Talk:Muhammad

Important notice: Any new discussion sections of Muhammad images below the section#NOTICE about image discussion will be summarily moved to Talk:Muhammad/images and any further comments on the section will be removed.

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Muhammad FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read the FAQ first.

Please note that discussion on this talk page has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article and any removal of the pictures without discussion here first will be reverted on sight. If you wish to discuss the inclusion of pictures in the article, please read over previous discussions here, here, and here and the Muhammad article FAQ at this page.

For all questions relating to the addition of (pbuh), (peace be upon him), or other honorifics: Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Muhammad for current Wikipedia guidelines on this issue.

---

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Image archives 1, 2, 3, 4 Mediation Archives Request for Clarification/Muslim Guild Statements Clarity discussion/Refining positions Ars' final archive The rest of the mediation by Ars Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive Index

Need clarification

Hi folks, just asking for a clarification here: " and after eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, his followers, who by then had grown to ten thousand, conquered Mecca." In this instance, does "conquered" refer to a violent event, or is it meant in the spiritual sense? Thanks, Duagloth (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How would one conquer a city spiritually? Arrow740 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Willing conversion, capturing the hearts and minds of the people. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

They knew they had no chance so they surrendered. There were some forced conversions, however. Arrow740 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Duagloth, the conquest of Mecca was peaceful. Muhammad asked two or three persons to leave Mecca before he enters it unless they convert (what Arrow is calling forced conversion). --Be happy!! (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources actually differ. One source says that everyone in Mecca converted to Islam, "willingly or unwillingly," while others indicate that this was not the case. It is more certain that there were twenty or so holdouts who were killed when Muhammad took over. Arrow740 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

it seems clarification is required. The word conquer must not be used here, and its unaccurate. When Muhammad peace upon him started telling people about Islam, he was fought by people because it asked for justice and equality between poor and the rich. the Rich didnt like that and started their voilance and tortures on everyone that became a muslims. suprisingly people still converted, and the tortures only increased.which caused Muhammad and his followers to leave THEIR OWN COUNTRY,LAND, MONEY, HOUSES AND OTHER BELONGINGS, and they only cared for their believes. Muslims and those who tortured them came to an agreement to stop any fights, but it was voilated by the Mekkah people, and as a result Muslims went to Mekkah to regain what is actually theirs. even though they muslims were stronger, all those who tortured them in the past were forgiven. In islam there is not such thing as forcing people to be muslims, so those who converted done it on their own. they might have done it for their own reasons, but at the end it was their desicion. So conquer is when a person takes a land that doesnt belong to him, take it by force, and oppress its people. not return to your own house after you were forced out of it, and forgive those who actually hurt you and fought you for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.40.174 (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reflist & Notes

Why can't we merge notes and references together? Or better yet, why can't we fit it into a box and attach a scrollbar on the notes section? It is easier to read that way. And the whole thing doesn't take a long time to come up. It does seem to have more references than any I have seen ever before... LOTRrules (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have seen some articles use the scrollbar method but I think it is particularly ugly and makes it very difficult to browse citations. Hopefully in the future that will be an option in your CSS where you can change <references/> into being into a box or not.

As for merging the two--they provide difference purposes. You can have the first note give full bibliographic information and all of the subsequent just use the author but I find that makes it harder to compile a list of references. By separating them you allow for small notes and full references. One problem in this article is that we seem to use full bibliographic information in the notes for online references. gren グレン 13:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling attention to the FAQ list

The large STOP hand was a good idea, but the colors need work. Various flavors of purple on a pink background makes for bad contrast. Frotz (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that we have the visibility and contrast problems solved, how about if we move the FAQ notice at the very top of the talk page and delete the three notes about pictures, honorifics, and censorship? All three are covered in the FAQ. Frotz (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Request to improve the text below images

The text in the article below the image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg says, "The earliest surviving image of Muhammad ...". I hope it will help resolving the controversy to some extent if the text is changed to reflect the fact that the image does not necessarily bear any resemblance to the actual personality and is purely imaginary. The text at the moment, particularly "the earliest surviving" part is a bit misleading in its own right as it may suggest a false originality associated with the image, while there was surely no way of capturing the true look of Mohammad (SAW) after almost 6.5 centuries of His death. I agree that technically the word 'image' should be enough to suggest what I have explained, but keeping in view that we have a huge number of international readers, one cannot deny the connotation this text has, and we should be ready to make it clearer if possible for non-native english speakers. I hope my request is quite reasonable and shall gain some endorsement on the forum.

Kind Regards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarosh Alamgir (talk • contribs) 09:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the captions have since been improved with these concerns in mind.--C.Logan (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I havent nocticed any improvments in these captions, and i perfectly agree with his request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince charming456 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

why cant i edit this page ?

last time i heard every one was allowed to edit wikipedia, what happened to that ? this is sad. please explain the reasoning behing this.

--digitalSurgeon (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Roughly speaking, persistant vandalism of the page has forced us to disabling editing for anonymous editors and new accounts. Accounts older than four days can still edit normally. Although sad, it's truly necessary, feel free to peruse the history to see what's happened when protection has been lifted. WilyD 17:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The page is fully protected now (i.e., not even fully registered ordinary editors can edit), presumably because of a petition currently circulating against Wikipedia protesting the inclusion of images. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The page was fully protected due to the edit warring over the images. Nakon 21:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fully protected because editors keep coming in and removing the images, changing them, or just in general creating a ruckus. Jmlk17 21:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So it was, I'll change the template. WilyD 21:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So the page is only editable by those in favour of upsetting Muslims..? If its been protected why hasnt a version that does not depict his picture be protected?

Because we're not censored, and no page exists that is censored. Jmlk17 01:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Because we only have one version of an article and the consensus of the editors here is that the pictures should remain in the article. --Fredrick day (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Because we're not censored" - But are happy knowing that Muslims are deeply upset by it, and have also removed their privilages of removing the image. To be fair its a page about Muhammad; the picture's do not educate the visitors about him in the slightest bit. Not what I thought wikipedia was about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.106.104 (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of sites our there that will willingly censor and cave into demands for it. But Wikipedia is a site that does not do that... no one is forcing you to view the pictures, and as we are not censored (again), we do not have to cave into demands and outrages. It's what makes us special. Jmlk17 01:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not about caving into demands. There's no need to be defensive about all this. Just need to be a little sensible. The bottom line is, that the pictures "do not add any value" to the article. Rather it has already upset over 80,000 muslims who have petitioned against it. Further to this you have removed their privilages of removing material that is irrelevant to who Muhammad was.

(od) Actually, I find the images highly relevant, and informative. Historical depictions of Muhammad are notable, and belong in an article discussing him. Resolute 02:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason why the picture shouldn't be included given that historical pictures of Jesus are included.

Problem with the FAQ

The problem with Talk:Muhammad/FAQ is that, since it's already in the Talk: space, there's no obvious place to discuss it. At least one person has inserted his arguments in the middle of the page, and this will probably keep happening. Maybe this could be moved to Wikipedia: space? Just a thought. Are there other articles that have editing FAQ sub-pages? How do they deal with this?—Chowbok ☠ 21:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Evolution also has an FAQ page. I guess we should discuss it here. Hut 8.5 21:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

On the evolution FAQ, they seem to direct accounts that do this to talk.origins, and revert the changes. I don't think that this is really an applicable situation here. See their history page. I'm guessing a gentle revert and a reminder that the FAQ page is not the place to do such things is probably be the best idea here for the moment. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 05:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC).

For what it's worth, I copied the design of Talk:Muhammad/FAQ from Talk:Evolution/FAQ. Frotz (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

More calligraphy please

The article really should have an example of Sini script. For exampleIslamic Calligraphy in China, figure 16 shows an honorific of the Prophet, although the most mind-blowing are probably figures 6 and 15. What a fantastic artistic tradition! Itsmejudith (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think C.Logan and I have agreed that more calligraphy could be useful. You do bring up a good idea.. I had already brought up Nastaliq as another style that we could use (since its common for Persian and Urdu). Sini calligraphy seems even more interesting, since it differs so much in its look (Nastaliq is more simplified, with an emphasis on Arabesques). The Chinese already have a strong calligraphic tradition of their own, so I'm sure their styles do carry a sense of uniqueness, even if they are written in modified Arabic script. -Rosywounds (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Figure 8 is my personal favorite, but I fear it's not quite distinct enough (when compared to the more traditionally Chinese-influenced forms displayed).--C.Logan (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally speaking, I find the calligraphy offensive. It has no representative function for anyone who cannot read Arabic. And it is also far more recent than the pictures. Why should it be the first image shown? TharkunColl (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming (hoping) that is sarcasm. -Rosywounds (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm or not, it is a refreshing change of pace. In any case, I'm beginning to wonder how one would respond if the comment above is indeed serious.--C.Logan (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't sarcasm. Why is there a calligraphy image given pride of place? TharkunColl (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please elaborate on this argument.--C.Logan (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

All articles on historical figures - especially important historical figures - have an image at the head of the article of that figure. The fact that this article consigns those images to secondary places is itself censorship, and we really should put one of them - say the Biruni one - at the top. Besides, the calligraphy image is repeated just a few inches further down in the info box. TharkunColl (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do disagree with you here. Visual imagery has always taken a secondary role when it comes to depictions of Muhammad; for that reason, giving heavier emphasis to an art form that conforms to Western aesthetic comes across as somewhat of an intellectual imperialism. I am not pro-censorship (in fact, I'm Shiite), but I still think the calligraphic styles and veiled styles, which represent the more typical forms, should taken precedent here. The reason most articles do not use such examples at the top is because most other historical figures have not been depicted in such a way. -Rosywounds (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that we might want to choose a less redundant calligraphic representation. As far as the images are concerned, I have no greater preference for either.--C.Logan (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume that the "lead" image is calligraphic, with the other images relegated to below the fold, as a deliberate concession to the people who don't want the images here at all. This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable and appropriate compromise. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This also seems a sensible compromise and basis for a policy to me. I do not support wholesale removal of all the images in question, but there's no point in rubbing them in the noses of Muslims who find the pictures offensive by cramming as many as we possibly can into the top 10% of the article. Especially when there is calligraphy and other images available that can illustrate this article just as well. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 05:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC).

In no other instance do we put pictures of the subject "below the fold". Treating this article differently because of the objections of a vocal minority would violate WP:NOTCENSORED. We should treat the article about this man no differently than an article about any other man.—Chowbok ☠ 00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only, I argued for calligraphy first (and I wanted fewer images, not none) because it is by far the most common representation of Muhammad in Islamic history and an important part of Islamic tradition. gren グレン 14:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

use of "to conquer"

Don't do this please. You r not alloed to Draw Picture of Muhammad (PBUH) Please Rempve them Adnan (ISB) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.177.146 (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 212.116.219.107 (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Irfan

You are not "alloed" to tell us what is allowed and what isn't allowed. Most of the world isn't Muslim, doesn't want to be Muslim, and would fight if Muslims tried to impose it on them. Get over it.Scott Adler (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure we are, wikipedia is not an islamic encyclopedia. We don't follow islamic law. Zazaban (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You dont have to follow islamic Laws to give respect to others' feelings. and to what laws do u really follow ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Censorship is different than respecting others feelings. Should we delete the article on Masturbation or anal sex because the subject matter is often considered offensive? No. And about the laws; I am an anarchist, so I don't suppose I do follow a set of laws. I don't find them to be useful or justified. Neither is censorship. Zazaban (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think, you are missing the point Zazaban. I suggest you get yourself more educated on the prophet Muhammad, before posting comments.

^^^ This is hilarious. I actually almost because a muslim once, and joined an islamic forum. Not to mention the huge interest I have in religion. I've read the entire history of Muhmmad's life several times for god's sake! I suggest you get yourself more educated on Zazaban, before posting comments. Also, how on earth am I missing the point? Could you be willing to explain that one? Zazaban (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think, you are missing the point Random Anonymous Person, I suggest you get yourself more educated on the website Wikipedia, before posting comments. JuJube (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that.--C.Logan (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is full protection necessary?

Is it necessary? Most of editwars seems to come from new accounts or IPs. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

A number are coming from sleeper accounts as well though, hence the full. :) Jmlk17 23:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, blocking such persistent accounts seems to a better choice because after expiration of this protection, the edit war may resume again. Those accounts have to learn that like it or not, they are a pushing a minority view. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll reduce the protection to semi for a while and see what happens. If the edit warring over the images resumes, I'll reprotect. Nakon 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it as well. Let's hope it works! Jmlk17 00:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand, since many editors are editting the images, then obviously there is a quite enough number of writers who want these images out... isnt this the purpose of wikipedia. Or those images are so important to stay that you even violate the whole reason wikiperdia was established on.

Anyone is free to edit Wikipedia... constructively. This whole removing the established, purposeful, and relevant image thing isn't constructive. Jmlk17 04:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> Since people refuse to talk on this talk page, and continue to remove and revert the images out of the article, it has to be fully protected again. Jmlk17 07:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

By your logic, since there's quite a number of editors who seem to think the Earth article should be replaced by "Mostly harmless", we should go ahead and let them. JuJube (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, remember that wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy, but a ... fact-ocracy. NPOVarchy. Whatever. Those are the principles on which WP was founded on - principles trump concensus.--Wikinterpreter (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Appearance of Muhammad

Any idea how one can incorporate this kind of information to the article [1]? in a table with the subtitle "Appearance and Manner"? --Be happy!! (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My question would be - is it necessary to include such a level of detail in physical description in this article? It is fairly long as it is. ^Avruchtalk 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the appearance information seem to be interesting especially when we have reliable sources talking about it. Some readers might be interested to see how Muhammad looked like. That would in part address some of the objection made above regarding the informativeness of the drawings.--Be happy!! (talk)

I'm not sure how - I would much rather see a visual depiction of his appearance than try to imagine it based on written descriptions. Not the most neutral of descriptions in this case, either. ^Avruchtalk 00:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is important to have these descriptions, because these descriptions are more valid and correct, since it came from people who actually saw the prophet. While the depiction, no one can be sure of its truthfullness since, non were drawn while he was alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince charming456 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And we know that how? JuJube (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

you will find that documented in all the Islamic books talking about the prophet peace upon him. the same description is everywhere. no one has changed or added to it a single world. that is verified scientifically. You may refer to any book talking about the descritpions of the prophet, and make sure yourself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 (talk • contribs) 18:39, February 3, 2008 (UTC)

FAQ improvement possibility.

Even though it seems that nobody even bothers to read the FAQ, it could certainly be a bit more solid and developed. We've gotten a few arguments which, while still utterly flawed, are semi-common and deserve a clear response (lest others follow in these same footsteps).

There are, I think, some fundamental misunderstandings between the resident editors and these concerned visitors. Notice, for example, the difficulty found in grasping simple concepts such as "illustrative depiction". Notice one of the poorest and yet most prevalent argument: that the images are "incorrect".

The FAQ touches on these arguments, but it could certainly do much more. Let's not let this plague of topics and repetitive posting go to waste- incorporate some of the discussion into the FAQ. Perhaps it would be best to start with an introduction which explains- generally- the concepts of "depiction", "neutrality", "censorship". After this introduction, a presentation of the common arguments/questions would be appropriate. I hope somebody agrees on this; the FAQ is a nice tool that we can turn to, but it's only moderately effective at this point. Improving it will save everyone quite a bit of time in the future, as all major arguments will already have a clear response.--C.Logan (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Want me to give it a try? Maybe I should try it anyway... Be bold and all. What do you think? -- RaspK FOG (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by all means.--C.Logan (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

pictures, wikipedia servers

Since Wikipedia servers are located in Florida, does that mean if someone proposes an initiative in Florida to ban pictures of muhammed from being shown and it passes then Wikipedia would have to remove thier pictures no matter what the consensus is?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.251.11 (talk • contribs) 04:33, February 3, 2008 (UTC-6)

no, the proposition would have to be passed into law, and that would never happen. Zazaban (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not at all how it works. That would be complete and utter censorship, as well as a free speech issue. Jmlk17 10:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The servers aren't all based in Florida, and the company is now incorporated in California. Still, if California tried to pass such a law it would get knocked down pretty quick in federal court. Good thought though. ^Avruchtalk 14:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

First amendment, anonymous genius. JuJube (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, JuJube. I was going to say that... haha. нмŵוτнτ 16:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A new suggestion

I have a new suggestion. The page Muhammad redirects into a disambiguation page like this [2] in which two versions of the article are presented. One with images and the other without images. The editors can then choose the version they want to see. This is not censoring because the readers can simply choose their preferred version. It will not set a precedent for say pornography pictures because those who get offended by the pornography pictures are not very likely to visit the related articles while those who are Muslim are likely to visit Muhammad, so the very higher chance. So it can not serve as a precedent as such. Furthermore, it will not really be a fork because the two versions differ only in terms of the images. In fact, we may be able to recall the same article with a parameter showing the choice of pictures being shown or not being shown (just like templates can receive parameters)--Be happy!! (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am against this idea. I understand what you are saying, but where would we draw the line? This could easily start a precedent where we have a censored and uncensored version of Wikipedia for everything potentially offensive. What's next? An article explaining pornography without images because someone might get offended? I'm not trying to compare the two, but I hope you get where I am coming from. Jmlk17 10:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is where we draw the line: If many editors visit an article while not expecting to be exposed to an image causing "shock, disgust, or revulsion", then that should be avoided without any prior notification. This is like the R-rated notice at the beginning of films, or other such notices that are common. When an editor visits pornography articles, by virtue of doing that, he should however expect to see something of that sort there and no prior notice is necessary. I think this can be made more precise if needed. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure how others feel about the issue, but at the time I see no problem with the possibility of "warnings"- we have them already, I believe, for plot information and the like. Of course, I'm speaking of warnings which would be placed on the page itself. The inclusion of a warning or note on the page (as is the case on the Bahá'u'lláh page) is hardly objectionable.--C.Logan (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If we can place the "warnings" before people actually see the images, that would be great. If they are further given the chance to choose one version or the other, that would be better. This way everybody would be happy. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How is it NOT a content folk? This will never fly because of the precendent it would set. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Placing this here due to edit conflicts:

It is really up to community judgment whether or not this would count as a violation of WP:POVFORK. Additionally, this will still likely set a precedent: other articles with "offensive" imagery would have a prior case for the justification of "censored" forks being created in those instances as well.

These are all simply patchy solutions to a problem which exists only in the minds of a particular group of users- a group which, as has apparently been evidenced, misunderstand policies and concepts which drive Wikipedia and other encyclopedias as well (no offense to Aminz, who is clearly trying to provide productive solutions to satisfy all parties).

I am no veteran of prior discussion on this issue, so I can't say I am familiar with the original arguments "for" and "against" the inclusion of these images in the original discussion (which led to the current decision). Therefore, I am unaware as to whether or not anyone has elucidated on Muslim concerns with both articulation and familiarity with policies (and a thorough understanding of opposing arguments). The current posts, sincere though they may be, are entirely useless as they do not understand the requirements placed upon editors and/or the founding principles of this encyclopedia.

I personally do not quite understand the stigma with images in the context of an encyclopedia reporting in the interest of neutrality. I see images which may seem offensive to me, but I do not object to the right to intellectual interest and freedom. I can separate, in my mind, that which I believe and must ascribe to and that which is apparent and which, quite simply, is "out there" in the world. Because I feel this way, it is difficult for me to agree with requests for removal out of "respect", as it appears quite clear to me to be an infringement upon my own personal rights and upon the rights of other users who aren't obligated to abide by religious requirements.

There are two possible solutions for bridging this apparent gap in thinking: first, that we utilize the most recent discussions as a guideline to expand the FAQ. This will save us a great deal of time in the future, as I feel that if the FAQ reaches a point where it can truly "speak for itself", then we will have more time to devote to actually improving the article. Second, I feel that a user who may understand the concerns of these users should address the issues with policy in mind; for example, Aminz or any other user who may themselves be more familiar with these concepts may wish to point out which arguments should be discarded completely (being indefensible in the face of policy) and which should be given due consideration (preferably because of the possible flexibility of policy rather than due to the personal feelings of the user).

I suggest this latter possibility because it will improve the FAQ itself, and because I worry that, as I have noted above, there appears to be a mistranslation between the (largely "Western") editors here and the anons/new users so concerned with removing the images. While I feel that "no censorship" is a policy we should abide by without compromise, I also feel that we should be respectful of the concerns of others (no matter how many times arguments are heard and how "straw-grasping" they may seem to us) and should be certain that we answer all concerns so that, if even by a remote chance, one might leave the discussion with a sense of understanding as to why Wikipedia is so staunch in keeping the pictures, and why (despite what our underlying suspicions may cause us to believe) no one is intentionally trying to anger or offend anyone else.

The freedom we cherish in the Western world can be a double-edged sword, to be sure- but the risk is worth taking. We do not censor material, and if the integrity of the site is to be preserved, we will never do so. Let's keep in mind why we're here, and make sure that the uninitiated may understand why as well.--C.Logan (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Arguments about offensiveness etc. aside, there is another argument that doesn't really wash. That is the contention that it's not an accurate reflection of its subject. It's quite clear that we aren't attempting to depict the topic, but rather show how he has been depicted in tradition. The contention raised by myself and others during mediation was that the tradition of depicting Muhammad, while it indeed existed, was itself not highly prevalent in Muslim hagiographic representation or veneration. Thus, to prominently place several depictions is too overt, too flagrant, and unbalanced. It's an overstatement of a relatively minority tradition, and this is where IMO WP:UNDUE comes into play. I have no problem with two depictions (for example) in the article, one in the depictions section, and another which illustrates a significant event like Isra/Mi'raj. To me, that's a balanced representation, and while this issue was debated for months a number of us saw this as the middle way between incendiary picture-spamming and censorship, as well as being based upon sound understanding of policy. Perhaps this perspective can be revisited, and hopefully result in a more stable article in the long run? ITAQALLAH 17:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Zazaban (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

But why would it? Who's turned up asking for only one image to be presented? nobody. It wouldn't solve a thing. --Fredrick day (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's still a good idea regardless of whether it would help in this catastrophe. Zazaban (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick, I think a lot of people feel offended because of how overt it is in the presentation. To be frank, it just looks like it's calculated to offend, and I can understand why many people who may be more 'moderate' would instantly feel provoked when barraged with a string of depictions (which itself is an unbalanced representation). I might also note that many of those who had strongly 'opposed' any sort of images during the mediation were indeed willing to accept images in the article so long as they weren't of the kind of overtness we see now. ITAQALLAH 18:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe Itaqallah has a valid point. I read some comments comparing the depicting of Muhammad with the depicting of Jesus, this is unfair. I believe the depicting of Jesus is a common practice in the Christian history, unlike the depicting of Muhammad in the Islamic history. So putting 3 pictures in the article is an overstatement of the practice. (Imad marie (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

It is not the purpose of the article to adhere to Islamic practice. Even if Muhammad was never depicted by Muslims - which is not the case - it would still have no bearing on the article. Wikipedia is not bound by Muslim law or tradition. TharkunColl (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read what he said, or did you just write a knee-jerk reply? Zazaban (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said it was, TharkunColl. ITAQALLAH 19:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

To be frank, I have to disagree. There is nothing "overt" about the number of images in the article as it stands, and removing one or two to placate special interests will not resolve the issue. Rather, it would only serve to inflame it, since "hey, we got them to back down this far, press harder and they will cave altogether!" Three depictions of Muhammad in an article of that length is adequate, if not under-represented. The goal here is not to reduce the "overtness" of the images, but to bend the will of a secular community to that of a religious belief. And that belief, as presented here, is "remove all images". Disagree strongly with that argument. Resolute 00:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the overtness of the pictures has been discussed and we agreed that the images shouldn't be overt/out-of-place, nor should we include them simply for aesthetic value. Here was the thread, which I think is applicable to this idea of undue weight for nontraditional art; perhaps it will save us time from discussing the same things over. The conversation on this begins at 20:54, 14 January 2008 with me (Rosywounds). -Rosywounds (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice to all those who wish Wikipedia to remove pictures of Muhammad

Please place your requests for Wikipedia to remove pictures of Muhammad in this dedicated page or they may be removed. TharkunColl TharkunColl (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: if this is the page now in use for these particular topics, we may want to change the banner near the top which explains that no changes will be made without discussion on this page.--C.Logan (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

most people are never going to read it - it would actually make more sense for the rest of us to leave this page to the "please remove" crowd and do all of the real work on a sub-page. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, this may be the case if the reaction to the FAQ is any indication.--C.Logan (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this notice to the bottom where I suggest it remains, so that everyone sees it. TharkunColl (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to TharkunColl: I'd reverted your removal of the "a new suggestion" topic, because I feel that this is a topic which is mostly productive and should not be included along with the rest of the "request" posts, which are typically by anonymous or new users with little or no knowledge of Wikipedia policy. As far as I can see, this is not a "request" which would justifiably need to be moved to the new page for such posts- doing so would "drown out" the points raised by Aminz, because I can't help but feel that this new page will be one that is afforded little real attention or concern (though one can't be blamed for this attitude considering the route the discussion has taken).--C.Logan (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

though the images are not yet removed, but i have to thank everyone who took the time to participate in this discussion. Those who are in favor of the removal or not, I thank everyone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 (talk • contribs) 06:48, February 4, 2008 (UTC) (UTC-5)

There is no "yet" my friend. Jmlk17 11:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have moved your page to Talk:Muhammad/images whic is the original title under which we did image discussions. I'm sure you realize what you were doing when you called it "censorship requests" but our goal is to make this a manageable issue that does not clog the talk page, not belittle the people making these requests. gren グレン 17:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

NOTICE about image discussion

Any new sections below this point which rehash the same issues about the images of Muhammad will be moved to Talk:Muhammad/images leaving only the header and a note about this move. Any discussion placed under that header will be summarily removed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a political debate forum so rehashing this issue is detracting from work on the article. Serious sections by established editors will be kept upon consensus.

For an example of how this will be done please see the section below. gren グレン 22:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Image solution

Discussion of the use of images is going on at Talk:Muhammad/images. This section has been moved there and can be found at Talk:Muhammad/images#Image_solution. Any new posts to this section will be removed. gren グレン 22:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A reminder

This talk page is apparently linked in many places on the Internet, due to discussion in many Islamic forums. As a result, there are many people here of sincere faith but who are not Wikipedians and do not understand our policies and the reasons for them. Please be nice to these people. And if you are a person of faith here to argue your case, please do us the courtesy of listening to the reasons for the content policies which are in place. If everybody treats everybody else with respect, even while disagreeing, we may be able to persuade some of our new friends to stay and help counter systemic bias. And if not, at least we will avert another PR disaster. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 23:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User:DragonflySixtyseven

How come you were able to edit the page and add your comment, when the rest of us can't? TharkunColl (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Because I'm an administrator. DS (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • More to the point, we do have a similar disclaimer in our article on the Ba'hai prophet Baha'ullah. Let's be fair. Let's reach a compromise. We're all mature people, yes? DS (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

But if a page is protected, by editing it you are surely breaking the rules? TharkunColl (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, Administrators may edit fully protected pages. Such edits are typically done in an attempt at defusing a situation, which this one was, or in accordance to consensus reached via discussion on talk pages. And before you ask, consensus currently is that the images stay. Resolute 01:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The addition is certainly good. Maybe we should wikify the uncovered face part so that it becomes blue and becomes more noticeable. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. To what would you suggest it be linked? DS (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. What about this: Just a suggestion.

There are two artworks by Muslim artists which portray the face of Muhammad uncovered further down in this article.

Regards, --Be happy!! (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think the disclaimer is a bit wordy. I would suggest "This article contains images of artwork portraying the face of Muhammad. These images are used for historical context." I think saying "respectfully" sounds a bit like pandering, but that's just an opinion.Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe I suggested this idea before and someone told me disclaimers are not allowed on Wikipedia and should be removed if they are noticed. Perhaps they were misleading me, but that was the response I received. -Rosywounds (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a disclaimer. Is it? It seems to be a simple note.--Be happy!! (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly knowledgeable in rules over this, but here is the thread on it. This was the response I received:

...I do not know whether or not it is a violation of censorship policy, but perhaps we could include a warning of these images at the top of the page on Muhammad? -Rosywounds // We can't include a disclaimer at the top of the article - Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. The article is already covered by Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, which says Some articles may contain names, images, artworks or descriptions of events that some cultures restrict access to and Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. --Hut 8.5

Perhaps the responder was mistaken, also. I don't know. -Rosywounds (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Jmlk17 has bolded the note, so it is clear now. I appreciate addition of this note greatly. If someone gets offended by the images can know about this and avoid reading the article. Great! I have personally no more objection to this. Thank you very much. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So do we now put disclaimers on all articles that contain images some might find offensive, e.g. group sex, vulva, penis? Pairadox (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have written about the distinction above (e.g. those who get offended by those are unlikely to visit those articles etc). We will discuss the issue if it comes up. Since it hasn't come up yet, it is unlikely to come up in the future (i.e. a huge number of people who get offended by pornography decide to visit a related article and start complaining)--Be happy!! (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems as if it is the best temporary solution for the time being at least... Jmlk17 02:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If you go to the article on "penis", you expect to see a picture of a penis. However, many Muslims would not expect to see a picture of Muhammad in the article about Muhammad. That's the difference. DS (talk) 02:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I am unhappy with how much of this current brouhaha has been handled, so I've made an informal complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Heavy-handed admin behavior at Muhammad, if anyone's interested.—Chowbok ☠ 02:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, Talk:Muhammad/FAQ has been deleted. I have recreated it, but I suspect that it will be deleted again quite swiftly. Zazaban (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

As I've recommended in the Talk: Muhammad/images, take the images dispute to Wikipedia: Arbitration and get a ruling. I'm neither for 'or' against the images being kept. I'm more concerned about this article becoming a 'Holy War' site. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The Committee wouldn't accept a content dispute that has no conduct elements for them to decide. They don't make content decisions or set policy, so they couldn't really help here at the moment. ^Avruchtalk 02:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the consensus on this article concerning the images? Keep or Delete? GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's keep. It's always been keep, but a large number of people who have never used wikipedia before have swarmed this page because of [www.thepetitionsite.com this] Zazaban (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The best course of action here may be to start an RFC somewhere on the images. Arbitration would be premature before other methods of content dispute resolution are attempted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that will help. Most of these people have never used wikipedia before and will not know about that. Zazaban (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I still recommend trying ArbCom. If they reject the case, then start blocking editors who go against the consensus (if 3 blocks fail to get the message across? a lifetime ban for the editor should be invoked). GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and there is no policy reason to block an editor for arguing for or against these images in a talk page, especially when everyone has remained civil. The article is fully protected, and likely will be indefinitely, so there is no edit war to stop either. Resolute 02:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant the reverters, not the arguers. Those who keep their disputes to the discussion pages are acceptable. It's those who revert against the consensus, who need reigning in. GoodDay (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's frustrating for innocent editors out there, who have to content with a 'locked' article. GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a real shame too, I can see this being fully protected for more than a month, even a year. Zazaban (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)