region referred to as the middle east. And again I point out when the argument doesn't hinge on "we are offending people" I will more than happily debate all points just like I debated the idea of whether or not the citation of the quran on buildings would be relevent (note: I actually support it in the legacy section now a sign I can actually change my tune unlike some.) I don't try to avoid anything but repeatedly trumping out we offend people and we shouldn't isn't an argument that can win based upon what we do here in this project per WP:NOTCENSORED. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV comes first, NOTCENSORED second. If we can see our way clear to showing images in proportion to their prevalence, as per Resolute's proposal, and then someone complains about the images, that is the time to invoke NOTCENSORED, not now, when we are clearly off-NPOV. --JN466 19:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

@Tivanir2, who are you replying to? I presume it isn't me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No, he's replying to me, he just put his response in an odd place.

@Tivanir2: If you want to treat this as a biography without any religious input, then let's delete the article. No one knows much of anything about Muhammad except what comes to us from the Quran or Hadith or through the Muslim tradition; few works independent of Muslim tradition exist; no scholarly sources exist which do not draw heavily on religions traditions. Muhammad is simply not notable for what we know of him as a living, breathing human being; his entire notability comes from his position as founder of a world religion. The biographical portion of this article is inseparable from the religious portion, because in fact the notable events of his life all revolve around the creation and establishment of Islam.

Also, it was you who raised the cultural issue: "if I may be so bold we aren't worried so much about cultural impacts since this is the biography article". re you changing your mind?

That being said, and giving you credit for the valid aspects of your point, there is nothing about writing a biography that mandates we include pictures that offend Muslim religious beliefs

• Images are not mandated on project, anywhere
• These images are not actually of Muhammad
• These images are not actually of the events of Muhammad's life, not in any credible sense

You seem to be arguing that it's necessary to include images of things that have very tenuous relationships to Muhammad the person, because it's a biography. That's an odd statement in the first place - why would a biography need images not closely related to the subject? - and it's an apparent overstatement. I could understand 'desirable' - it is desirable to have such images in some ways - but necessary? That is an unreasonable assertion. so are you going to drop the 'necessary' bit and go with 'desirable' now? --Ludwigs2 20:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

First I am onboard with removing some images as we have a copious amount in the article as it stands. I never once said anything about removing the religious points on the article since they pertain to him. What I have objected to is the idea of removing all the pictures since the reason to do so is people are offended. as for the talking points 1.) no pictures aren't mandatory but they are encouraged since it helps some readers understand things better. 2.) Red herring argument, the pictures on the Jesus article aren't accurate either as can be claimed of almost every article before the invention of the photograph. 3.) These are suppose to be images of important events in muhammad's life. They have as much relevence as any other historic figure in any other article when showing events that were important to the person. Trying to say I am flip flopping on issues when I point out time and time and time again that I am being consistent in my arguments is your problem and I don't even have to address it. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Break

Jayen, there's absolutely no case for your suggestion that the article has some sort of crisis of "too many images". The guidance at WP:LAYIM is that there are too many (or not enough text) "if there are so many images in a section that they strip down into the next section at 1024×768 screen resolution". We're nowhere near that here, and there is a large portion of the article with no images at all. So, at present, it is false to suppose that any type of image is being included in the article at the expense of any other type of image. I'm also confused as to why you have below proposed an additional figurative image if you think there are too many. --FormerIP (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Calligraphy is an image too... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. --FormerIP (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has argued against calligraphy at any point though so the statement is kind of moot. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add images of calligraphy of Muhammad's name, present in many mosques, of Quranic inscriptions, perhaps one or two of the relics of Muhammad, a couple of call-out boxes with the two most famous verses of the Quran (the Throne Verse and the Light Verse), and there is no room for them. Partly that is due to the presence of three large nav templates along the right-hand margin, but it's true nonetheless. We have had major text flow problems because of the sheer number of images, templates, and fold-out boxes. Even that apart, we simply have too many images of a rare variety of a rare type of image. Hence the proposal to show one figurative image of each of the major types. The picture below is gorgeous, and I've added it to two other articles, but I wouldn't particularly like to add it here in this article. --JN466 19:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

We already have two (is it) images of calligraphy of Muhammad's name, two (not very good) images of the Quran. I see no one else supporting this extra rash of calligraphy, which very few readers can understand. Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Except they can as its just art... Its quite clear Muslims overwhelmingly use this kind of art - so we should uses it in the majority of our illustrations to satisfy WP:NPOV.

And its not just Jayen466. I believe Tivanir2, who is pretty strongly in favour of freedom of speech and WP:NOTCENSORED, has stated he is in support of including some further calligraphy. I certainly support it as well.

And people listen to music in English or companies have English brand names - even if they don't speak English natively. On branding JR and CRH are two notable examples from Asia. All calligraphy in arabic is is the reverse. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Using it in our article because "Muslims overwhelmingly use this kind of art" is the exact opposite of NPOV. And you are completely mistaken in believing it is "just art". It can be appreciated in a rather superficial way if you don't read Arabic, but the meaning of the text is always the most important thing. The article currently has eleven calligraphic images (including the tops of templates) which is already rather too many in my view. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not just Muslims, Johnbod. Western, incl. English, books on Muhammad also feature calligraphy heavily, because it is the predominant art form. Mosque inscriptions are a popular motif. The Thuluth example is rather plain and dispensable perhaps, and I would class neither the first image of the Quran as "calligraphy" (you can't see the text on its pages), nor Muhammad's seal, which is an item of more historical than artistic interest. And by all means, if there are more satisfying Qur'an images in Commons, let's find them. --JN466 02:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Some English books don't want to feature images of Mohammed even though they are writing about him. So they use calligraphy, pictures of a sunset, pictures of Muslims praying, pictures of random mosques and various other forms of clipart in order to break up the text. This is not an example we should follow. --FormerIP (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Some of those books are among the most reputable sources available. You don't get to pick and choose your sources that way. --JN466 02:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how reputable they are, and it has nothing to do with NPOV. They are responsible for their policies on the matter and we are responsible for ours. In terms of trying to get Wikipedia to conform to standards of censorship applied elsewhere, it is time to drop the stick. --FormerIP (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You still don't understand that WP:NOTCENSORED does not overrule WP:NPOV. WP:NOTCENSORED specifically says so, and always has done. But it's good that you have made it clear that you want us to follow your POV – if need be, against the sources. That discredits your position in my eyes. It's incompatible with fundamental project policy. The idea that WP:NPOV has "nothing to do with" reputable sources is contradicted by the first line of that policy, and almost every one that follows. --JN466 05:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

John, come on... You are effectively saying: "I suspect these otherwise very reputable sources of censorship, therefore we can't use them". You've gone beyond overwrought and rigidly literalistic application of NOTCENSORED that most advocates use and are asserting NOTCENSORED as some principle we have to impose on the real world. You want to actively censor sources that you suspect of censorship, with no proof or evidence that any actual censorship exists. Is it time for us to start invoking NOTCENSORED to keep you from blocking reliable sources that go against your personal beliefs? Because (frankly), that would amuse me endlessly. --Ludwigs2 14:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

@Johnbod, he's a muslim, so what the muslims think is very important as they make up the bulk of opinion on him - just like its very important what Hindus think at Krishna, and the Christians think at Jesus. If this wasn't the case we wouldn't use religious imagery there. I'm sure western sources generally follow the same standard. With regards to WP:NPOV its the only policy that's non-negotiable, unlike all the others. You cannot in good faith not follow it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As I say, what you are proposing is not following NPOV at all; you are instead proposing to give extra weight to the holders of one view. How do Muslims "make up the bulk of opinion on him"? They may care more, but most people, and most of our readers, are not Muslims, and are still able to have an "opinion". Can I add that I find your permanent condescending tone, paired with a very superficial grasp of the issues, extremely irritating. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That is the essence of the problem here; some are interpreting NPOV one way and seeing the current treatment as a violation, while (most) others see it that NPOV is being adhered to right now. This is a wiki-philosophical difference that will never be bridged by article talk page discussions. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Back to topic like I said I do consider the inclusion of additional images (like the quranic inscriptions on buildings in the legacy section.(side note I missed that section the first time when I said I don't think it pertains)) as relevent and useful since it illustrates impacts he still has today. Muhammad's words were the basis for the Quran which now has passages on a lot of buildings so I see it as an A to B to C connection as an impact we still see today about his life. Also I am far less leary about including additional things than removing items unless there is a clear reason to do so. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So I presume you are happy to accept Resolute's compromise? In which case I suggest we all just agree to disagree with you about why you've come to that position and your exact view on image inclusion in general. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(Above includes late edit). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Parable of the Ship of Faith

Metropolitan Museum of Art

British Library

Here are two images from Firdausi's Shahnameh of the Parable of the Ship of Faith, one from the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the other from the British Library. The image available from the Met is of very high quality and is from their Houghton Shahnameh. The scholar Raya Shani has written extensively on these and other images, some of them in collections in Iran. The face of the Prophet is veiled in a halo of flames. Either of these images would be good, but the miniature from the Met is exceptionally fine on detail. Mathsci (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree the Met one is particularly fine. Gorgeous colours. We have an embarrassment of riches. (I've added it to the Shanameh article.) --JN466 09:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

These look good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Do they have any advantages over existing images? They do not show a biographical incident. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a "biographical incident" in the same sense as the Night Journey on Buraq with the archangel Gabriel. But to answer the question, the Shahnameh has a fundamental significance in Persian culture. The Houghton Shahnameh is one of the finest existing examples illustrating the epic of Firdausi. There is alas no wikipedia biography of Alfred Houghton: on the one hand he was criticized in his obituary for separating ths Shahnameh manuscript into separate sheets and then dispersing the collection at auction (one was acquired for close to a million dollars by the Aga Khan); on the other he exposed the corruption of the Getty collection in its method of acquisition of art pieces after Getty's death. Mathsci (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're right there. The Mi'raj is recounted in the Quran, though Islamic opinion divides as to whether it should be interpreted as a physical event or a vision or revelation. I can't see the ship parable is Quranic at all - references please if I'm wrong. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Not that it necessarily excludes the image, but the ship story appears to pretty obscure. --FormerIP (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It comes from Firdausi's epic poem and is in fact discussed in the literature. The epic poem Shahnameh is not a peripheral rarity: it occupies an unchallenged position in Persian culture and is still actively studied by academics. Like the medieval "Books of Hours", supreme examples of Western art, these exquisite manuscripts were produced for the rulers of Persia and reflected the culture of the times. I am not sure that any scholars have discussed art for the general public (whatever that might mean) during the period 1300-1600 in secondary sources. Probably, like the Dark ages in Europe, not enough has survived from that period for scholars to make any meaningful statements. (It is worth remembering that, during that period, it was the Islamic libraries in the Iberian peninsula that preserved most Western texts from classical antiquity for posterity.) Unfortunately that does not seem to prevent editors making anachronistic comments about images which normally could not be made about textual content. Mathsci (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• My understanding is that the "Parable of the Ship of Shi'ism" concerns this passage in Firdausi's prologue to the Shahnameh, often left untranslated in Western versions, presumably for religious reasons:[31]

The sage regardeth as a sea this world, A sea whose waves are driven by the blast; Thera seventy gallant ships go sailing past, Each with her canvas every stitch unfurled. One stately vessel is in bridal gear, As beauteous as the eye of chanticleer. Muhammad and 'Ali are there within That stately vessel, they and all their kin. The sage beholding from afar that sea Of viewless shore and depth, and ware that he Must face the waves where all must drown, "If I Shall go down with Muhammad and 'Ali," He saith, "I sink in goodly company, And surely He will rescue me from ill, Who is of standard, crown, and throne the Lord, The Lord of wine, of honey, and of rill, Of founts of milk and floods which spread abroad.' If on the other world thou fix throe eyes Keep close beside the Prophet and 'Ali, And, should ill follow, lay the blame on me, Who take myself the course that I advise. In this Faith was I born, in this will die; The dust upon the Lion's foot am I. Thy heart, if prone to err, is thine own foe, And can the world more abject miscreants know Than haters of 'Ali, for born in shame Are they, and destined to eternal flame? Take not this world in jest, but walk with those Whose steps are right; right as thine end propose If thou wouldst be with men of glorious name. Why do I talk so long? I fail to see A limit to my theme's fertility.

It's worth remembering that this text dates from 1010 or earlier. Mathsci (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought! It's 400 years after Muhammad lived, & not biographical, as I said. It's much less relevant than the Mi'raj and the scenes we have. Johnbod (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation 2.0

The discussion is going round and round in circles and no-one is willing to close the existing discussion. Lets at least give mediation a try as a way forward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think mediation is the way forward and I don't think Eraserhead1 has identified the problem here. There does seem to be a growing consensus between a a core of editors, who were not necessarily in agreement in the beginning, about the highly nuanced way we add images to this specific article (which is really a very special case). The discussion above, in answer to Resolute's question, was dissrupted by a few agenda-driven individuals. Perhaps a solution is that this talk page is placed under article probation so that willful disruption and poor conduct can be dealt with on the spot by designated uninvolved administrators. Mathsci (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this page is a special case, or that mediation is appropriate. At the top it says Muhammad. It seems like it's on people who want to remove pictures of Muhammad to make the case. Their arguments so far, and for many years now, have been unpersuasive. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

While you may not be pursuaded by the arguments there have been a hell of a lot of them (500k words). Additionally the discussion isn't reaching a conclusion.

Definitely some level of escalation is appropriate - whether that step is mediation is up for agreement.

If the arguments against change are truly unpersuasive then mediation or any other escalation won't make any changes - but they will draw a line. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

IMO the line is already drawn; you have failed to achieve anything even remotely resembling a consensus for your point of view on the matter. What you are seeking is ultimately a novel approach to NPOV interpretation, which requires religious precepts to be acknowledged when writing an article connected to that religion. In other words, the POV held by some Muslims that prohibits Muhammad's face being shown must be reflected in how many images of such we can use in this article. This is a fundamental policy shift that'd at the very least necessitate wider community input, i.e. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. You can't mediate your way into a policy change. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As I've said above, there has already been significant change, and several editors appear satisfied & have withdrawn - I note even Ludwigs says above he is nearly satisfied. The recent "more calligraphy" arguments above are in fact a new angle, not I think represented in the lengthy earlier discussions. Again, a number of calligraphic images have been added recently, but eleven is apparently not enough for one or two editors. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The 'calligraphy' has popped up several times in the discussion (I know, because I myself have 'popped it up' at least three or four times). However, it takes time for an argument to develop traction in an IDHT environment like this; such arguments need to go through several cycles of blanket dismissal before editors start to feel uncomfortable about continuing to ignore it. And incidentally, the issue is not 'more calligraphy', but rather a source-appropriate balance between different kinds of representation (as people keep saying, calligraphic representations are by far the norm). --Ludwigs2 15:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

... but are much less use to most of our readers, and in any case now outnumber figurative images nearly two to one. Jayen's issue can very clearly be summarized as "more calligraphy" - see above. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

John, that makes no sense:

• In reliable sources (not to mention the real world) abstract depictions outnumber figurative images by far more than 2:1. that implies there should be fewer figurative images.
• In what way are they of 'much less use' to our readers? Assumedly our readers know that Muhammad was a human being (as opposed to a dolphin or a horse), and these images tell us nothing more about Muhammad than that.

I understand that you believe that these images are more common and useful, but I see no real reason to believe that's true, and a whole lot of evidence to think it's false. --Ludwigs2 17:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A pitcure of a person is a lot more useful than a calligraphical picture when talking about a human. I for one would be ok with reducing the quantity of pictures (As per the original resolution we were trying to work on before it got side tracked again) just like I am ok with more calligraphy as long as it brings something new to the table (we don't have a quranic text on a building yet and would do well in the legacy area.) Tivanir2 (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Tivanir2: That's ridiculous. We do not put pictures of random people on biographies just because we think biographies need pictures. Should we start going through all of the biographies on project where we do not have images of the actual person available and add stock images of male/female models? that's basically what you're suggesting we do with this article. nonsense. --Ludwigs2 22:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's clearly not remotely what he is suggesting. Your constant extrapolations of what people actually say are one reason that talk pages you are involved in mushroom in size without going anywhere. Johnbod (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

These aren't random pictures, these are depictions of Muhammad used in the article on Muhammad. Tarc (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've also got a tattoo in Arabic calligraphy. Wanna see it?

They are no more pictures of Muhammad than a stock image of a male model is a picture of me; it's silly to suggest otherwise. I will grant that they are artistic representations of Muhammad, but then calligraphic drawings are also artistic representations of Muhammad (that's how they are used in Islamic culture), and calligraphic drawings are far more prevalent in reliable sources and the real world than figurative images.

John, if you think Tivanir2 is suggesting something else, pray tell what would that be? his intent seems pretty clear from "A picture of a person is a lot more useful than a calligraphical picture when talking about a human". Since they are not depictions of Muhammad, how is that sentence anything other than silly? --Ludwigs2 23:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, so you've moved on to a "they're not real pictures" argument. I guess File:Napoleon in His Study.jpg, File:Crispus Attucks.jpg, and File:AlexanderTheGreat Bust.jpg will have to be removed from their respective articles. After all, they're just "artistic representations" that we can't prove is really who the artist said it is, right? Tarc (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec with Tarc) Let me try to clarify what Ludwigs2 said further. There are two criteria that justify using a picture depicting a person in the person's biography:

A. The picture looks like the subject (e.g. a photography or painting by a painter who met the subject).

B. The picture gives information about the cultural reception of the subject: How did artists imagine and depict the subject? What do most people imagine the subject to look like, regardless of accuracy?

Of course there can be degrees here. In the case of A: While we probably know nothing about Muhammad's facial features, I guess something will be known about whether he actually wore a beard, or a turban, etc.

It's important to distinguish A and B: A biography is primarily about the person, so images of type B must not overwhelm an article when enough pictures of type A are available. E.g., the Albert Einstein article has plenty of photographs (perfect case of A) but not a single painting (less good for A but better for B). That's OK. It would be better to have one or two pieces of art depicting him, including popular art such as stickers showing Einstein with protruded tongue. (I think the reason we don't have that is copyright.) But more than two would be overkill, even though depictions of Einstein generally resemble the historical person.

For older subjects we have no photographs, of course. It's relatively easy to see how well an image falls under B, but whether it falls under A is often something that even experts don't agree on. In these cases we should generally use those images that appear to satisy A best, plus those that appear to satisfy B best, in some reasonable relation to be determined by editorial consensus.

In cases such as Charlemagne, Buddha, Jesus, King Artus etc., there are no depictions that come even close to fully falling under A, but again we can determine how typical an image is for the general reception of the person. That's our situation here as well with Muhammad. The depictions of Muhammad almost certainly don't look like him in any reasonable sense, so it makes no sense to allocate a quota for images of type A. All our image slots will be filled by images that satisfy criterion B. And we must give appropriate weight to the different reception traditions. Hans Adler 00:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That is, unequivocally, bullshit; a standard for images that you are trying to apply to this article and no other, for no other reason than the "some Muslims don't like it". I find it hard to believe that in yet another thread...one calling for mediation, no less...that the same handful of anti-image activists are trotting out the same talking points that have tried and tried and tried and failed to carry the day over the last, what, 2 months now? This is beyond tendentious. Tarc (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish. What I described is the standard that we are applying everywhere when articles come under scrutiny, although of course the encyclopedia is unfinished and most articles don't follow these standards yet. If you don't believe me, let's ask on the talk page of WP:FAC what the regulars there think. Maybe they will put things a bit differently to account for situations I didn't consider, but the result will ultimately be the same in most cases and also in this case. In this particular article the images have come under scrutiny because some silly religious rules make them contentious. And because they are under scrutiny, we will do the right thing here.

Come to think of it, making this a featured article might be the best solution. Because it guarantees scrutiny by competent and experienced editors, and once the article has passed only after certain changes to the images, you will find it very hard to get a consensus for reverting the article to a state where it would be demoted. Hans Adler 01:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This last post of yours is proof positive that your approach to this article is done in EXTREME bad faith, as you you desperately try to grasp onto whatever possible tool available to get your way. This is like watching a bad political ideologue who has already made up his mind on a position try prop up the flimsy evidence to support what has already been decided". Tarc (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting move. Would you have chosen it if you saw any chance that the article would get through FAC in a state in which it looks like the inside of a Catholic church? Hans Adler 17:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Tanivir2 is correct in adhering to Wikipedia norms. WP:Images states "Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information. Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images."

Calligraphy of a name is informative as to calligraphy of a name. Only to those who are inclined to give it religious meaning can it be more informative of any meaning other than calligraphy of a name. But we can not assume readers are so inclined. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Quranic inscription on the Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem

Quranic inscriptions in the Bara Gumbad mosque, Delhi, India

Quranic inscriptions have a more direct link to Muhammad than a Persian or Ottoman miniature. In many of these miniatures, every human figure looks much like the next, reflecting drawing styles more than they do the historic personage. That's quite different from an antique bust of Caesar or Cicero, because these actually looked like the person they represented. A Quranic inscription has the virtue of representing words that Muhammad actually spoke at some point in time. There is a reality-based link to his person. It's not as good as a voice recording, but as good as you'll get for something that happened nearly 1500 years ago.--JN466 02:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alan, neither you nor Tavinir has actually thought the issue through. Start with "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate".

1. First we ask: "Do these images look like Muhammad?" Obviously they don't - there is no evidence that these images look any more like Muhammad than you or I do.
2. Since we have no verifiably accurate depictions of Muhammad, then we ask: "How is Muhammad conventionally depicted?" And of course, Muhammad is conventionally depicted in abstract form (veiled, as a flame, in calligraphy).

The point is (though Hans put it more eloquently above) that we choose images either because they are factually accurate or culturally typical, not because they look like what we think the thing ought to look like. We are not illustrating simple physical properties - this is not some children's picture book where we have to show a picture of a human being so that our readers will understand what a human being is - we are illustrating the founder of one of the world's major religions, and in the absence of of faithful reproductions ought to stick with typical presentations. Figurative illustrations are not typical. --Ludwigs2 02:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh for pity's sake. Koranic inscriptions are obviously not a depiction of anyone. --FormerIP (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither are those miniatures. If you look at a file like File:Maome.jpg, half of them look like twins (or identical triplets, rather). --JN466 02:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

They are certainly depictions, though it may be your opinion that they are not good ones. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Identical sextuplets ... :) Yes, they are depictions, of a very rare type restricted to the private and elite medium of book miniatures, and wholly unrepresentative of Muhammad's artistic reception. --JN466 02:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am certain both Tanivir and I have thought this through. There are physical descriptions of the man, Muhammad. People drew the man, Muhammad. We do have verifiable images of the man, Muhammad -- no one claims they were drawing someone else; in fact, all agree that they were drawing the man, Muhammad. Calligraphy of a name is not a man. As to whether Roman or Greek art is better, that's beside the point, the images do look like what they are suppose to represent, sufficient for someone, as you say, who lived 1500 years ago. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The images are not even based on the descriptions available in the ahadith. Instead, they show stock characters reflecting the traditions the artists came from (in many, there is a clear Mongol influence, in both the landscape painting style and the dress and facial depictions of the people shown, because the Ilkhanids were recently converted Mongols). --JN466 03:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

They knew he was THAT man (as do we); someone told them that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Who is they? These were illustrations for private manuscripts, commissioned by wealthy people for their own enjoyment. These miniatures weren't public art. Such manuscripts might have been shown to important house guests, but their existence remained unknown to the general population. Public art in mosques etc. was aniconic then, too. --JN466 03:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

They are based on the hadith, but by modern Western standards not very competently. Please spare us your insights on "Mongol influence" - what would that be? In fact Persian figures usually have a somewhat Mongoloid appearance to Western eyes for a long time before and after the Mongol invasion. Your speculations about the "privacy" of the manuscripts are off the mark too, as some are described as propaganda by scholars. One of the distinctive features of medieval Islamic art is that almost all surviving works, including mosques, were commissioned by the court, to a far greater extent than in Europe. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The mongol influence was clearly great enough that when the Timurid's went on to rule India in the 16th century that they called themselves the Mughals - that's probably also why that piece of Persian/Mongol art landed up in Kashmir. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"Who is they?" -- The people who made and captioned pictures of the man, Muhammad. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There are sources attesting to the private function of the miniatures, and to Mongol influence, e.g. [32][33]. If you have sources to the contrary that I am unaware of, do post them, I'd be interested, but everything I've read on this pretty much says the same. I'd have to dig around to find the other sources. At any rate, mosques did not contain such images, even then. (Just for reference, the Ilkhanids ruling Persia when these images first appeared were Mongols, who converted to Islam in the late 13th century.) --JN466 03:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The point of the images being private rather than public art is mentioned here by Carl W. Ernst: [34] Similar comment by F. E. Peters here: "Such illustrations were not for public consumption, however; they were the valuable commissioned property of wealthy connoisseurs. Ordinary muslims had simply to imagine the prophet.". --JN466 04:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No one has to imagine anymore what these images looked like. More importantly, this article is still not about art and not about public and private things. The images are all in the public domain. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course they are in the public domain. But our illustrations should focus on the types of images that have broad cultural relevance. It is certainly relevant that images of Muhammad existed, and therefore we should show some, even here in this article, per the compromise proposal by Resolute that a good number of editors here, myself included, felt they could sign up to. But other than that, they are simply not mainstream illustrations for this article. We have too many to be encyclopedically useful, and they are taking the space that more relevant images could take. --JN466 05:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Alan: again, you're not making sense. The 'physical descriptions' of Muhammad we have boil down to saying he was a tall, good-looking, bearded guy with a dynamic personality - that covers everyone from Keanu Reeves to Alec Guinness to the current Old Spice spokesmodel to my uncle Bob. So ok, we've excluded Danny DeVito, Jon Stewart, and everyone else's uncle Bob, but still, we still don't have anything like an accurate portrayal. What we have is a bunch of images that are archetypal more than anything else - you might as well insist that the picture in the Sistine Chapel is what God actually looks like.

You are going to ridiculous extremes to defend this point, and one has to start wondering why. Look at what you're doing:

• You're insisting that a biography needs to have images (which is nowhere written in policy)
• You're choosing depictions that are comparatively rare and atypical, and over-representing them in the article
• You're insisting that a biography needs to have human-like images, even if they are not accurate depictions of the person being discussed (which is just a patently bizarre move)
• You are insisting specifically on full-faced images (the only ones which go directly against Muslim precepts); veiled human-like images are apparently not acceptable to you
• You are making ridiculous arguments like "It's an image of Muhammad because the artist said he was drawing an image of Muhammad", as though simply drawing a squiggle on a page and saying it's X makes it an accurate depiction of X

I suspect - as I've suggested all along - that you are not actually thinking about the article at all, but rather are caught up in your own internal dialog about censorship. You're going to these odd extremes not because they make sense in terms of this article (they don't), but rather because you don't want to lose a beachhead in a bigger war against some imagined foe. Would it surprise you to hear that that kind of behavior offends me?. --Ludwigs2 05:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly it would be entirely dishonest to use an extreme case (which this clearly is given the amount of discussion) as a policy example.

Secondly any change to WP:NOTCENSORED would for an extremely large part be just following the status quo - even the most extreme change is only going to affect at most 500 articles, and unless we remove all the amateur sex images its going to be much much smaller than that, probably a few dozen articles at most - or 1 in a hundred thousand articles or something. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Eraserhead is correct. It is an editorial discussion about this article not other articles. I and others maintain that these images are better at doing their job than abstract images, and I, personally, am not insisting on any particular number of them, others may be. As to whether articles have images, that is also policy. So, there does not appear to be a dispute (for most here) that this article will have such images, but is a matter of placement.Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm pleased we agree on this :).

Furthermore if you're prepared to go along with the framework of Resolute's compromise lets agree to disagree on the details of our exact views relating to this article as it isn't really achieving anything of value for the article - which is why we should be discussing this. I'm absolutely sure that placement of images is something that can be compromised on and discussed further. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was about to supplement my comment before you agreed, so I will write the rest here. :) It does become a matter that is deeply troubling, for me, when editors argue, here, we cannot use art because of the religion of the artist, or the religion of the reader. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I have no insistence on any particular number; what I do insist on is that removal is based on criteria other than "offense to religion" or "use/frequency of images in the Muslim world". If there's too many images that crowd the text, pare it down. if there's an image that adds no value to the reader, consider its removal. Simple offense is never a consideration. Tarc (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You all seemed to have missed my point: I was talking specifically about this article. read what I wrote again.

Alan, Tarc: that's not what anyone has been arguing. we've been saying that the article should follow the conventional forms of depiction of Muhammad in sources rather than some artificial standard hacked up by wikipedia editors. Does that still trouble you? why? You have both been arguing that we cannot follow the balance found in reliable sources because reliable sources are (to your mind) biased and censored by deference to Islam. But that's an assumption that flies in the face of everyday experience and the project's core principles; We don't second-guess sources that way just because they are not doing what we want them to do. --Ludwigs2 13:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

We can't guess what their reasons are, we can only know our reasons (eg., we do know that other formats limit images for economic reasons:Academic Freedom Abridged at Yale Press, a consideration that does not apply to us). Others' editorial processes and decisions are not our editorial processes and decisions. We can only edit, in light of policy and reason, based on consensus: images should inform the reader about the text in a multimedia presentation. Editors will disagree, how policies are best served by editorial decisions on a wiki.Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Alan, as a general principle we don't exclude certain sources from discussion because you don't like them. If you want to exclude Yale, on the grounds that they have been criticised on academic freedom grounds I'm not that fussed. Unless you can provide proof of that level for each source you wish to exclude we must include them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I was referring to this comment by the head of the APA, not about Yale: "Publishers often refuse to print color illustrations to save money or limit the number of black and white illustrations to reduce the length of a book" Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

So? They could then use black and white imagery of the kind of their choosing instead. I don't see how it makes a difference to the ratio of the number of calligraphic and the number of non-calligraphic images published in reliable sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

So, their considerations should not be guessed at. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Alan, that's great: If we should not 'guess at' the considerations that sources use, then we should not 'guess' that they are for some reason deferring to Muslim sentiments, and so we should do what they do and avoid using full-faced images, except where strictly needed. problem solved! --Ludwigs2 15:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't follow that we should avoid anything, based on considerations we know nothing of. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

If physics textbooks don't mention the time cube, we don't assume they are censored, or that there are considerations we know nothing of. We simply follow the presentation in the most reputable sources. --JN466 16:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayen: exactly. If reliable sources do X in most cases and only do Y in a few, then we should follow suit. the fact that X might be negative (i.e., that in most cases they do not show such images) is irrelevant; it's still what they most commonly do. --Ludwigs2 19:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs makes a good point here. If we aren't considering religion then we should simply follow the standard set by our sources, regardless of their religious background. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's not a matter of whether we have some examples of Muhammad images in this article – we'll have some – but a matter of number, placement and due weight in this article. Resolute's proposal solves this admirably. --JN466 14:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Another virtue of Resolute's proposal is that it introduces mi'raj images. These have encyclopedic justification, because they were a popular motif. The right-hand one of the two is on at least two book covers. [35][36]. Another book with a mi'raj image on the cover: [37]. The Quranic inscription of the Dome of the Rock is on this book cover: [38]. Stone work comparable to the Delhi example above is depicted on book covers like these: [39][40]. We are well within precedent of reliable sources by including these images, and they can be defended against objections, by pointing to sources using them. --JN466 16:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, I'm really not certain who is still objecting to Resolute's proposal, or why. maybe we should take a straw poll and reassess? --Ludwigs2 19:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Lets do it. That's a good step forward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Me for one. I think the current state of the article now about right, after considerable changes. Any poll should try to allow for the fact that most long-term editors here dropped out with the recent very heavy trafiic (largely going round in circles). Most of the people commenting in recent days are very new to the page. If "consensus" is limited to them, it may not last long-term. Johnbod (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

What are these "considerable changes"? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it is entirely dishonest to claim there have already been "considerable changes". There are exactly the same number of figurative images (6) now as there were on 1st August 2010 and 1st August 2009 and exactly the same number of unveiled images (3). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Eraserhead, if you think there are no objections to Resolute's proposal, you must have blinked during the part when it wasn't implemented.

There is a community consensus, which could hardly be any clearer, that the Mohammed article is not in any way exempt from NOTCENSORED. That isn't a consensus simply against removing all images that someone might find offensive. It is also a consensus against any proposal that seeks to minimise the risk of the article causing offence. Moreover, changes to the images in the article should only be undertaken on the basis of uncontroversial interpretations of existing policy, not on the basis of novel rationales which are really just proxies for censorship. --FormerIP (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous. there is no such consensus, as the discussion on this page and elsewhere shows amply. If that's your only argument, then you don't really have anything to add to this discussion, do you? --Ludwigs2 00:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Level of support for Resolute's compromise

In Support

1. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
2. --JN466 04:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
3. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
4. (modulo some tweaking of images, the number not being absolutely fixed) Mathsci (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
5. Probably. But the discussion got disrupted to the point that I am not sure what the proposal is saying precisely, when all later modifications (if any) are factored in. Hans Adler 14:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
6. Support: --Ludwigs2 16:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Opposed

1. As above Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
2. There is too much calligraphy; the landscape (File:Taifroad.jpg) and the open Qur'an (File:Opened Qur'an.jpg) are unengaging and of little value to the reader; but as it is now,[41] the images are mostly appropriate and well chosen. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Margarine

This is not an appropriate venue to attempt to vote down a very clear community consensus. --FormerIP (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Per Ludwigs, above. This is highly contentious. No consensus here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Plain margarine? Yuk, Brummel & Brown is the way to go for butter substitute. But anyways, I think "Resolute's proposal" is moot at this point in time. Reading back now through that section shows that what was proposed was already partially obsolete by the time Jayen posed the question, viz. the Black Stone. Calling for a straw poll on something as convoluted as this has become is meaningless. Tarc (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you know that it is apparently no longer possible to buy margarine in the UK? I wonder if that is in our article on margarine? Perhaps it is just not true. If it exists over here, Brummel and Brown is not called that. But I am willing to respect your culture. My favourite spread is Bertolli. Do you get that where you are? --FormerIP (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The olive oil-based one? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I'm thinking of switching to something healthier, but I haven't done my research yet. Maybe one of those you can get with anti-cholesterol additives. But I don't know if they are really effective. --FormerIP (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

While we're off topic, editors here may have a view on this Jimbo talk page thread. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it would help to disregard the specific images in my proposal, especially given subsequent discussion re: black stone and others. But instead, look at the overall framework. I guess the questions can be simplified as follows: The idea of two images each in the depictions and Western sections, is it sound? Yea or nay? And then look at the main article body and decide how many and what types of images we wish to present. My proposal was for an overall reduction to five depictions on the basis of an overall image reduction. If we can eliminate some sections of the article for discussion by agreeing to what types of depictions/images we use in those sections, we can narrow the focus on the remainder. Resolute 06:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That was somewhat the purpose of my parenthetical remark above. The Black stone image is early 14th century, so there is a case for it because of its antiquity and the accompanying text; and I think having 2 pictures of the Night Journey with and without veil is somewhat pointless. It may as well be one unveiled Night Journey and one veiled Ship of Shi'ism. But, as you say, these are minor points, which would essentially just be tweaking, once the framework has been established. Mathsci (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no issue with the exact images being switched round. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Guys if you don't support the change put your vote down in the oppose section. This section is basically one to attempt to filibuster progress. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Eraser, learn your place, and do not instruct others on how or where to post. I am opposed to the very concept of deciding something like this by straw poll, which by chance just gets input form editors wandering by. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

None of the editors who have voted have just wondered by. All of them have been involved in the previous discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I see this straw poll as deciding nothing. I already know the re is no consensus. The value of this poll is, it will show arbitrators and others new to the discussion, what the numbers are. We all pretty much know who stands where with regard to Resolute's excellent original compromise proposal but no one else does, without first having to do a lot of reading. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC).

As I already noted, the the version cited as the "compromise version" is no longer relevant, as subsequent decisions have added text to support the use of the Black Stone image. If you are calling for an article without that image, i.e. the version that Ludwigs edit-warred over I will vigorously oppose that. If you have a modified proposal that incorporates that image and text, I will listen. Tarc (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Black stone text and image will stay in the article. The 14C image is appropriate to the text and can be found in WP:RS. Perhaps somebody else could clarify. Mathsci (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm opposed to it being here because it adds nothing to the readers' understanding (nothing) but is offensive to many of our readers. Tell me one thing it tells the reader. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• No result this poll reaches is likely to reflect a stable consensus. We need involvement from the wider community, with succinct and neutrally worded proposals that are clear in their effects. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I agree with that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Sounds reasonable enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Absolutely fine. I guess that would either mean an RfC or for editors opposed to mediation to reconsider. --FormerIP (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
        • It seems a mediation aimed at developing an RfC, could be a good way forward. A wide RfC, that reaches a conclusion would tend to stability. My prior reluctance to mediation was that I was not clear on what proposition was to be mediated, and it appeared as a threat for people to be sanctioned. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Alan, my understanding of mediation is that it is just not possible for it to end in sanctions, except maybe in the case where an editor proposes sanctions against themself. For one thing, if a mediator appears to be supporting sanctions against an editor, the editor can just pull out and the process stops right there. --FormerIP (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I would not support mediation about article content. As someone observed elsewhere, image use in the article is already a product of compromise. If not for that, we'd have a picture of Muhammad at the top of the page, like de.wikipedia. Getting a mediator or other neutral party to help craft an RfC might be useful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• • • Guys, the straw poll was never intended to reach a consensus, just to establish who was/wasn't still for/against the revision. Too much cross-chatter - it's hard to keep track of where people are standing. --Ludwigs2 18:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Black stone image

Can someone please tell me what important information this imparts to the reader? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy to have that discussion, Anthony, but you are starting out on a misleading premise, IMO. The information doesn't have to be important, only pertinent. I don't think any of the images in the article give out important information.--FormerIP (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Image use policy says images should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. Relevant means directly connected with and important to what is being discussed or considered. Again, can someone please tell me what important information this image conveys to the reader? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Usually your approach to this topic has been reasonable, but here I find your one-sentence "justify this image usage" demand to be a little disingenuous by not referencing the November discussion as well as the March straw poll. Points raised back then noted the Britannica also covering the event and that it may be one of the earliest depictions of Muhammad, among others. Tarc (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like you to withdraw that "disingenuous" comment before I continue. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's break AC's comment down: 1) "Image use policy says images should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter." - quotes Wikipedia policy. 2) "Relevant means directly connected with and important to what is being discussed or considered." - says some obscure internet dictionary. 3) "Again, can someone please tell me what important information this image conveys to the reader?" - Slyly imports the word "important" from the web-dictionary, as though it is part of the WP policy, which it isn't. Johnbod (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to address your points but would you please withdraw the "slyly" comment first? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

We've already discussed this. Even the Muslim contributors to this talk page agreed that this image should be kept. See Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 20#The episode of the Black Stone. The image illustrates an exceptionally significant (i.e. important) event in the traditionally-believed history of Muhammad's life. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The whole subject matter of the image is relevant to the early life of Muhammad, the Arabia that Muhammad came from, and the Arabia that he left. See, Kaaba see also articles on pre-Islamic and post-Islamic Arabia, see text of article and sources. The image contains so much relevant information, it's difficult to begin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Amatulic and Alan. I will respond to your comments, and those of Tarc and Johnbod, but I've been insulted by both of those editors and can't reasonably be expected to engage further here until they've withdrawn their insults. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt insulted, but I do not feel you initiated this discussion in a very fair manner. Equally sorry to say that this second part is now coming across as a bit petulant. I'd simply like to know why this is is suddenly a big issue? The previous discussion didn't come to a firm conclusion one way or the other, but it was at least amicable. Tarc (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Shall we just hat this? I don't think it's going anywhere that anyone is going to find useful. --FormerIP (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)