Talk:Muhammad/images

Options to hide an image

If you wish to discuss the inclusion or removal of images of Muhammad in the Wikipedia article Muhammad, please do so on this page. Previous discussion of this matter can be found at the FAQ and in the archives here, here, and here.

Please be aware that this is not a vote, and not a petition. Simply repeating the same demand that others have made is not likely to have any effect on Wikipedia.

If you would like to prevent your web browser from displaying any images in the Muhammad article, see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ.

Please do not start new headers. Check if what you want to say has been said before. If you have something more to add please reply within the appropriate section to preserve some measure of sanity in this talk page --DB0 (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for Removal

Freedom is very important, but should not be abused, something look right to us however may not be to others. As we can read from other posting, freedom, freedom, and freedom. If the pictures are removed they offend no one whereas if they are kept they offend many. Isn't it better to unoffend everyone? Different people, different cultures have different needs and freedom means to respect them. This is true freedom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanaan (talk • contribs) 02:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As a secularist, I can only be offended when scholarship is obstructed as a concession to religion. My god, Ceiling Cat, would not allow me to rest if this concession were made. -jsnx (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Pork is 'haraam' aka prohibited in Islam as well. So should the rest of the world stop eating pork so that they don't offend Muslims? You need to learn to deal with this issue just the same. No one will be offended if all the Muslims in the world decide to abandon Wikipedia.

Why are Muslims whining about these pictures, they are part of their heritage and they can do nothing but complain and say those pictures are not "accurate". These pictures are all over the internet, in books, and all sort of literature. Why are these Muslims here @ WP? Why come to a site that offends them? What do they hide under those burkas? What are they so afraid of that everything has to be offensive and banned? Where do "THEY" draw the line, if "WE" don't?

Goto a nice Islamic site that adheres to your rules and philosophy. Abandon all hope in forcing people who do not want your way of life or your whining of offensiveness. No one gave you the right to NOT be offended.

I think Islam focuses too much on "PRIDE" and "DOMINATION" and not enough on "HUMBLENESS" and "UNDERSTANDING". Too much pride, alone, is deadly to any race/religion as history has shown and will soon be repeated again and again, unfortunately. Guess this will be removed. A Muslim was offended.

Can you imagine at the end of movie credits, "No Muslims were offended during the creation of this film!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xman1001 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You must delete the photos, why can people add these kind of pictures but we cannot move them? where is the wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.20.209 (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We must do nothing merely because you say so. Wikipedia is a source of knowledge, including knowledge which you may find offensive. You may not remove images because such an action to limit access to information is contrary to the very purpose of Wikipedia. Thelatinist (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an Islamic institution in any way or form and is not subject to Islamic law. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the image stays. That being said, let's flip it around a bit for a different perspective: I personally am offended by many aspects of Islam, particularly capital punishment and gender-discrimination imposed by Sharia law. What if I were to demand that Sharia law be wiped out of Islamic society and culture? You'd probably think that I would be out of line, right? Karl23 (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

People should be allowed to add/delete/modify content (not abuse) on wikipedia. What does wikipedia do when 10 people think they can write about a subject which requires expertise, say laser technology, when they do not understand any concept about it, while there are 1 billion people willing to make corrections (modify) and increase the effectiveness of the article? Even if you don't want to give more power to a user, such as Islamic Scholar, and keep power of all users same, the why can't I edit the article? Who is to say that the person you modified the article is more of an expert then me? I want my right of FREEDOM to modify the content on this page (be it adding more pictures, deleting, editing text anything...)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpioz (talk • contribs) 06:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not allowed by Islam

PLEASE REMOVE ALL THE PICTURES OF MUHAMMAD(PBUH). ISLAM DOESN'T ALLOW THIS THANKS It is simply unacceptable for a Muslim to let anyone draw and publish images of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). By publishing the hand drawn images of our Prophet on Wikipedia, you are humiliating 1.7 Billion Muslims in the world. No law in the whole world allow you to humiliate the feelings of even a single person. So please remove these images to stop humiliating all the Muslims across the world. Zamirza (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

By demanding to remove images those you find offending, you are humiliating entire Western World, that is offended by any attempts to suppress free speech and prevent knowledge from distribution. Just do not read Wikipedia if you find it offending, but you have no moral rights to demand any withdrawal of pieces of art or any pieces of knowledge unless they incite hatred and intolerance. Learn to respect other cultures before you demand that yours must be respected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.172.29.1 (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because your religion has a crazy rule about pictures of people does not give you the right to censor others. It is not humiliating to allow others to see pictures you don't like. To claim it is simply shows you don't understand the definition. I can just as easily state that it would be humiliating to all non-muslims to give them special treatment, just because they act like babies and cry about things they don't like. 147.202.23.71 (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The images appear to have been created by Muslims, not by those of other faiths (or none) seeking to offend you. In addition to all the other valid arguments advanced here, I do not see why Wikipedia should choose sides in what is an internal Muslim debate. The fact that you take offense is regrettable but insufficient. The only information guaranteed not to offend anyone at all, anywhere, is a blank page. Pdenhaan (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2008 (GMT)

Just here to say that will not prevent offending people... I would be offended by a blank page, as I would be offended to see the images taken down. rmosler (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm offended that you want to take it down. You are trying to remove free speech, and that offends me. However, who is to say I'm right, or that you are right? No one. This isn't even an issue. I might take offense to pornographic sites, so, I DON'T GO TO THEM. It's that easy. That's what makes this such a non-issue. Laytonsmith14 (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The humiliating thing here is that Muslims care what non-Muslims do. It's one thing to try and convert us, but you don't see any Catholics obsessing about non-catholics not confessing to catholic priests or something dumb like that. They realize, and you should too, that you can't control other people. Also, "No law in the whole world allow you to humiliate the feelings of even a single person."??? This not only makes little grammatical sense, any way I parse it makes no practical sense either. There are no laws that operate over the entire world, and there are laws that specifically allow you to humiliate people under some legal systems. Look up "parody" as it relates to copyright law, for example. So, yes, you are allowed to humiliate people. However, Wikipedia has not humiliated you, you did that to yourself. As a final note, I will exercise my right to humiliate you. Imagine a mockingly high-pitched voice here: "Meeh! I'm Zamirza! I whine a lot about stuff that non-Muslims don't care about!! Waaah!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.223.203 (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"you are humiliating 1.7 Billion Muslims in the world" - Yeah. now that over 100,000 muslims signed a petition to remove the image and made it a 'hot' news item, its a self inflicted humiliation. Respect is earned. And these incidents are not helping to get any. Muslims are finding it hard to fit in the new world and they feel that its everybody else's fault. I cant blame all Muslims but the percentage of radicals and fanatics in the Muslim religion is way higher than any other organized religion or group. The moderate Muslims are not stepping up to counter them either. That worries me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.170.194 (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To "let" anyone? Trust me. You are not "letting" anyone post anything. Wikipedia is a secular site and not governed by Islamic law or guidelines. Period. --Mhking (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just put a disclaimer that these pictures are not original or are not copies of any original and simply imagination of some artists who possibly could not have any knowledge of details about Muhammad's figure and complexion.

See, even though Muhammad did not let any of his image be drawn or survived is because he never wanted to become an object or worship in the way Jesus became (though with the imaginery pictures). Muslims should understand that some these pictures were drawn during the Muslim rules and survived many years during muslim rules. If they could understand these as just imaginery things, contemporary Muslims should also accept that. Besides Wikipedia did not produce something derogatory or blasphamous, merely reproduced from historical sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.150.230 (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To suggest that Christians worship Christ as an idol is just about the most offensive thing you could say and clearly demonstrates ignorance of Christian doctrine and the concept of the Trinity. By the arguments being presented here I should delete your comments (it would be very easy). However, that would be against the vandalism policy, just like deleting the pictures in question violate WP policies. Islamic law is not WP policy. Furthermore, I hope you ttake a minute to consider how offensive your comment was to Christians, a direct insult to the core of our religion, and how minor leaving this pictures here is compared to that. Nobody is accusing muslims of idolatry.BlearySpecs (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact he did not say that Christ is worshipped "as an idol," and it is not offensive in the least to me, a Christian, since I do worship Christ as God. You are the one who demonstrates an ignorance of Christian doctrine and the Holy Trinity. Jesus Christ is fully divine and fully human, as the Son of God, he is also God himself and fully deserving of worship and adoration. Muhammad, however, is considered a human prophet, much the same as Daniel, Isaiah or Moses; therefore as a mortal human it is improper to worship or idolize him as God. Elizium23 (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Terribly sorry, but it is "simply unacceptable" for citizens of any free Western democracy to allow Muslims (or any other religious sect) to dictate what we do. Publishing the images is NOT "humiliating 1.7 Billion Muslims" -- the vast majority of whom will never even visit this page, and many of whom can't because they live in oppressive religious dictatorships that won't allow them full, uncensored access to the Internet. No law in our world requires non-Muslims to cater to the delicate sensibilities of Muslims, so with all due respect, get over it. The pictures aren't leaving, whether you like it or not. FireHorse (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"oppressive religious dictatorships" is off topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.22.190 (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiPedia should not interpret Islamic law

The second paragraph of Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#"But doesn't this offend Muslims?" appears to be interpreting religious texts. This does not appear to conform to WikiPedia's Neutral Point of View, which (to my understanding) purposefully avoids such behavior. Think of this from Islam's perspective; an encyclopedia has no right to judge what is or is not mandated by religion. Rather, an encyclopedia reports neutral facts from reliable sources. I would argue that this is "original research," especially given its lack of a citation. Adam KatzΔtalk 19:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, I believe this is actually pretty easily citable from press coverage surrounding this brew-ha-ha. I can try and dig it up. WilyD 19:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You've picked out a less significant portion of my argument. The point is that WikiPedia cannot construct an argument using an interpretation of a religious law while also stating that the site's policies dictate ignoring that law. Do not justify it within Islamic parameters; all that does is upset people. Justify it by referencing the portion(s) of WP:NPOV that prohibit bias towards (or against) religion. The fact that this interpretation is also controversial only makes things look worse, and the lack of citation is icing on the cake, since the last thing WikiPedia wants it to look like it is telling religious leaders how to interpret their own religion. -- Adam KatzΔtalk 22:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV only applies to article content anyways - not policies, talk pages or the like. For what it's worth, NPOV is not NPOV - ironic, perhaps, but there it is. WilyD 12:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hurt Feelings

please remove the pics of Muhammad as it greatly hearts the feelings of Muslims. There is a petition signed by thousands of peoples for removal of these pics http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia

We've seen it... petitions like that have no bearing around here. Jmlk17 22:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note the text of this petition: "In Islam picture of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and other Humans are not allowed. ... I request all brothers and sisters to sign this petitions so we can tell Wikipedia to respect the religion and remove the illustrations." It seems the request is to take all pictures of humans - not just Muhammad - off Wikipedia? - Brian Kendig (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesnt matters while the wikipedia is muslim site or not but the thing is it must not hurt any other feelings because they dont have any right of violating the principles of other religion, no Ifs no buts these pictures must be removed immediately because pictures give us an illusions of the personality in our minds. You cannot prove that these pictures are even near to original , so you dont have any right to put fake things publically, Its a humble request that it should be removed immediately to stop any tensions which can bulid up in near future. No Ifs no Buts you are breaking a law, and you must be guilty.

I'm sorry but is that a threat? Wikipedia is not a Muslim institution. Sharia law has no authority over the type of content Wikipedia should or should not include. Fsjonsey (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Our right to violate the principles of any religion is guaranteed by international law and the law of the State of Florida. -jsnx (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

these pictures are not true and should be removed.there is no source in this world who has true picture of Prophet Mohammed(PBUH)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.48.187 (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And this is justifies the removal of the images how?Fsjonsey (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of people depict Jesus, an important religious figure in Christianity, and no one has a picture of him, or even know if he existed. I don't see any Christians complaining... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.62.117.130 (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a petition to sign if you disagree with this lunacy. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/remove-the-petition-to-remove-the-illustrations-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia Please Wikipedia, never be censored! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apsartame (talk • contribs) 02:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Signed it. -jsnx (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I stonngly condemn the images present on the page. You seem to be hell bent in hurting the sentiments of a large population of this world. May better sense prevail upon you

No you hurt yourselves, if you don't like the pictures then don't look. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 08:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am very Old Lover of Wikipedia, but article like this one make me sad... Though you know that it is hurting sentiments of many i dont understand why still you want it, removing 2 image files (illustration) would be great.... Thanks 139.149.1.232 (talk) Moazzam Daimi 139.149.1.232 (talk) 139.149.1.232 (talk) Moazzam.Daimi@GMail.com 139.149.1.232 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Give up. It's not going to be changed, that much is obvious. It's not going to be changed because this is (hopefully) a pure source of knowledge, as opposed to something that pander's to everyone's opinion. Do you think we should get rid of the article on Jesus suggesting he was the son of god because you don't agree with it? Or should we remove the article on the Torah because the Bible says 'you shall have no god but me', or even, shall we remove all pictures of women not wearing burkas because they are not meant to be seen? This sort of censorship is bad for people, and it shouldn't be allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.247.80 (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil and don't tell users to "give it up". Most don't know policy and should have it kindly explained to them. gren グレン 23:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern for civility, but I think it should be obvious that if they are all the way down here in the thread, they really don't want to "have it kindly explained to them." They know what's up. They just want to have it their way. Or else. Vanderleun —Preceding comment was added at 23:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, even "all the way down here", each protester has remained polite and respectful. It is only fair to reply with the same level of respect. We can inform each user that our policies forbid this with the same level of respect. Resolute 00:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

my freind, I restate, if u missed it b4. This is not just any page, we can't avoid the page alltogether (like pornsites) because it contains other, very useful information, compiled and brought together from a wide array of souces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.78.226.118 (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of any requirement that you need to view the Muhammad article, however. The content disclaimer states that objectionable material exists on this project. Knowing that this article contains content you find objectionable, you also have the options of accepting it and ignoring it, or avoiding this article in favour of less contentious material. Resolute 01:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

...we can't avoid the page alltogether [sic] You may not wish to avoid wikipedia altogether because of this one article, but you certainly may treat it just as you would a porn site. Or, alternatively, you may wish to simply avoid this article...I suspect you already practice avoidance of certain areas of wikipedia (this is an assumption on my part, but given your stated aversion to porn sites, I doubt that it would take very long to find several articles that contain content offensive to you.) A third option: you may disable display of the images if they are offensive to you, so you need not even avoid this article in particular. In any case, it's clear to me that you value wikipedia, and I would argue that the policies that allow display of these images contribute greatly to the very aspects of the site that you value so much. Severoon (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Creating Unrest

Please remove the images. There are so many things censored by wikipedia already for instance, wikipedia agrees to US FED and calls conspiracy "conspiracy" not the "truth". So, why you should create unrest in 1.7 billion population of this world ? Wikipedia please remove it.

I think the significant thing here is that the images of the prophet Muhammed are described as "depictions" and therefore reflect one person's (or possibly a group's) interpretation of Muhammed's image. While the images may well not be an accurate likeness there's little doubt that the images on Wikipedia are duplicates of real documents - i.e. while the image itself may not be true to life, the image itself definitely does exist - and Wikipedia is simply duplicating the image for historical / research reasons. On that basis, I'd say that there's little distinction between references to "conspiracy theories" on the one hand and "depictions" of real-life events on the other: conspiracies can be embellished, and so can drawings. As a case in point, the article on the Roswell UFO incident includes a copy of the front cover of The Roswell Daily Record claiming "RAAF captures flying saucer on ranch in Roswell region." The image caption makes no suggestion that the "UFO" capture is a conspiracy theory, or that the report was refuted by officials. However, the image is included on the Wikipedia page none the less. Obviously there's little chance that the Roswell image I mention would cause offense, but your argument for removal of the images of Muhammed doesn't directly address that issue, so neither have I. Dolph (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very useful website of this new millenium, It has risen with the confidence of almost everybody. I hope they will keep the confidence of muslims on wikipedia now.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.96.66.197 (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You insist Wikipedia already censors things -- please point to one. --Mhking (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What about people like myself who find it insutling that you would try to force your will on us in this manner? I am quite sure there are many who feel insulted by the very existence of the petition, yet we realize we must live with it. You should do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jspugh (talk • contribs) 20:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

To Mhking: See the Loose Change (Video) article. Wikipedia says its by conspirators. While the US FED call them conspirators, so wikipedia is biased to US FED and working in favor of a group and against another group. Could you be disputing the neutrality of that article now ? Also, if you could and you are done, let me know I will give you plenty others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.96.66.197 (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't pointed out what part of the Loose Change article is censored. The article describes the claims of the film and also describes criticisms of the film. Censorship would be if it intentionally failed to do either. StellyWelly (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Loose Change is a video based on almost no fact, made by two teenagers in a basement. I would hardly call that "truth" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.174.129 (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Depressing Comments

It is more depressing in wikipedia to read that Picture will not be Removed .Though there may be some Consensus but that does mean that on those articles where Consensus has been Reached there cant be any Change.It seems frankly an Organized propganda of Editors to

• To harass Muslims when they Constitute a good concentration of WIKIPEDIAN editors and Readers .

• To hurt their feelings in the name of Consensus by inserting someone else Picture with the name of Prophet S.A.W

• To show arbitrariness on wiki by writing that PIC will not be removed What does that mean?

• It shows finally wikipedia a tool to harass Muslims in the name of freedom of Expression.

• I fear that this arbitrary Step of wikipedians to not allow the removal of Pic may Lead to Confusion and Unrest in the Muslim world.Shabiha ^(t 16:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not another conspiracy theory... Zazaban (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Depressing comments indeed. The quality of the arguments to remove pictures surely has to improve soon? •CHILLDOUBT• 17:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How is it "harrassment"? Nobody has to come here. If you go to a restaurant and you don't like the food, are they "harrassing" you by serving you food you don't like?—Chowbok ☠ 17:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I honestly think my earlier suggestion has merit - leave this page to the "please remove" crowd and do all of the discussion about the article on a sub-page". --Fredrick day (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"I fear that this arbitrary Step of wikipedians to not allow the removal of Pic may Lead to Confusion and Unrest in the Muslim world." Is this a threat of violence? Because it sounds suspiciously like one. TharkunColl (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

When isn't there unrest in the Muslim world?—Chowbok ☠ 17:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take your propaganda aside and let us discuss. Get some treatment from this person.--Builder w (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that Zakir Naik would be the best choice. On a side note, Shabiha's comments are possibly the utter low point in all of the discussion I have seen on the matter. Simply reading it causes much exasperation.--C.Logan (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Your reaction is troubling. You have to understand, that we dont care about your theism. This is a fact-based endevour, not a worthless collection of opinion.

70.178.97.83 (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that Anonymous IP is wrong here; we do care about this theism, and this opinion, and that's we have an article on it. --Wikinterpreter (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is so sadly true. Do a Google search on words like Wikipedia, Muhammad, and pictures, etc, and it turns out that there are already countless hate sites out there spewing filth against this article (and this is no doubt where all the trolls have been coming from lately). What they perhaps don't realise is that freedom of speech far more sacred to those of us who grew up in a free society than adherence to any religious dogma can ever be. TharkunColl (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, reminds me of the Cartoon Wars episode of South Park...

SOMEBODY MUST PROTECT THIS ARTICLE. IT'S AOUT ISLAM!!! SO, A MUSLIM SHOULD GET HOLD OF IT!!! LET US EXPLAIN OUR SACRED RELIGION, NOT THE ON-BELIEVERS!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmf5590 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a secular site, not religious. No one has a specific "right" to edit or not edit. Period. --Mhking (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating pages. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the wording is accurate, etc. We expect everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. How many times have you read something and thought, "Why aren't these pages copy-edited?" Wikipedia not only allows you to add to, revise, and edit the article — it wants you to do it. It does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You will see.

Also, of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally. They, like all of us, just want to make Wikipedia as good as it can possibly be.

Taken from WP:BOLD Guinness (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be reminded that no editor, religion or community owns an article. Editing articles related to Islam is not a right reserved to Muslims. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

An imaginary image should only be added to an article if the image has wide acceptance as a reasonable representation of the subject

The FAQ page on this subject tries to refute the argument that the Muhammad (Sm.) images are false by comparing it with other pages like Homer, and Jesus. First of all, that's not a logic, that's an analogy and secondly, it is a very incorrect analogy indeed. It is a fact that Muhammad did not have any photograph or any painting drawn by any person that actually met him. This is probably the same case as Homer or Jesus. So no currently available image of Homer, Jesus or Muhammad can give a reasonable representation of the subject person. Saying so, the images of Homer or Jesus used on their respective Wikipedia articles have been regarded as the "mainstream" view of their resemblance by many scholarly and/or popular sources. So these images, statues, etc. though probably have little practical value of exactly depicting the subject, have attained a symbolic value of representing the subject in the mind of modern people. This symbolic value may justify their inclusion in the articles on these subjects. However, this symbolic value is exactly what the images on Muhammad’s article lack. The images used in Muhammad page have seldom been used by any scholarly or popular source as the mainstream view of his resemblance. These are isolated imaginary paintings arbitrarily labeled as "Muhammad", which have never ever received any acceptance as his representation (outside Wikipedia). So, these pictures have no more information value as to depicting Muhammad than a stick-man image that I can draw and label as Homer or Jesus. The fact that these images are old definitely increases their antique value and make them precious collection items for museums, but does not increase their value as a media portraying the subject. The "Fact" with respect to Muhammad's physical depiction is: Since Muhammad strongly discouraged portrayal of living things (including himself) his contemporaries never tried to portray him, or such paintings don't exist. However, throghout history there has been isolated attempts to paint him by both muslim and non-muslim sources, but such imgaes never got widespread acceptance as reasonable representation of Muhammad. And because of this fact, respected encyclopedias like Britannica or Encarta have never used any arbitary image drawn by some historical person on their articles on Prophet Muhammad. By posting these images on the article and locking it permanently, a handful of Wikipedia admins are trying to distort this fact, and trying to give these images some sort of "recognition" of importance as the available pictoral depiction of Muhammad. Wikipedia's task is to establish and present the facts, not to give some arbitary imaginary paintings new value/recognition that it never received before, no matter how old these images be.

The request here is not to abide by any Islamic law, or censor any image/article. The request here is to stop distorting a long established fact that there is no acceptable pictoral depiction of Muhammad, because distorting fact goes against the fundamental value of any scholarly work. The request is to the Wikipedia admins to follow the tradition of majority of scholarly sources of not including such images while discussing life of Muhammad, than going its own way and setting a precedence not acceptable to a high number of people. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its goal is to present facts as they are, not starting new trends. Arman ^(Talk) 01:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If they are false images then why are so many Muslims angry about them? Zakneifien (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

People (Muslims) are getting concerned because Wikipedia is powerful. Wikipedia has the power to make a false look like a truth. Arman ^(Talk) 02:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Then by all means, add a paragraph about Muhammad not having any accurate depiction in art. But the images are historical depictions. rmosler (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So you can't see any difference in notability between a doodle that you yourself could draw right now and the illustrations of the famous Jami al-Tawarikh? Excuse me, but this strikes me as breathtaking arrogance. You are trying hard to belittle them as merely "old" and to ridicule them as collector's items; this is in stark contrast with this scholarly assessment of the University of Edinburgh for example, which calls those miniatures "extremely important in the relationship of western and eastern schools of art". Similar arguments can be made for the other images.

Your criticism of the FAQ is based on straw man arguments and unfounded claims: That section of the FAQ makes it clear from the beginning that those images are not accurate representations of the exterior of the person in question, so why are you still harping on this point? The FAQ talks about "significant" images, it does not claim that the illustrations in Homer and Jesus represent the "mainstream" view of their resemblance; this is your own description instead and it is unfounded - how is Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Homer and his Guide (1874).jpg *the* mainstream view of Homer's appearance? Or take Image:Oakland Temple statue of Jesus in the visitors center.jpg in the Jesus article: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints certainly does not even represent the mainstream within Christianity, much less a general mainstream. And you conveniently omit the example Charlemagne in the FAQ, where your reasoning fails completely - as it would for Confucius, Gautama Buddha or Plato, all of which contain portraits which, while being notable enough as an artistic view (among others) to be included in an encyclopedia article about the subject, cannot be regarded as the "mainstream" view of their resemblance at all.

The request here is not to abide by any Islamic law, or censor any image/article. - I appreciate the difference in style and content between your arguments and the comments of many new editors which seem to be motivated by Islamic law indeed. However, as noted above, it could be asked why you, as a Muslim, apply this reasoning to this article exclusively and not to many others which are similarly illustrated. And demanding "widespread acceptance" in this case amounts to demanding acceptance by today's mainstream Islam, so in the end it is not far from demanding compliance to Islamic law.

Regards, High on a tree (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for elucidating on the arguments so generally touched upon in the FAQ. I agree, here.--C.Logan (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply to the comments coming from high on a tree:
Please let me clarify that I am not comparing my drawing with the drawings on Muhammad’s article in terms of quality, or historical significance; I am only saying they are comparable in terms of their relevance in illustrating the subject. Of course those images are important and have their place on Wikipedia. They can be good examples of historical works of Art. They are even quite relevant for the article on Depiction of Muhammad, because they indeed are early attempts to draw Muhammad. But they should not be placed on the article on Muhammad because historically they have totally failed to establish their value as a representative illustration of Muhammad.

Why is Muhammad’s case so unique that it has to be different from that of Homer, Jesus, or Buddha? It is simply because unlike all the others mentioned, it is a historically recorded fact that Muhammad forbid drawing living objects (especially himself). And because of this explicit prohibition, Muhammad’s followers as well as non-muslim scholars while researching on Muhammad have not recognized these images as an acceptable representation of the person. When I say, the images of Homer or Jesus are the mainstream view of the resemblance of these subjects, what I mean is these are iconic images that have helped serve as the representation of these people. Your example of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does represent a group of people who have used those specific images of Jesus as a faithful representation of the person. I may be wrong, they may not be mainstream, but there is still a group that believed those images are good representation of Jesus. If the number of people believing they are good representation of Muhammad is absolutely minimum, then those images have no place in Jesus’s article either. The point that I am trying to establish is, when we add an imaginary painting to a biography, it should meet a minimum test: does a significant number of people believe this is the available representative depiction of the person? Or in more “Wikipedia-like” words, can it be shown that independent reliable third party sources have reproduced these images or their likeness as a means to depict the subject in question. This is the test that Muhammad’s images fail. The references that you are providing, or has been provided in the article, include, University of Edinburgh and Ali, Wijdan. Both these scholalrly sources analyze these images as a part of analysis of histrory of art, not as part of their commentry on Muhammad. When it came to discussion of Muhammad, all respectable scholarly sources (including mainstream encyclopedias) have refrained from reproducing these images, because no matter how valuable they be in the study of art history, these images have not recieved any notable acceptance as good representation of Muhammad. Furthermore, by refraining from inserting these paintings in their respective articles, all these scholarly sources have tried to respect the fact that there is no widely accepted pictoral depiction of Muhammad. By going against this tradition, Wikipedia (or more specifically a handful of editors from Wikipedia, who have decided to establish censorship – in terms of limiting people’s edit right on article) is distorting the long established fact, trying to establish these handful of images as the “best available pictoral depiction of Muhammad”, which they are not, and perhaps least importantly have offended millions of people.

So, what I am proposing is, if Wikipedia’s task is to faithfully reproduce facts and information as they are available in scholarly sources, then these images should be removed from Muhammad article, placed on other relevant articles, where they are appropriate (Depiction of Muhammad for example), and on the article on Muhammad can mention:

As in absence of any widely accepted images of Muhammad most notable scholarly discussion on Muhammad have refrained from using any image to portray him, Wikipedia continues to follow the tradition. However, there are historical evidence that many sources have tried to prortray the subject, but never got widespread acceptance as reasonable representation of Muhammad. If you are interested in such images, please refer to Depiction of Muhammad.

This is not a request to compromise, or impose cencorship; neither is this Islamic law – this is simply a request to follow the scholalry tradition and stick to the facts, refraining from misrepresentation, which not only goes against Wikipedia values, but also destroys its credibility and acceptibility to millions of people. Arman ^(Talk) 10:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I support this suggestion -- it reflects current scholarship, doesn't censor the images but puts them on an appropriate page (Depiction of Muhammad linked to from the Muhammad page. I understand the negative reaction (but not when they lack civility which is rampant) to arguments that Sharia law should dictate inclusion but Arman isn't arguing that. The inclusion of the images on the page contradicts and distorts the historical representation of Muhammad but are an important part of art history, they are invaluable and should be included in the Depiction of Muhammad article. A rough analogy can be made to the article on the atom; why doesn't it include an image of the inconic representation of the atom: a solar system like configuration of electrons and protons/neutrons? Because it is a false representation and has no business being included but may, in fact, have value in a fork of the historical representation. Another rough analogy would be the inclusion of the Piss Christ on the page for Jesus as if it was an appropriate inclusion. I would not want the image censored but would argue that it is not appropriate within the context of the theological and historical discussion of Jesus but deserves to be in its own article. Please don't accuse me of making a strawman arguments -- that presumes bad faith on my part. If you disagree, argue the differences.

This isn't a matter of censorship -- Arman isn't arguing for its exclusion from Wikipedia. It's a matter of scholarship: move the images (and link to them) to the appropriate page. However, this is one of the (rare) times when consensus, combining an admirable desire to protect free expression with some undercurrent (not from most) of animus to Islam (read some of the comments), works against a scholarly conclusion. Consensus as practiced in Wikipedia, as a rule, gravitates towards scholarship. But where emotions (and, at times, prejudices) are strong, it sometimes fails. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

As this is largely directed towards another user (and I am not completely familiar with where he intends to take the argument, I will offer a short comment on the issue. There is quite simply nothing in policy which reflects the concern which you are emphasizing. Again, the images are historically relevant, and they are an attempt to depict the subject. There is no prohibition against the inclusion of "non-mainstream" or "non-iconic" representations of the subject as long as the other qualifications are considered; at that point, it is merely up to community consensus whether or not the images have a place in the article (undue weight is a concern, but this issue is already being discussed by the involved editors in regards to this article). As it should be apparent, consensus is currently that they remain.--C.Logan (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to ask this same question again and again, as I am not getting the clear reponse from anywhere, who reached this consensus? Where is the discussion that lead to this so called consensus? Even if there was a discussion, which might have reached some conclusion in the past (need to be identified first), why cannot the community challange that old decision, especially in light of the significantly increased attention on the subject? Wikipedia, is supposed to be the most flexible, updatable, open encyclopedia, why on this partcular topic it is so stubbornly rigid? And if I may, in your dictionary what is the meaning of the word "Consensus"? Arman ^(Talk) 11:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the rigidity of the subject is due to the topic of censorship, a concept to which the encyclopedia itself is strongly opposed. There is also the factor of a barrage of inexperienced/unfamiliar users coming to the page simply to remove content or make requests in ignorance to policies and guidelines.

Consensus is an agreement reached by the community in general, and is based upon editor judgment in light of policies and guidelines. As it is, the current consensus on the issue was reached somewhere around a year ago and has been preserved since by all the major editors involved. Consensus can certainly change, but given the nature of this discussion and the persistent lack of any serious challenge to the decision (i.e. any response which takes fully into account Wikipedia's process, founding principles and policies), little change has occurred since the original consensus was reached on the issue.

To familiarize yourself with the discussion, just look through the archives (be prepared to do so for quite some time, because there's a bit). I'll see if I can turn up any specific links or find you a response from an individual who was directly involved in the discussion.

Proposals are welcome so long as they take into account policies and guidelines. Otherwise, such posts are likely to be disregarded along with the dozens of other misinformed requests that clog up the page and prevent the actual discussion of meaningful improvements to the article. There are users currently challenging the consensus decision, but they are proposing a compromise rather than capitulation- the removal of the images is unanimously considered to be out of the question as far as I can see, but many alternative proposals (disclaimers, positioning, hide/show image tags) have been proposed.--C.Logan (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, whoever decided the so called "Consensus" one year back, has no right to call it a consensus anymore, because there is clearly a strong contrary opinion to this decision. Wikipedia is supposed to be an open and free content media. Temporary restrictions on an article to prevent repeated vandalism is understandable, but taking a decision on a debatable issue and labeling it as "consensus" in an effort to put it above questioning is not acceptable. This issue needs to be reopened and reexamined by senior most admins/bureaucrats on Wikipedia. Admins, who can look beyond the words of policy and see the spirit of it, admins who understand that Wikipedia has no right to misrepresent a subject - if for some reason that's not covered by policy yet the policy needs to be changed, admins who understand the meaning of words like "censorship", "free speech" etc.

And for the record, I have not received any satisfactory response to my arguments yet. Arman ^(Talk) 16:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

senior most admins/bureaucrats on Wikipedia. Admins, who can look beyond the words of policy and see the spirit of it, admins who understand that Wikipedia has no right to misrepresent a subject - if for some reason that's not covered by policy yet the policy needs to be changed, admins who understand the meaning of words like "censorship", "free speech" etc. it's an inappropriate matter for admins to decide for the community what should happen - in a case like this, it is for the admins to enforce the consensus decided upon by the community not impose it. And what you mean by "admins who understand" seems to be "admins who agree with me". I suggest if you want to see where conensus currently stands on this, you take it to the village pump and make a proposal, anything else is hot air. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not sure of the circumstances one year back, but as of now the consensus is to retain these images on Article Muhammad - is a false statement. As of now there is no consensus. If as next step this has to go to the village pump, that's where it is going to go. I posted these points on this page to make sure that I try to present this in the article discussion first. Arman ^(Talk) 04:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what talk page you've been reading, but the consensus is that the images remain per Wiki policy. The debate is over how to express this to the community that is not aware of Wiki policies and just seeing this article for the first time. --Veritas (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The page on Consensus policy states, Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly. The decision of retaining the article on Muhammad effectively violates first 3 of the 5 Foundation issues:

1. The decision of image inclusion deviates from the practice of mainstream encyclopedias and scholarly work on the subject. Hence it cannot be regarded as NPOV.
2. This decision effectively makes the article on Muhammad a parmanently restricted article disallowing ability of anyone to ever edit articles without registering.
3. The "wiki process" as the decision mechanism on content, as of now is ineffective. The admins who have made this decisions are effectively trying to say "We have made the decision, now live with it", limiting people's right to challange / debate / discuss the issue. Even when I am trying to argue within the context of Wikipedia policy, instead of responding to me logically, I am being told that my arguments are "hot air" because the so called "consensus" has already been made.

In view of this, the consensus on this topic needs to be revisited. Arman ^(Talk) 05:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is laughable. You actually expect that consensus will ever turn against WP:CENSOR? --Veritas (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream encyclopedias do not have articles on seasons of television shows or sports teams either. Nor on plane crashes, random weather events or other news stories. WP:NPOV does not forbid practices that other encyclopedias do not use.

The need for permanent restriction on this article is unfortunate, but is brought about by the actions of numerous people on both sides of the debate. And, lets face it, even if the images were removed, protection would likely remain necessary indefinitely because this article will remain a vandalism target indefinitely, much like George W. Bush. So really, I find this argument to be a strawman.

The third argument is the key, however. First off, I would like to mention that the admins are merely enforcing the consensus, not dictating it. This consensus was reached over much discussion, which is contained within the archives of this talk page. Given that consensus can change, that does not mean that further debate is not permitted. However, first off, the petition is of no value to this debate. Partly because the wants of outside communities have no bearing on the decisions of the Wikipedia community. However, also because Wikipedia is not a democracy. 10,000 signatures. 100,000 signatures. One million, one billion, not a one has real value.

Consensus is based around Wikipedia policy. Among those policies is the content disclaimer, which states that Wikipedia contains objectionable material, has no interest in removing it, and that the onus is on the user to deal with this. Being a this is a core policy of Wikipedia, as reflected by WP:CENSOR and WP:NOT, among others, in order to successfully argue the removal of these images on the grounds of your religious beliefs would require the reversal of these policies. That simply is not going to meet with community approval, as it would completely defeat the purpose of this project. You are well within your rights to propose such changes, however, at the talk pages of these policies, or the Village pump. I have seen other arguments against the images that did not rely on religious decision, however have yet to see one that is supported by a policy or even guideline. I am certainly willing to consider any such arguments, as I hope others are. However, I also hope that you are willing to consider that the Wikipedia community may not bend to your will, and if that remains the case now, as it has been for the last couple years, that you will ultimately accept the will of the community, and allow the matter to be dropped. Resolute 05:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say the same thing again and again, I am not proposing to impose censoship, rather to withdraw it. I am not requesting to entertain my religious value (and frankly my religious feelings doesn't even get touched by the action of Wikipedia), but requesting to entertain the values of wikipedia, because a decision made by some editors/Admins is destrying my faith on Wikipedia's policies and procedures. Wikipedia may not violate WP:NPOV by having and article on a subject otherwise disregarded by other scholalrly sources, but when Wikipedia goes against the established tradition of all mainstream scolalrly sources on a particular "top-important" topic, there is substential reason to question which POV wikipedia is trying to follow. Arman ^(Talk) 06:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I am sorry, but you are proposing to impose censorship. The removal of information you do not like is the definition of censorship. At present, per Wikipedia policy, this is not negotiable. You would have to achieve a change in policy in order to change this. As far as NPOV goes, there are plenty of scholary sources that will attest that these images are, in fact, depictions of Muhammad. The description page for each image proves this out. Wikipedia declares the same, ergo, the images are presented in a neutral POV, as it has made no judgements over what the image is intended to represent. Resolute 16:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:Censorship, censorship is any change to any article, image or media file on the grounds that you find it "offensive" or believe others may find it "offensive". While I agree that many people are arguing in that line, I am not. If you please take time to read the full post, you'll see this. I am proposing (not requesting) removal of these images because they are misrepresenting the subject. Secondly, Wikipedia (or some admins) have indeed made a judgement on "Where to place" these images. I am not questioning the authenticity of these images, I am questioning their placement on article Muhammad because most notable scholalrly sources don't use similar images in their discussion of Muhammad and by breaking that scholalrly tradition, we are encouraging our judgement (or POV) over an interest to neutraly follow other scholalrly sources. Arman ^(Talk) 03:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Two questions: Were the images in question claimed to be representations of Muhammad? I am not asking you if you feel the image itself is a representation of Muhammad, simply if they are claimed to be so. Second: Does Wikipedia deviate from the answer to the first question? i.e.: If the image is claimed to be a representation of Muhammad, does Wikipedia make the same claim, or something different? This is the heart of the matter, imo. If the image is claimed to be a representation of Muhammad, and Wikipedia claims the same, then any issue you have with the claims made about the image do not lie with Wikipedia, but with the source of the image itself. We are merely repeating what outside (in this case, scholary) sources are presenting. Resolute 20:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) I don't understand this argument. First, Wikipedia is all about censorship, by definition. Editing other's additions is an on-going process that involves excising unverified statements, false characterizations of sources, etc. Go on vandal patrol sometime if you think Wikipedia doesn't censor. What Wikipedia doesn't do is remove verified, sourced, non-original researched inclusion of images or ideas that offend some. On that basis alone, the images should not be excluded. But Arman isn't arguing that: it is unscholarly to include them because they are inaccurate not only in terms of being non-representative but because scholarly tradition when discussing Mohammad has excluded them. Certainly they are appropriate in the page Depictions of Muhammad. Consensus is one thing but Wikipedia is not a democracy. If the vast majority of sourced scholars who publish works on Mohammad don't include these images (excluding scholars who are art historians), then verification argues for their exclusion. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Argument from non-representative again? Really? The man lived in the pre-photographic era. All non-contemporaneous depictions of all historical figures are non-representative. What is important to satisfy notability and relevance is that the depiction is accepted by scholars, such as art historians, as depicting the subject of the article. Clearly, this requirement is met, as can be seen by checking sources on the article. Your "vast majority of soucrced scholars" sounds awfully close to original research. Even if that were true, that argument is also specious because it contradicts itself. By your own admission, some scholars do include depictions of the Muhammed, therefore the tradition exists. It should also be noted that most of the images being discussed were used, commissioned and created by Muslim scholars, artists, and teachers to instruct students in the life, deeds, and words of the Prophet. - MasonicDevice (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, argument from non-representation is a weak and unsupportable point. Argument from religious proscriptions even more so (it would be analogous to the Jewish preference not to print or pronounce the name of God). And I readily admit that my statement "vast majority of scholars" isn't something I know. Instead, deferring to Arman's belief that is true, I stated that *if* true, then that would argue against their inclusion. Not necessarily a sufficient argument but does carry some weight for discussion. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to back off of my statement that the non-representation argument is completely unsupportable. Recently, I considered adding an image to Hipponax. I found one at [1] page 154, titled "So-called Hipponax". The source states, "The piercing look of the latter poet and 'the expression of a decrepit and ugly face, filled with hate and sarcastic bile,' have suggested the name of Hipponax, the sixth-century poet known for his vicious invective verse." Besides copyright issues, I chose not to make the addition because this was at best a highly speculative assertion and lacks scholarly support. This, then, gives some credence to Arman's statement, "An imaginary image should only be added to an article if the image has wide acceptance as a reasonable representation of the subject and none of the images included in the Muhammad article has that qualification. They are distorting a fact, and they don't have a right to do so." Again, not a sufficient argument, perhaps, but not without some foundation. Should an image be included that lacks such scholarly support? Particularly if (if) most scholars exclude them as unsupportable? ∴ Therefore | talk 20:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The images do not need scholarly acceptance as reasonable representations of the subject at all. The images were clearly made as representations of Muhammad. That is sufficient. Whether they look anything like the real Muhammad is irrelevant. Aecis^Brievenbus 20:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the image you were considering using is a "So-Called Hipponax". This indicates doubt on the part of scholars and historians as to who the sculpure represents. Such doubt is not present in this article. These imaginary images are accepted by scholars to be depictions of Muhammed. In some cases, the artwork itelf indicates the identity of its subject. I'm not discounting your conclusion out-of-hand; it's just that you're building it on faulty premises. - MasonicDevice (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I concede your point that my analogy is addressing an entirely different concern. ∴ Therefore | talk 21:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for Keeping the images

Images of Muhammad in Tehran

Still amazed by this uproar. Even in Tehran (Iran) is a museum with pictures of Muhammad. Just visit the Museum of the Islamic Period, and you will see for yourself. Proof on: http://harryzzz.blogspot.com/2007/08/in-teheran-unsuspected-cartoon-of.html So when its ok in Tehran, why isnt it ok on Wiki?. Joe Ram (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Shi'ite Muslims, which predominate in Iran, are typically much looser in this regard than Sunnis (especially Wahhabists, for instance). The Farsi Wikipedia, for instance, includes such images, while the Arabic does not. WilyD 18:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but I'm anxious to know how the 'removers' can explain that difference...Joe Ram (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My guess would be it's of the same line of thinking that gets the (American) far religious right to petition for ponography laws while allowing states to continue supporting gambling. Filmore (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Reasons...please read till the end

Hello all, quite a heated discussion going on here, so I thought I might also contribute toward this . I have scanned through the posts above and I noticed one important thing missing from the discussion. The Muslims, though they stress repeatedly that they are offended by the images, fail to tell us WHY are the images offending. It may initially seem strange that Muslims love and respect their Prophet and yet, they refuse to see a depiction of him. I am here to answer that question, and this is from my personal experience:

While going through my mail, I came across an email with a link to that petition mentioned above. Instead of clicking on that link, I decided to visit wikipedia, and see it for myself. I saw the pictures, and I won't lie here, my love for the Prophet (Peace be upon Him) was rejuvenated. Given the complete ban on pictures of the Holy Prophet through the ages, it is not everyday that you get to see a depiction of him, whom you happen to love and respect so much. I also began to wonder why was it that seeing a depiction of Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) was considered taboo. Shallow, everyday Muslim as I am, I began to look for explanations on websites else where. And I came to this conclusion:

It was with a beating heart and reverence and anticipation that I clicked the link to the pictures, and it is for precisely the same reason that such pictures are taboo. You see, I had directed my reverence toward the picture and became all solemn and prepared before clicking on the first link. Our Prophet (Peace be upon Him) considered (at least by Muslims ;) ) to be a wise man, had foreseen this, when he put a ban on pictures of himself. It is not long before pictures lead to statues, and reverence is directed towards the statue (made of stone that can, by itself, neither harm nor benefit) and I find myself kneeling in front of the Prophet's statue. “Anti”-idol worship is one of Islam's core values. And this thing leads to precisely, idol worship, reverence to a mere depiction of the real thing.

So my Muslim friends, (and ancestors, and the Prophet [Peace be upon Him] himself) afraid of these consequences have to abstain from looking at such depictions. For secular minds, and those who are not Muslims, I find no reason at all why they should not see these pictures. It is therefore a reasonable demand that a “fork” be created with links to picture-less page and another with pictures. Like someone stated above, this would give “anti-porn” people a reason to censor porn-related material as well. But those who are offended by porn are not likely to visit those pages. On the other hand, Those offended by the pictures on the Muhammad page, ( i.e. Muslims) are the main visitors to that page. I hope that you see reason and logic. If you do not find the above reasoning to be sound and logical, by all means, you have all right to keep those pages. None of the servers hosting wikipedia are in a Muslim country, and so we have no right to be forcing our decision on you. Regards,

Hammad Fauz Akhwand

GIKI, Topi, Pakistan.

That was a very respectful post - to Muslim and non-Muslim communities and to wiki-policy as well. As a Christian, I too am opposed to iconography and the overt display of the Christ in the church because it seems to emphasize a reverence for the depiction rather than the Man. However, my own reverence for Christ Himself is so deep that I am never tempted to replace the image of Him for the essence of Him. How He appeared is simply irrelevant. However, I am in no way opposed to any depictions of Him whatsoever. I believe representations of Him and various events of his life help us to recognize the reality of His existence and the things through which He went. They are also useful tools for eductaing children who cannot yet read the Scripture. So on one hand I understand the opposition to iconography, but on the other hand I do not see how the existence of an image must immediately imply the existence of iconography. As a matter of policy, Wikipedia cannot present its information in a way to prevent offense or show preferential treatment to any people group. Believe me, there are many things that I feel are unnecesary or offensive - but I also recognize that those same things are accurately described when coming from someone who does not share my beliefs. As such, I must accept the presence of things which may misrepresent me or my beliefs, but know that those misrepresentations do not in any way change who I am. In the same way, the existence of things which many in the Muslim community wish did not exist (whether it be history, sects, or depictions - just as there are for nearly every religion), does not negate their existence - nor does it define those individuals. Hopefully, others will be as open-minded, respectful, and thoughtful about their own beliefs and how it relates to others and this wiki as you have been. BobertWABC (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Wikipedia is freely licensed, and anyone who so wishes can set up any kind of fork they like, per m:Right to Fork. The software used for Wikipedia, MediaWiki, is also licensed the same way, so one can duplicate the software to set up a collaboratively edited encyclopaedia. Similarly, Citizendium may be of interest, which censors articles to be "family friendly", and many other such wiki-based encyclopaedia projects exist. 21:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs)

This is the most constructive thing I've seen. A fork would be easy to achieve, and it would take almost no effort to filter out any pictures thought to be offensive. That way everyone can choose whether they see the pictures or not. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear all, you have made me think that there is still hope for this world, and that there are still rational people living here. I gather from your posts aove that the "fork" is the way to go? Even if it doesn't change things, the way things are going in the posts below :), I still have faith that there are reasonable, and rational people, who do not fail to see the two sides of the coin. For those below this post, who are not convinced by my argument, I give up. I guess nothing else can convince you. As I said, you have all right to keep things as they are. It is just that I rest my concience now that I have presented my argument in a rational form. Thank you for your time and efforts, all those admins and editors at wikipedia, you are indeed doing a noble deed, presenting the world with true facts. May God bless you all. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.78.226.118 (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And remember, a fork doesn't need consensus from Wikipedia. Anybody with a few servers can create their own fork, tell anyone who objects to the pictures about it and everybody is happy. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Allah is just testing you all

Muhammed (PBUH) said there should be no depictions of him because he didn't want this to lead to people worshiping false idols.

So you could do one of two things. Look at the pictures, appreciate the artwork and interpretation of Muhammed (PBUH) or DON'T look at them, fight the temptation and understand the message behind the rules.

I feel religious people follow the rules too harshly without thinking about WHY they were made. Can you Muslims not look at a picture of Him without worshipping it? Muhammed (PBUH) didn't want you worshipping false idols, so don't let these pictures lead you to worshipping them.

You are all clearly offended by them, maybe as a way to protect yourself from worshipping them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasheeke (talk • contribs) 21:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Muslims!! If you don't like it, then just cut your undersea internet cables, and the problems will go away! LOLLLLLL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.101.241 (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should Islam get accomodations not afforded to other religions?

Seeing as how I'm being censored (yet again) by the Wikinazis, let me try and rephrase my argument to be more politically correct...

Why does Islam deserve protections and special accomodations not given to other religions on Wikipedia?

Is there anything special about Islam that somehow makes it's tenets more sacrosanct than those of Budhists, Hindus, Christians or Jews?

Please state your argument.

Amused67 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And, just out of curiousity, what tenets are those which are not

being upheald by wikipedia?

The "fork" suggestion above, is not even intrusive, it is

harmless in an "everybody-happy" sort of way. Plus, as stated

above, this is not exactly, censoring, it is just that muslim

dont want to view those images, themselves (a kind of

self-censorship) if u ask me.

and, not visiting the page is not a solution. There is a lot of

valuable information compiled on that page. so, it is niether

censorship, nor preferential treatment, it is just standard

procedure. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.78.226.118 (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't do content forks and there is no reason to make an exception here. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My dear Muslim friend... The internet is awash in images not in keeping with the Koran. You can even see naked women, in their full glory, if you know how to Google properly. Should EVERY website on the internet bow to your will? It seems to me that with such temptation, so readily available, Muslims simply should avoid the internet altogether.

After all, the widely-stated REASON for all this is that Mohammed was afraid that people would worship his image... If Muslims are so concerned, they shouldn't be surfing at all, because, let me tell you, photos of Pam Anderson are being downloaded and worshipped by Muslims right now out there in Cyberland.

Short of avoiding the internet, why not try some self-control? You don't NEED to worship these photos, do you? Amused67 (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop religious extremists from censoring creativity, the documentation of history and the organization of information

We as concerned citizens must support reason and stop Muslim, Christian, Hindu and any other religious extremists from censoring creativity, the documentation of history and the organization of information. Uphold free expression, creativity, pictorial communication and reason and don't kowtow to religious imposition and oppressive agendas or to threats from religious extremists.

If this was a situation regarding a communication, pictorial in this matter, that is ridiculously and unreasonably inaccurate and contrary to the currently available and reasonably collected factual and realistic evidence and therefore is a manipulative lie that is offensive and taunting - such as portraying a person, in this case this rumored Mohammad, in a recreation of mythological/historical events contrary to evidentiary material that has been collected in a reasonable and factual process, then Wikipedia and any other truth seeking organization should remedy the inconsistencies to bring their content into accordance with as much factual and realistic evidence as is currently available and not act in a manner that is distorting and manipulating of information if they wish to be viewed as an organization attempting to build a reliable and reason pursuing resource.

However, if and when a religion is attempting to censor a picture that simply attempts to realistically recreate and display history, in a reasonable, proportionate manner that is consistent with as much reasonably collected factual and realistic evidence and research data as is currently available and is consistent with historical descriptions and like embodied and dressed people of the era, such as the picture in question seems to be, then removing the communication, picture, in question becomes a matter of religious imposition.

JoeyNice (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Then we must remove them all...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/05/technology/wiki.php

From what I can tell, this is an opinion that was started by a few, a minority. If we are to pull these images, then we must pull ALL religious images from Wikipedia. The Catholic Church went on a quest to kill the printing press because they felt that people having a printed copy of their own bible threatened their very existence. Where are we centuries later? The Church still lives on... The Muslim faith will live on and so will it's people.

I think it's ironic that no one is suppose to post pictures of said prophet but on the news, in Muslim countries, there are images or burned bodies, bombings, and war. Israel is called "occupied territory". I think it's obscene how people, especially women, are treated in middle eastern countries, but you don't see me jumping up and down posting petitions and such on Wikipedia do you?

I think it's time to get over it. I think it's time to move on and start addressing real issues, like a president creating false pretexts for wars that are unjust. For millions affected by genocide because we're too busy chasing non-existent weapons in foreign lands in which we own ourselves. I think it's time to accept that we can't control the whole world.

We have a saying here: sweep your doorstep before trying to clean mine!!! Kmac1036 (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should we remove them?

I'm sure some of this has been said before on this page. I haven't read the entire thing and I don't plan to; I don't have that kind of time. However, from what I've seen and read during vandalism patrol the past few days (this page has shown up in my review queue a lot), I think I can offer an opinion.

Let me start with this: Wikipedia is not censored. Images and text that would be offensive to some, or even most, people are all kept because the purpose of the project is to build an encyclopedia. Some areas of the world find nudity offensive, yet Wikipedia has many pictures depicting the subject, posted on articles that could be found and viewed by children. Are those removed? Nope. We have photos of tragic disasters, also not censored. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not meant to be "politically correct" in any way, shape, or form. The very concept of an encyclopedia editable by anyone is not currently "correct" in today's culture, though that seems to be slowly changing.

In light of this uncensored-ness, why should we remove pictures that offend one religious group in the world? Majorities and minorities are by no means meant to be used as a sole argument, but in addition to the fact that we don't censor articles, the 1.5 or 1.9 or whatever billion Muslims in the world are not the majority. I don't mean offense by that in any way; it just doesn't seem right, in the context of an educational work, to let the views of one group detract from the rest of the world's ability to learn about them.

Also, having looked through some of the images included in the article, the ones I saw are artistic in nature, and were likely created for purposes of decoration. If they can be displayed in a mosque or in a home (I'm guessing at the latter), why can't they be displayed here? Why weren't they destroyed before they could be digitized, if they're really so offensive?

Further, the article actually states that visual depictions of Muhammad are prohibited in Islam. While I can respect that taboo, the very next paragraph contains a statement art works were generally restricted to secular contexts, with a reference to a more in-depth article which I have just scanned. Wikipedia, as I've mentioned again and again, is an educational work, not religious, and by the definition of the word secular is exactly that. Wide rejection of the images by Muslims is not, in my mind, enough reason to censor Wikipedia.

So those are my thoughts on the matter. If you post a direct response to them, please let me know on my talk page; thanks! Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 03:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, you sound like a reasonable and logical person and really interested to know the "reason" behind the request to remove these images. That's good - let's sensibility prevail. You, and others who want to know the "scholalrly" argument for removing the picture, please refer to the posting titled An imaginary image should only be added to an article if the image has wide acceptance as a reasonable representation of the subject on this page. Please have some patience to read the discussion on that posting in full and let me know your opinion. If you can convince me my argument there is wrong and my proposal is unacceptable, I'll agree with you on keeping these images. Arman ^(Talk) 03:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

These pictures were painted by fellow muslims long ago and nobody had a problem with them then so why are folks getting their panites in a bunch now? I so do thank the folks at Wikipedia for being sensible about this matter and NOT bowing down to this uncalled for pressure. Chefantwon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.153.166.69 (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder where has this been discussed before...

I think we should proceed in the same way as Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy did two years ago, after four straw polls, by moving discussion about the inclusion of images to a subpage, similar to Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments/Image-Display, adding a CSS hide option as described at the top of the page here, and block any editors that remove the images without discussion for disruption, as shown here. Nakon 23:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not pratice tolerance?

I am not Muslim, so therefore I can't fully understand the emotions involved in the area of displaying the imagery of Muhammed. However, I am a Christian and christianity, like many other belief systems has seen it's fair share of people who couldn't care less if they offend me or not. But you know what? Those people have EVERY RIGHT to express there opinion EVEN IF that expression offends me. For me to try and dictate to the rest of the world that they MUST respect my beliefs and adhere to my guidelines and restrictions is not only wrong it's EXTREMELY inconsiderate and offensive to those who don't share my views. When christians try to witness there beliefs and practices to the world many times they are met with opposition and told "don't try to push your beliefs down my throught". Are not the Muslims doing that very thing in this situation? If not, why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twiztidstr8 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Twiztidstr8 (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you try and take Jesus to the unbelievers you will probably get the same reception he did Shniken1 (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you complain, you are not an adult

I think it is absolutely absurd that there are Muslims on here who are offended. I have many Muslim friends and they all agree with me that those who are outraged are not real adults and must be under the age of 15. I, as a Christian, have been offended by many photos of Jesus playing basketball and other remarks about him. I understand they are on the internet and I just simply do not view them. So from a real adult to those who claim to be ones, just move on with your life and stay away from this page. Don't you have other things to worry about like taking care of your family and making a living like real adults do? Azwethinkweizm (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, weirdo.. maybe they dont understand history of Muslim. There are illustration of Muhammad since era of Baghdad, Seljuk, even Mughal. Mimihitam (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is truer than you think. 20 years ago, pictures of Mohammed were widely displayed and sold in the Islamic world. Everybody knew they existed, and nobody cared. Even in mosques, and not only in shiite countries. Also, 20 years ago, only old peasant women were wearing headscarves. The fact that both has changed is witness to the recent re-islamication of the islamic world (fueled by Saudi money, mostly). People in the up-to-20 age bracket don't remember, and may be seriously surprised to know that these pictures exist. Azate (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"People in the up-to-20 age bracket don't remember, and may be seriously surprised to know that these pictures exist." That why we created this encyclopedia. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"That why we created this encyclopedia" See, I didn't know that. But it should be a useful side effect. No need to convince me that the pics can and should stay... Azate (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion for those that do not like the page with the pictures:

There are 46 Mohammad pages in other languages that do not have the pictures. And many of them are just stubs that could use a lot more pictures. Instead of complaining, you could always go to those pages and add more to their articles: Arabic, Aragonese, Asturian, Bangladeshi, Bashkir, Bosnian, Breton, Catalon, Dhivehi, Estonian, Greek, Gujarati, Korean, Hawai'i, Hindi, Ido, Bahasa Indonesian, Interlingua, Hebrew, Javanese, Georgian, Kazakh, Kurdi, Latvian, Malayam, Malay, Mongolian, Pangasinan, Sanskrit, Scottish, Albanian, Sicilian, Simple English, Slovenian, Serbian, Serbo-Croatian, Sundanese, Tagalog, Telugu, Thai, Turkish, Urdu, Yiddish, Chinese, Zazaki, Chechen. Most need a lot more work done. Note that I have not linked each. My HTML-fu is too weak to link each one. Plus if you speak the language already you would be able to figure out which link on the left to click on. Rebelyell2006 (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Edited by myself: Whoops! I found some spelling errors. Corrected. And I will try to add some links later. Rebelyell2006 (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Concerning electronic images

Islamic law prohibits images of their prophet. But Wikipedia has no images per se, only image files--stacks of data that're useless without a client to interpret and display them. Your computer connects to Wikipedia's server, downloads an image file, and then creates an image on your monitor according to the data in an otherwise inert and meaningless file. The people guilty of creating Muhammad's graven image are the site's own angry visitors, every time they load the page. I think the main problem is this social perception of "cyberspace": the supposition that images and data exist in a way that's spatially independent of your computer. As if somewhere in the world right now, there's a gleaming digital wall named Wikipedia with a picture of Muhammad scribbled on one side.--Jackalmonkey (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A compromise?

Would people find it acceptable to remove the embedded images but put a link to a wider, assorted collection of images right at the top of the article? This removes the possibility of accidentally running across an image of the Prophet for Muslims and at the same time does not in any way reduce the usefulness of the Wiki tool. If anything, it expands it.

Admittedly, I anticipate that those who want to demand the political right to troll Muslims freely won't like this, but after reading the NPOV page, it seems to me as if it's clear that this place tries as much as possible to avoid either making a political statement for or against censorship, and that part of being neutral in that regard is not taking a side in that debate insofar as it is possible at all. So, why not create a prominent link for all the current images (and a few more!) in the Muhammad article and remove them from the Muhammad page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.173.50 (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

or a warning at the top would be sufficient.. such as pictures to follow then a link to a text only page if one desires. -24.60.24.39 (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, this doesn't send the signal of reasonable accomodation that outright linking them does. There's nothing at all lost to Wiki's encyclopedic mission by putting the same images (if not more) on a prominent link on the page; there's no reason why we can't have this cake and eat it too other than the deeply rooted political knee-jerk of the Western ethical tradition that includes freedom of speech but not freedom from offense. These are value judgments, and they totally unnecessarily introduce more POV considerations than necessary into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.173.50 (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not compromise by not viewing the photos on the page? Every single one of you can set your browsers to do this, with no need for Wiki to do anything at all. This is NOT about reasonable accomodation, this is about imposition of wills, namely YOURS. And WHERE WILL IT END??? First Wikipedia, then CNN. 75.169.140.128 (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia, not...

While trying to avoid rehashing the above, this is Wikipedia. It is not governed under Sharia law, it may offend some people, is isn't censored, and is one of the top 10 sites on the Internet. The vast majority of the pleas here are "remove the images because they are offensive to Islam/me/Allah". It's well-established that that isn't happening. So rather than saying that, please consider finding a reason in Wikipedia's policies why they should be removed, and quote it. Who knows, people might agree? Stifle (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Prediction

Move from Talk:Muhammad#Prediction gren グレン 12:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue is receiving more and more press, worldwide. I predict that within seven days the pictures will be removed, probably under the guise of, as Nakon suggests, reducing "tension between the West and Islam." The real reason for the removal will be that editors will fear for their personal safety.

I also predict that this prediction will be deleted shortly, as an earlier version was, supposedly as violating WP:Forum, although blanking other user's posts on Talk page is classic vandalism under WP:Vandalism, unless it contains a personal attack, which this obviously is not.75.186.99.65 (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I predict that you will be proven wrong. If we were not concerned about our personal safety previously, why would we be concerned now? I have not received any threats despite consistently insisting that the images would not be removed, and I would not back down even if someone did make such a threat. Lastly, Wikipedia is not "the West", so I don't see how the removal of the images would help in that regard. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 11:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC).

You're to be congratulated on your stance; I hope it's the majority stance, or at least the stance of the relevant editors. It'd show more backbone than nearly any other group on issues like this. As to "The West," you're correct Wikipedia is not the West, but it is certainly perceived as that by those petitioning.75.186.99.65 (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I would dare say your comments can be construed as veiled threats against individuals here, and should you persist in this line of conversation, I will report them as such. --Mhking (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you're responding to my comment or not. If you are, it's bizarre to say that pointing out that those who "offend" elements in Islam are subject to threats is somehow a threat. You should probably stick to discussing the substance of the point.75.186.99.65 (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Veiled threats are just that, I also took the 'prediction' as such. Extortionists rarely make outright threats, they just 'predict an accident' if protection money isn't paid. They're not saying they'll personally do anything bad, just that 'others' might take offense. "The real reason for the removal will be that editors will fear for their personal safety." seems like a threat in that it is saying the editors WILL fear for their personal safety if it isn't removed.

Wikipedia itself is doing this nonsence. why discussion for the removal of Mohammad (PBUH) Immages? and why Wikipedia is offering to change the individual browser setting. these people are nonsence and are the roots of Evil. I want to say why you are allowing such material on web? can anyone allow the odd immagw of his mother? mother is not a comparison as compared to Mohammad(PBUH) these are the religious matters why wikipedia officials are allowing one man to do this? they know 100% that billions of muslims will not allow it. billions of Muslims ohhh . how many have the access to the Internet very few yes very few know this that what you are publishing on net. this is the reason lesser are responding on net and you are feeling its ok. All Muslims irrespective of the Race and any other difference will reject these immages so it means it is a clear violation of human rights by this site. Actualkly these images are by the will of wikipedia .these sites want to see Muslims angry and they are using their power to give pain to the hearts of all the Muslims of the World. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.120.210.41 (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How many times must this be said to you? Wikipedia is NOT governed by Islamic edict, rule, law, threat or blackmail. Wikipedia is a non-censored, non-secular Web site. As such, the constant carping and begging and now outright threats by those who feel "offended" will do nothing to solve the disagreement taking place here. --Mhking (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your grammar makes it difficult to understand what you are attempting to say.

Wikipedia is not censored simply because it may offend a particular individual or group of individuals. Neutrality is a primary issue, and the presentation of information irrespective of outside influence is essential to the usefulness (and is the absolute core) of the encyclopedia itself. Quite simply, the number of individuals offended by the images makes no difference and does not affect policy one iota. The rules still stand where they have stood throughout the discussion.

I'm not quite sure you understand what a human rights violation is if your definition happens to point towards Wikipedia's inclusion of pictures of Muhammad in an encyclopedia article. Anyone who visits this page does so upon their own volition; no one is forcing anyone to read the article or view the images themselves. To use a simple (but often-used) analogy, it is akin to saying that the sale of pork in a supermarket is a similar "human rights violation"- as if anyone is forcing another to purchase the product.

I would suggest that you cease pointing fingers and begin to assume good faith in the matter. You may wish to familiarize yourself with our policies. It is utterly depressing to see, yet again, the unfathomable argument that Wikipedia "want to see Muslims angry and they are using their power to give pain to the hearts of all the Muslims of the World". These kinds of statements are produced only in total ignorance of why the images are included and why the rules dictate that they should remain.--C.Logan (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was the one that deleted you previous post and I did it by mistake as I already told you. But of course, if you want to see conspiracy theories... --DB0 (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"clear violation of human rights by this site" What is the "human right" that is being violated? No one is being forced to visit the page and view the images. If the images were taken down then that would violate my human rights and those of the posters of the images. You have no more right to tell me what images I can display and post than you have a right to tell me that I can't drink coffee or that my wife must be covered and accompanied when she leaves the house. I have just as much right to tell you that you must drink coffee. You do not have the right to control the expression and thoughts of other people.

The images should stay regardless of objections

Don't like it? Either adblock the images or go start Islampedia. This crap about the images being offensive is a load of garbage, as I can attest to from my time in Egypt. Plenty of public images of the dude there.

You IPs can post all you like, but the fact of the matter is, Wikipedia isn't censored and it isn't politically correct.

Furthermore, this website is not under Sharia law, and it's never ever going to be. Jtrainor (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

more to the point, why pick on Wikipedia? These images are all over the internet. It's cheap to have a go at the softest target. There is no reason why a Muslim should be more insulted at seeing an image on Wikipedia, or seeing the same image on google image search, or any other website. We are just feeding the trolls: the point is that here, people get long-winded replies, while anywhere else they would just be ignored. dab (𒁳) 16:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

to article space

this is hitting the real world threshold -- [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. We have created Category:Wikipedia articles for less. Let's have a Depictions of Muhammad on Wikipedia article and move the entire mess there: and hope this will take some heat off this talkpage. dab (𒁳) 15:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this should become an article in and of itself. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You left out the NYTimes article. But, it's not there yet. So far most of the articles have been minor backpage ones in the major press. It definitely needs more time to ripen... if it does... gren グレン 21:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

How about a "Spoiler" Warning?

You know, like they do on Forums and such. "Warning, this page contains artistic representations of the Prophet Muhammed, which certain interpretations of Islamic Law deem offensive. If you follow such interpretations, it is strongly recommended that you either do NOT continue browsing this page, or that you turn off images in your browser and reload the page before continuing."

That way, all individuals are FREE to follow their own Consciences in this matter, rather than forcing the issue one way or the other!

Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. The community frowns on the use of spoilers, aside from the five general disclaimers, of which the content disclaimer is one, and warns that this site contains content that some may find offensive. Like anything else on the internet, you use Wikipedia at your own choice and risk. Resolute 22:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Vanderleun Spoilers won't satisfy. Nor will adblock on in Firefox. Nor will browsing with images off. These people are not about compromise but capitulation. Yours. This particular branch of Islam gets my vote for most tedious sect in history.

An immodest proposal

There's some confusion here about why these images are important. Let me try to clarify: this article is not about Islam, though it obviously must touch on that topic. This article is about a historical figure who was easily one of the most influential in the last 2000 years. As such, Wikipedia considers art related to the subject to be pertinent. No one is trying to claim that the art in question is not controversial. No one is trying to claim that this is the sort of depiction that Muslims might prefer. The only claim here is that the elements of this article are relevant to the historical figure that we're covering. That's all.

Now, on to my proposal. I'd like to suggest that the lead image be removed. It doesn't add much. It causes the infobox to be pushed down, it doesn't even depict Muhammad's face. It's not the most common representation seen in the modern world. Rather, I think the later images which have contextual use in illustrating the parts of the article that they go with are of value and should remain. If Muslims are offended by this, then I suggest that they gain access to the appropriate tools and block the images as suggested elsewhere in more detail. -Harmil (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the picture of Muhammad

THE PICTURE SHOULD BE REMOVED ASAP. THIS IS VERY DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THE MUSLIMS. I WILL MAKE SURE I MAKE A GROUP ON FACEBOOK AND WILL GET ALOT OF PEOPLE TO BOYCOTT WIKIPEDIA IF THE PICTURES ARE NOT REMOVED ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.77.198 (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a very useful website for gaining knowledge on almost anything. However, there are times when things posted need to be re-checked since they may be incorrect or offensive to millions around the globe.

The portrait of Muhammad shown in "15th century illustration in a copy of a manuscript by Al-Biruni" is not endorsed by Muslims and should be taken off since it is very offensive. Muslims do not depict any of their prophets in pictures, be it Muhammad, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc.

I am shocked by the fact that Wikipedia would allow this picture to be posted, since it is an inaccurate portrayal of Muhammad and offensive to Muslims around the globe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.201.248.64 (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's irrelevent if it is endorsed by Muslims, this is a secular site that does not apply islamic thinking to our ways of working - you can check our policies by clicking on the help tab on the left of your screen. --Fredrick day (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please explain then (not you, Fredrick day, but anyone who protests) why there are no complaints regarding any and all depictions of Jesus or otherwise... -- RaspK FOG (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Because even though there's a graven images clause in the Bible, Christians have not made a stink about images. The more down-to-the-point question is... Which set of laws does Wikipedia follow? My understanding is that the rule of law in Wikipedia is derived from Common Law, not any particular religious law set.Filmore (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A new suggestion

I have a new suggestion. The page Muhammad redirects into a disambiguation page like this [8] 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)

I am completely against this idea. Bowing to this pressure is bad news for wikipedia and a sliperly slope. There should be one article with pictures, period. Why? I wont waste the time its been discussed up and down but i will say no censorship on wikipedia! Mike240se (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this suggestion brought up by Be happy!! should not be completely discarded as "caving in". Free speech can still coincide with respectful consideration for religion. This especially rings true since this article is part of the series on Islam, which Muslim readers might use for reference. I don't see any problem with having a disclaimer at the top giving the option to view this article with or without the controversial images. Some compromise (i.e. Wikipedia:Truce) can be made here without setting a negative precedent due to the unique nature of this delicate subject. Here is good article to reference for everyone: [9]-- Soonerzbt (talk) 17:19, 7 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'd rather not focus on the cynicism in your post, I certainly have no intention to "placate special interests" in my appeal to neutrality and balance, and I fully understand what NOT#CENSORED means. If you truly believe I'm being disingenuous here, then please be forthright about it.

For the record, we are talking about four depictions, all prominently positioned in the top half of the article (even moreso before Aminz had recently diffused the redundant Overview section). Our neutrality policies refer to non-text features of an article as much as they do text features. Prominence, placement, number, general presentation. These all have an effect on the balance of an article. As a historical tradition and art form, depictions of Muhammad weren't nearly as prevalent as other forms venerative of Muhammad, calligraphy for example. There's nothing wrong in representing that tradition in this article with a few pictures. I do see something wrong when this tradition is given undue focus, is heavily over-stated through excess in both representation and prominence, and I think it misleads the reader in suggesting a greater historical prevalence than can be afforded by reality. ITAQALLAH 19:08, 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)

I agree ;putting 3 pictures in the article is undue weight, and it gives the impression that it was put with the deliberate intention of offending Muslims. (Imad marie (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

It is highly unlikely that three small images were added with the intention of offending anyone. They are there for educational and historical purposes, much like almost any other image on Wikipedia. As a comparison, there are no less than eleven depictions of Jesus on his article. I would suggest that three images here is not a case of giving undue weight. Resolute 19:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It is really difficult for me to assume good faith; the depiction of Muhammad is really rare in the Eastern and Western sources as well, and it is not included in other encyclopedias, so why do some editors insist on including the 3 pictures? and in the introduction section of the article?! (Imad marie (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia:NEO says avoid using neologisms that have not yet caught on widely; I believe this should apply for the images too! this article has been used to published rare and unknown pictures to most of the readers, I wonder if it was done with the good intentions. (Imad marie (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Two logical fallacies are evident in your response.

The Strawman Fallacy: the argument against non-widespread neologisms exists to protect readers from linguistic conundrums. An example would be to happen across a phrase that bears no real meaning, since you just came up with it.

The Argument from Ignorance Fallacy: you assume that these images were just put up, or otherwise seem to criticise them from a point of ignorance; the images are kept up because of their artistic and historical value, since they are medieval artistic depictions of Muhammad.

Defacing them, putting them under "curtain," and so on, is against the principles of Wikipedia, just as censorship is an acceptable fact in many countries. You should examine whether our good faith cannot simply abide by your demands. -- RaspK FOG (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Rosywounds, I hadn't seen your comment. ITAQALLAH 19:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I just thought that the points mentioned in that conversation are applicable here. -Rosywounds (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolute, I don't think that is a very fair comparison. The article on Jesus doesn't include an Ethiopian depiction of Jesus, for example. Ethiopians, after all, have had a Christian presence longer than most Europeans, and they historically depict him as East African (Black appearance). All of the art on the Jesus article caters to traditional Western views; in fact, all non-Western art on Jesus has been given its own separate article. -Rosywounds (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a situation that can be corrected if a suitable image can be found. The point remains, however, as the use of images depicting Muhammad have been minimalized in this article compared to that of another historical religious figure, disproving the argument of WP:UNDUE. Also, WP:NEO very obviously does not apply, as an image is not a word or term, nor would a several century old image qualify as "new". If you want to push for a change to WP:NEO, feel free to initiate that discussion on at WT:NEO and try to build consensus. That being said, if you can provide a more "mainstream" image of Muhammad, I would be happy to insert it into the article for you. Also, pleaseassume good faith on the intentions of the editors who added the image. Unless you can show that the images were added with the intention of offending you, I would have to say that their additions were made with the intention of improving the encyclopedia. Resolute 16:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Minimalised? Surely you appreciate that the historical tradition of depicting Muhammad can't seriously be compared to the tradition of depicting Jesus (whose article you cited if I remember correctly). In the case of the latter, there has always been the prevalence of multiple iconistic trends in contemporary and pre-modern times, indeed this was perhaps the main form of veneration of Jesus. I'm sure there are hundreds, if not thousands, of historical depictions from different cultures and ages. It's a completely different story when it comes to depictions of Muhammad, which, as sources confirm, were generally rare (For the most part, they were generally restricted to Safawid Persia during the 16th century). So I feel you're comparing apples with oranges.

There is, therefore, an issue with four prominently positioned depictions in the top half of the article. I really think that's an undue focus upon a minority tradition. ITAQALLAH 17:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, displaying the images near the top is an editorial decision that is pretty much standard across all Wikipedia biographical articles that have images. The traditional view of one religion - that is not even universal to that religion to begin with - isn't a consideration. Changing the placement of images has been discussed and compromised on other articles in the past, however, and certainly does merit debate here. If you wish to push the discussion in that direction, I would recommend starting a new section, as the debate would likely be lost in the middle of this string. Resolute 18:14, 7 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)

They would if they came here because someone told them there were pictures of Muhammad in the article.144.118.202.163 (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think, a penus image is just like the one humans have, but the image of Muhammad peace upon him doesnt look like him. because no body knows how he looked. that the difference, and i hope when you talk again such a great man, you have some respect. Another difference, is that a penus would be helpful as an educational material but what is the use of having a picture of Muhammad peace upon him, that doesnt even match his descriptions, nor add any educational value..????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.44.214 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for a solution

This situation is reasonably unprecedented — realistically, we cannot expect this to abate any time soon, and keeping the article fully protected indefinitely is not a reasonable or appropriate solution. I suggest the following solution:

• Semiprotect the article indefinitely.
• Waive the three revert rule on this page with respect to restoring the consensus version of this page, with respect to the images.

This may sound controversial, but there is a previous situation in which it was settled upon as appropriate. (See the "exceptions" provision of WP:3RR with respect to the Gdansk/Danzig vote). Note that this suggestion does not define what the "consensus" version of this page is, with respect to images — consensus can change, and this suggestion takes that into account. In any case, before we move forward with this, I'd like to get some input from other posters here. What do you think? --Haemo (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Quite frankly, fuck the Danzig vote. Our current practices work well enough with indef semi-protection (which is necessary for far more than just image issues - take a look at the last time this page was unprotected) and although we're in a bit of a surge now, it'll pass - there's no need for alarmism. WilyD 22:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think that indef semiprotection is inevitable. But I'm not opposed to Haemo's second notion. Comparing to the practice over at Rage Against The Machine (nude image in PMRC protest section), that has been the effective practice. Revert anyone removing the images who has not concretely changed the previous consensus. Doesn't seem that controversial to me, or something that needs cementing in a "guideline" type thing. It's just common sense in the context of our standing policies on content and conflict resolution. VanTucky 00:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Indef semi-protection is already the status quo. Take a look at the logs. WilyD —Preceding comment was added at 00:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• I know it has been. I'm saying it should continue indefinitely unless events change significantly. VanTucky 02:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Err, it will unless anyone can present a plausible argument why we should change (and really, then it'd have to be indef full protection). This brew-hah-hah will blow over soon enough. WilyD 14:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with this proposal; I suggested the same thing on ANI, but some seem to think the current level of disruption is unmanageable. I don't see that at this point, though. -- tariqabjotu 03:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems sensible enough. I can think of a direct parallel: Republic of Macedonia, which I keep a close eye on. It's indefinitely semi-protected to deal with hit-and-run vandalism from anonymous editors (mostly Greeks, unfortunately) and it has to be reverted fairly often to resolve abusive edits from accounts that have been used often enough to get around the new user restrictions. It works fairly well in practice and helps to reduce the problematic editing to manageable levels. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

support. This seems to be a necessary proposal, considering the circumstances. Yahel Guhan 04:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

there is a stable consensus version. Yes, this article should be permanently semi-protected. It there are going to be edit-wars among established users, we might need to impose Wikipedia:Article probation as well, with admins clamping down immediately on anyone indulging in unproductive edit warring. Permanent semiprotection, and even enforced 1RR is better than prolongued full protection. dab (��) 12:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Analysis and a proposal

It seems to me that we are having problems with two distinct groups here:

1) Editors and readers who want the pictures gone, deleted, destroyed, period.

There's nothing we can do to meet this demand; the removal of the pictures isn't consistent with our goal of providing encyclopedic information, and WP:NOTCENSORED anyway. However, there's a second group we can perhaps do something about:

2) Editors and readers who do not expect to see the pictures in the article and are upset when they do.

There's a significant point here. Images of Muhammad are exceedingly rare because of the Islamic tradition of aniconism. That means that, even in Western sources, it's very unusual to see a depiction of Muhammad. Other encyclopedias - Britannica, Encarta, Chambers, Oxford etc - do not depict Muhammad. Wikipedia is thus indisputably exceptional in this regard. If you look up "Muhammad" in just about any encyclopedia that I can think of, you do not automatically expect to see a depiction of him. There's what you might call an "expectations gap" between what readers expect and what they actually find. (By contrast, if you look up Breast you'll have every expectation of seeing an image or diagram of one, just as you would in any good Western encyclopedia. Likewise, if you look at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy it's reasonable to expect an image of the cartoons in question.)

I think we need to address this "expectations gap". We certainly shouldn't be posting a disclaimer, as Wikipedia:Content disclaimer already covers that. A spoiler template wouldn't be appropriate, as spoilers refer to plot resolutions, not images. Nor would a warning be appropriate, as that would probably also clash with our content disclaimer. However, a short, neutrally worded notification - not a warning, spoiler or disclaimer - would give readers the choice of reading on in the full understanding that they would be seeing pictures of Muhammad, or navigating away if they didn't want to see them. DragonflySixtyseven added some words to the top of the article earlier today which I think - if amended and presented in the right context - could help. I'd suggest something like the following wording:

This article includes two images which represent the uncovered face of Muhammad. The images, which are artworks created by Muslim artists, are used respectfully in an historical context to illustrate two episodes in the life of Muhammad.

Any thoughts? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, if we put this up at the top then readers who come upon the article won't be "shocked" to see the images. Of course, "hiding" the image seems to be the most logical solution since people can actually choose if they want to see the pictures or not. Hiding the pictures is not censorship because all you have to do is to click on the box to un-hide it. It seems strange that both ideas were immediately rejected without even testing out these methods to see if they are effective at reducing attempts by Muslims to remove images. --Hdt83 ^Chat 00:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't support hiding the images. That would in effect be a form of censorship - allowing one element of the community to impose a certain standard on everybody. My proposal above is strictly neutral in terms of how it affects other editors. We can't compromise our principles by imposing a burden of censorship on the entire community, whether it's by removing the images or hiding them. What we can do, however, is give people the informed choice of whether to read the article or not, in the knowledge that it contains the disputed images. Editors would then be under no compulsion to do anything, whether it's changing their browser settings, editing their monobook.css or clicking on a box to show the images. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We also have a gap in what we consider reasonable as Wikipedians, and what the vast majority of people who see this page think. Asking most readers to participate in discussions is hard, especially for people who don't know how this works. My mother, a retired executive assistant with a ready eye for spelling errors and mistakes, would rather send me corrections than edit herself. Wiki is something new you have to learn. Readers, who comprise most of our audience, don't want to be directed to RFC's or RFARB's. Yes, the vast majority of complaints insist on having the images deleted...and then there's some intellectual individuals who are suggesting there is a bigger issue. The fact that most Sunni Muslims don't want to be confronted by an unexpected picture of Mohammed. Forcing them to see it on the article only inflames the situation. Versageek had an edit while protected which would go a long way toward solving this as well, but reverted herself. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=189386710&oldid=189365656). Cary Bass ^demandez 01:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit counflicted)I do go along with Versageek's proposed paragraph, or any in-paragraph, low toned notification. I do however strongly oppose any kind of out of paragraph notification, which sounds like a warning to me no matter how you may call it, and go, in my very humble opinion, against the spirit of our not-censorship and no-disclaimer policies. If it makes somebody more happy, no problem with making bold the last sentence, the one which actually tells about the images. As a side note, my middle school history book had these images too. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw Versageek's proposal, but I didn't think it was very effective. It's buried at the bottom of the lede, it doesn't stand out in any way and I'm pretty sure that the circular reference in it isn't consistent with our MOS. The point of having a notification is that it should be noticed immediately by a visitor to the article. And I'd like to emphasise that it shouldn't be considered a warning. "May contain peanuts" is a warning. "Ingredients: 100% orange juice" is a notification. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So, would one suggest that we put notices like that on masturbation or Prince Albert piercing too? нмŵוτнτ 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The comparison of Muhammad to sexual or anatomical body parts is like comparing apples to oranges. When people type such things, they expect to see a picture of it. In this article, many Muslims probably have no idea that there are not one, not two, but three pictures of Muhammad. This is akin to going to the main page of Wikipedia and seeing it vandalized with porn and other unsuitable images. --Hdt83 ^Chat 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the same concerning if one expects to see images or not. You made my point more clear. If one doesn't want to see images of a penis, don't search for penis-concerning articles. Exactly! If one doesn't want to see images of Muhammad, don't go to Muhammad articles. нмŵוτнτ 01:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That analogy simply doesn't work. Everyone knows that pictures of penises exist (since 50% of the population has one, pictures aren't exactly hard to come by - if you'll excuse the inadvertent pun). So if you look at an article about penises, it's not unexpected that you'll see a picture of one. On the other hand, I suspect that a good deal of the offence in this case is due to many Muslims not being aware that pictures of Muhammad even exist. I'm pretty sure it's not covered in middle school history books in Islamic countries! The point is that readers anywhere - in the West or the East - have no expectation that this article will show depictions of Muhammad, since they have no idea that such images exist, let alone appear in the article. Our challenge is to close this gap between their expectations and the reality of the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Cary Bass made a good point in distinguishing between different Muslim readers. In fact, I think some form of harsh treatment together with compromise on reasonable points is required here. Let me provide a stupid example of how things may go wrong: Just as some male Muslims prefer to increase the covering of women instead of thinking of a way to make a special type of eyeglass for men, some of them might not see their own share in the story and acknowledge that at the end, the opportunity of doing something inappropriate is always available but it is they who have to restrain themselves from it or impose restrictions on themselves. Not that this type of thinking is specific to Muslims, it shows up in various forms among all people. Admittedly, Muslims can expect that in a free society, they should be given the chance to exert their freedom but anything beyond that is not acceptable.

One last comment: one way to make a note more visible is to change its color to blue by adding a wiki-link to the depiction section in the article. Probably the blue can become more colorful if it is bolden: the depiction section. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I always forget to mention this. I think we should separate English Encyclopedia from other European encyclopedias. Similar measures may not be necessary to be taken in other encyclopedias. This is because of the international aspect of english: many Muslims know English because it is the scientific of the time and they have to inevitably use it; they are taught in school about it; they have to write their scientific papers in that language etc etc. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Chris O, that was a very good response. I not understand that not all of them even KNOW that an image exists. Although I still stand by my opinion that they should stay on the page, I learned something. I thought that they just didn't (or weren't supposed to) see pictures of him, not that they had no idea pictures even existed. That massive culture gap is just hard for me to fathom, I suppose. Thank you for the informative answer (and making me laugh w/ you pun, haha). нмŵוτнτ 02:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not intending to single you out by any means, hmwith, I've seen other people using similar arguments, but just a general caution: let's please be careful comparing Muhammad to other topics with "offensive" images, as I worry the argument might be taken out of context and very much in the wrong way by someone who doesn't immediately grasp what the speaker's getting at. I see where the point's coming from after a good dozen rehashes of the old debates, certainly, but I'm not so sure about newly incoming (and in some cases already upset) readers. Not to say the argument is invalid, by any means, just to try and be aware of that when phrasing it. Other than that, I'm very happy to see some healthy discussion going on, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My point was that they're both images some users don't want to and/or don't expect to see. I've seen many complaints on talk pages of articles w/ "inappropriate images" that are a great deal like the ones here. нмŵוτнτ 16:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Don't you think that if Sunni Muslims do a Google search for "Muhammad" and click on a link to an English encyclopedia hosted in the United States that they might expect to find something objectionable, even a photo? They are clearly aware that Wikipedia is not subject to the laws of a Muslim nation. Pushing forward - we are a self-selected group, there is no limit to who can edit here. While some may be wary of editing because of technological unfamiliarity we don't consider the feelings of Luddites on our technology either. The prohibition against the display of images of Muhammad is a religious law. We simply do not and can not obey religious prohibitions or other rules that directly conflict with our culture and goals. If you want to obscure the images behind a collapse box - fine, collapse all the images in this article. Other articles (notably the inkblot test article) do so without issue. The only reason I can see that justifies this, however, is to stifle vandals and readers who (a) oppose what we do here and (b) are unable or unwilling to participate in a reasonable discussion. ^Avruchtalk 02:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Those who follow a laws be it secular or religous do that with the belief that it is good for them to do (good in some "sense"). You might not recognize the goodness or validity of that "sense", but then that would be simply your personal view. One can not bring that in the discussion about a community as a whole. In any case, any such personal analysis will be always based on some assumptions and assumptions could not be enforced...Karl Marx was not a fan of religion but if you take his historical materialism thesis, then you can see that the religous laws are not in essence a different origin than the accepted norms, customs, even moral standards and many of the common sense things. I hope you see where I am going. We should simply look at the problem in this form: there are some people who think for some reason seeing an image is bad for them. To say that since the reason comes from religion, it can be ignored is not the appropriate position to take.--Be happy!! (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, and you are right that the distinction between 'laws' and 'religious laws' can be flimsy, particularly in a historical context. My view is that we are subject to the laws we must be subject to, and we should not voluntarily accede to any other attempts to legislate our content. The laws governing what we do are secular and determined by a free society - 'free' and 'freedom' are intrinsic to what we do. Laws based in modern religious interpretation tend to be the antithesis to 'free' and 'freedom' and while this may be a relativist view and others may believe that greater limits on freedom is good... They are not here, and as a community we emphatically do not share their belief. ^Avruchtalk 02:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It is correct that the laws should not be arbitrarily imposed and that's why I think those who ask for the outright removal of all the pictures because they are offending to them should be strongly opposed (and I would go as far as saying indefinitely banned if they persist).

My only point is that in a free society, people be given the chance to exert their freedom in matters important to them: in this case, Muslims being given the chance to exert their freedom in not seeing the images if they don't want to (that is, they stop reading the article and go for another source of information). That's all. Most of the work is left to Muslims themselves eventually. We do not change our way, we let them know what our ways are. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's ludicrous to impose a disclaimer on the top of the article that the article contains images of Muhammad. Anyone looking at the article can tell that. There's no need to include an article-level content disclaimer when there's already the Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Images of pornography are often considered to be incredibly violent against women and are opposed almost universally by the feminist community, yet we don't put disclaimers there. Why? Well because the feminist community isn't trolling those articles - Adding such a disclaimer to this article is simply giving into and feeding the trolls; a path down the slippery slope of censorship. --Veritas (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I just make a sidepoint here - there is very little to no trolling from the hit and run IP editors who appear here and ask for the pictures to be removed. Just because they don't understand how we do things doesn't make them trolls, the majority (as far as I can) see are acting in good faith - so let's keep that word for people who deserve it. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the giant red warnings at the top of this talk page? Making the same comments here for image removal after reading those certainly seems like trolling to me and giving absolutely no regard to consensus while disrupting the project from making constructive progress toward improving the article. --Veritas (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a red herring - we know from HCI research that people don't read such things and we are being unrealistic if we expect IP editors who have never been here before to do so - it's nothing to do with the issue at hand, it's the reality of CMI - be it here at wikipedia or any number of talkboards - people only pick up the rules and norms from repeated interactation - no amount of big red notices will get around that reality. Those people don't understand "consensus" as we describe it, so again it's unrealistic to just mention it and expect them to "get it". It's very easy for us on the inside to forget what a confusing place wikipedia is. So no it's nothing to do with trolling, it's do with understanding. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, the warnings at the top of the talk page are quite clear and explain the situation. If someone fails to read what's right in front of their face, that's their own fault. --Veritas (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, it's not a disclaimer. It's simply a notification to inform readers that certain content exists in the article. What they do with that information is up to them. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In essence, another form of a spoiler warning which is unnecessary. Either way, it is pointless and not encyclopedic. --Veritas (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Being encyclopedic is certainly a worthy goal, but there does eventually come a point where standing on absolute principle only prolongs controversy and upset. I can't say where that point lies, or whether we're approaching it here, but this seems very much a fringe case to me. A large number of people are upset and will likely continue to be upset for some time; what do you propose we do about it? – Luna Santin (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In this case, stand by policy and keep the article semi-protected (against both IPs and newly registered editors). --Veritas (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We are in a blind here and this isn't actually about policy anymore (although we all use that language) - it's about worldview. Many of our hit and run editors will not stop until the pictures are removed - that is reality, many of our established editors will not allow the pictures to be removed because they see it as an attack on the very nature of the project (rightly or wrongly). The simple answer is that this problem is pretty much unsolvable without causing a schism in the project - without removal, the editwars will continue, remove or anything that is seen as being censorship will just cause a similar response but internally plus will create a different firestorm - that wikipedia capitulated to the religious (rightly or wrongly - that is how it will be seen by large sections of our readers/media commentators) --Fredrick day (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that the vandals will be persistent until they get their way, I disagree that the problem is the doomsday "Clash of Civilizations" problem you describe - there is no schism in the project. With the right level of protection we can force people to the talk page and direct them to the relevant policies. No solution is perfect, but we should seek to obtain the best solution possible without compromising policies which may or may not be where we are at now. Again, I think that protection of the article page should also disallow edits by newly registered users in addition to anon ones. --Veritas (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I propose we continue to do what we have been doing. WP:RBI those that wish to edit war over removing the images, fully protect as needed, and continue to do so until people tire of this crusade and move onto the next. IMO, this very petition is defeating the argument of how a Muslim follower could come to this article and not expect to see depictions of Muhammad. They are coming here specifically because they know there are images. At this point, any upset that is caused is self-inflicted. We can't do much about that. Resolute 14:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. --Veritas (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the Muslims who come here on their own accord? These images alienate new potential Muslim editors here, furthering the systemic bias already present in this encyclopedia. Oore (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, if they want to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia then they must abide by all of its policies just as every other editor does. Not all of us agree with all of the content on Wiki, but we understand and appreciate its right to exist. --Veritas (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is biased toward a free society, because a free society created Wikipedia. --65.40.35.52 (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Important information deleted

Why was this deleted from the Mohammed page. It is 1 of the most important paragraphs, for all Muslims and Mohammed followers. It is also in the Qu'ran I request you to put this paragraph back up as it is important. It is important for people who are strong devotees to Mohammed.

Jewish tribes of Medina

After his migration to Medina, Muhammad's attitude towards Christians and Jews changed.

During this fateful time, fraught with tension after the Hidjra [migration to Medina], when Muhammad encountered contradiction, ridicule and rejection from the Jewish scholars in Medina, he came to adopt a radically more negative view of the people of the Book who had received earlier scriptures. This attitude was already evolving in the third Meccan period as the Prophet became more aware of the antipathy between Jews and Christians and the disagreements and strife amongst members of the same religion. The Qur'an at this time states that it will "relate [correctly] to the Children of Israel most of that about which they differ" ( XXVII, 76).

Jewish opposition "may well have been for political as well as religious reasons".[108] On religious grounds, the Jews were skeptical of the possibility of a non-Jewish prophet,[109] and also had concerns about possible incompatibilities between the Qur'an and their own scriptures.[109][110] The Qur'an's response regarding the possibility of a non-Jew being a prophet was that Abraham was not a Jew. The Qur'an also stated that it was "restoring the pure monotheism of Abraham which had been corrupted in various, clearly specified, ways by Jews and Christians".[109] According to Peters, "The Jews also began secretly to connive with Muhammad's enemies in Mecca to overthrow him."[111]

After each major battle with the Meccans, Muhammad accused one of the Jewish tribes of treachery (see Surah 2:100) and attacked them. After Badr, Muhammad besieged the Banu Qaynuqa and forced their surrender. He wanted to put all the men to death, but was convinced not to do so by Abdullah ibn Ubayy, who was an old ally of the Qaynuqa.[112] Instead, he expelled them from Medina with their families and possessions. After Uhud, he did the same to the Banu Nadir. After the Battle of the Trench in 627, the Muslims accused the Jews of Banu Qurayza of conspiring with the Meccans, then inspected the captives and beheaded all male members of the Banu Qurayza that had grown pubic hair.[113] The females and children were sold as slaves. [114]

Two types of explanations are given for Muhammad's treatment of the Jews of Medina: theological and political. The theological explanation given by some Arab historians and biographers is that:"the punishment of the Medina Jews, who were invited to convert and refused, perfectly exemplify the Quran's tales of what happened to those who rejected the prophets of old." Others offered a political explanation.[115] F.E. Peters, a western scholar of Islam, states that Muhammad's treatment of Jews of Medina was essentially political being prompted by what Muhammad read as treasonous and not some transgression of the law of God.[111] Peters adds that Muhammad was possibly emboldened by his military successes and also wanted to push his advantage. Economical motivations according to Peters also existed since the poorness of the Meccan migrants was a source of concern for Muhammad.[116] Peters argues that Muhammad's treatment of the Jews of Medina was "quite extraordinary", "matched by nothing in the Qur'an", and is "quite at odds with Muhammad's treatment of the Jews he encountered outside Medina."[111]

--99.238.7.180 (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The information was decided to be chronologically merged into other sections. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for reference purposes, the anon's comment refers to this edit by Aminz, on 3 February, 2008. I feel the edit summary is an explanation in itself. Green Giant (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Death (murder) of Muhammad

Hello Everyone,

The murder of Muhammad by Zainab Bint al-Harith is quite interesting, yet no mention is made of his murder on Wikipedia, only of his death. Also the circumstances around Muhammad's death seem avoided.

Do you think it would improve the Wikipedia reading on Muhammad to say more about his murder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdzuber (talk • contribs) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if it was Zainab Bint al-Harith. Please find a reliable source for that. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

an image question unlike all others!

Why do we need both images in the Seal of the prophets section? It smushes the text awkwardly. I don't know enough to know whether they are both essential. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of expression is a God-given right...and an American practice that is sacred.

While some followers of Islam may be offended by these historic images of the prophet, members of others religious traditions, no less worthy of dignity and respect have had to contend with artwork, editorials, and dipictions that are often considered offensive by its' followers. Case in point, the frequent depictions of Jesus Christ in art, displayed in public arenas that can be considered offensive. Freedom of expression is part of this nations founding principles. If followers of Islam wish to inculturate, they will need to be more tolerant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.63.16.28 (talk • contribs)

The word you are looking for is "aculturate." Anyway, the point here isn't of the extremely vague notion of "god-given" rights or "American" practice. I don't know freedom of speech is uniquely American since it is a concept borrowed from Europe. Regardless, this is about Wiki policy and getting people to understand how Wiki works. --Veritas (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that "freedom of expression" is not a god given right on Wikipedia. As a private enterprise, Wikipedia actually has the right to determine what information it hosts as it sees fit. For the most part, the determination on this is left to the community, and the community has overwhelmingly decided not to practice censorship in cases such as this. Resolute 20:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Its spelt "acculturate" i think you will find. (80.42.202.6 (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

I repeat, in boldface, what Resolute says above: As a private enterprise, Wikipedia actually has the right to determine what information it hosts as it sees fit. All these protests insinuating that Wikipedia is somehow "more wrong" in showing pictures of Muhammad than any other private website hosted in the USA appear to be missing this fundamental fact. dab (𒁳) 12:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Protected and suggestion

I've protected this page again due to edit warring. We now need to come to a conclusion as to how we solve this dispute. It's only fair that both editors and readers are able to be involved in discussion for an amicable compromise. I am considering creating a discussion page, that can be directed to from the main Muhammad page so readers and editors are able to express their views, and we can work through the issues as a collaborative. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that what this page is? ^Avruchtalk 21:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest more of a community RfC and try and draw in readers. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's premature to conclude this isn't just a temporary surge associated with the Times article and the petition spam - try giving it a bit of time to wear off. WilyD 21:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that 100,000 potential readers have signed a petition saything they don't want these images here, we should listen to these concerns and attempt to work through the issues with them. We are here to create an encyclopedia for our readers - we should listen to their concerns. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless you plan to change the policy on Wikipedia censorship, the views of 100, 100,000 or 100,000,000 would-be censors don't matter in the least. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Also see WP:CONEXCEPT - even if the discussion for this article were somehow to arrive at the consensus that Wikipedia should be censored in this one case, the broader consensus on WP:NOTCENSORED would and should prevail. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 22:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Bowing to mob justice is not in the interest of our readers either. The concerns have been listened to numerous times, and rejected numerous times. A silly internet petition site isn't really going to change this, I don't think. Resolute 22:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto with the above two. The deletion of the images from the article to appease them is simply not an option. If we were inserting images of Muhammad all over the article just to offend people, that would be questionable, but these images (created by Muslims, no less!) are clearly serving an educational, historical purpose. The people (which, by the way, I don't believe truly amounts to 100,000 in support of deletion) signing this petition that ultimately says their cultural sensibilities ought to trump all others need to get over it -- both here and in the real world. There are a lot of things on Wikipedia that offend people, and we should not be kowtowing to this contingent any more than we submit to others. Those against the images are free to comment here, and those here seem open to the idea of a mini-notice, but the real disruption is coming from people removing the images from the article and failing to express any interest in working this out on the talk page. Raising the single-purpose meatpuppetry and lowering the anti-disruption efforts to "edit warring" is incomprehensible. . Thus, I do not understand, again, why this article keeps getting protected and many of the meatpuppets are left unblocked; we get, by far, less disruption from these editors (which can easily be blocked) than we get on Today's Featured Article (which just about always remains w/o semi-protection) -- tariqabjotu 22:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It could just as easily be 30 computer science students in Tehran. ^Avruchtalk 22:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This is going to be all over the muslim press in muslim countries. And is going to create a huge outrage. - Surely there is someone in wikipedia who has some sense? Has this been brought to the attention of James Whales 81.86.218.6 (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I would support a discussion. I also agree that we should listen to concerns that have been expressed by thoughtful people, even if those people are not necessarily "Wikipedians." Though Wikipedia does run by consensus, sometimes I think we get a bit too focused on making decisions just among the regulars here, without taking into account the opinions of the more occasional users. Where it's clear that "the outside community" has a strong feeling that is different from our internal discussions, we should do our best to listen, and consider if we can work harder to find a consensus that satisfies all parties. --Elonka 22:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, if we bend to mob rule here - where does it stop? --Fredrick day (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope, Elonka, you're not suggesting that "the outside community" has a strong feeling that is different from our internal discussions. Just because there isn't a 100K-signature petition for these images does not mean there aren't 100,000 people for them. In fact, I think we can all agree that there most certainly are 100,000 people (and many, many, many more) that are okay with these images. -- tariqabjotu 23:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Community

looking at blogs etc, many people are outraged about these pictures and are requesting that internet providers in the 50 or so muslim countries block wikipedia, until they remove the offensive articles. This is not in the interest of Wikipedia. Even if there are rules etc, there has to be common sense, and there should always be exceptions to the rules if it is in the interest of the greater good.81.86.218.6 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Bowing to religious fascism isn't in the interest of Wikipedia either. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fascism is putting it a little too harshly. But, in any event, the countries (Muslim or otherwise) who do block Wikipedia due to material they deem inappropriate reflects more poorly on those countries than on Wikipedia. The fact that Wikipedia leaves (or at least attempts to leave) politics out of the project speaks volumes about how great it is. I see no reason to reward bully behavior, but instead feel we should be open to people who are able and willing to talk about how to address (as ChrisO puts is) the expectations gap. -- tariqabjotu 22:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If Wikipedia editing is supposed to work by "consensus", then how can we justify ignoring a petition of 100,000 signatures about what is (basically) an editing decision? By protecting the article and refusing to honor the consensus principle, the editors here are just being wiki-bullies and "owning the article". You cry censorship, when in the process, you are censoring the opinions of many more people than those who share your opinion to retain the images. 129.116.79.240 (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We have other policies and guidelines besides Wikipedia:Consensus, and most support the inclusion of these images. (And, furthermore, I think you will find that those for including these images far outweigh those against them; the other side just simply has no desire to put much more energy into something that is a foregone conclusion.) -- tariqabjotu 22:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is determined by the will of the community's (read: Wikipedia's) editors in good standing. The opinions of those outside of the Wikipedia community carries no weight within. In addition, consensus is not based around the number of people "voting" on something, but around the strength of the arguments presented by each side. There is no policy based reason to justify the removal of the images, but numerous that support their inclusion. This is, imo, the central point of this debate. WP:IDONTLIKEIT has long been held as a very bad argument in a debate. Resolute 22:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Again agreed with comments made here - we must stand firm. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So basically what you're saying is that if we got enough editors here who supported removal of the images, that would qualify as "consensus"? Thank you for providing this useful information. Stay tuned.129.116.79.240 (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If a policy actually existed that supports removal, yes. Ten editors favouring removal because they don't like it will not trump five editors citing Wikipedia's policies opposing censorship. Resolute 23:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a famous photograph by Andreas Serrano, Piss Christ, that is an artistic depiction of Jesus Christ. If this image were placed on the article about Jesus and sequentially removed by editors, over and over and over again, would you regard that as censorship by the editors of that article? Why or why not? 129.116.79.240 (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you then support the inclusion of the images that sparked the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy on this article? The appropriateness of an image on a specific article is also taken into consideration. Consensus, thus far, is that the images that currently depict Muhammad and Jesus in their articles serve to enhance a reader's understanding of the subject of the article. Piss Christ, and the Muhammad cartoons may or may not serve a similar purpose on the main articles, but that is something you may initiate a discussion on, if you so choose. Resolute 23:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm initiating it. The point is, there are two versions of the images in question. The editors here cry censorship when the images are replaced with veiled images... but isn't it also censorship to exclude the veiled versions? Under a strict definition of censorship, you cannot argue for preferential inclusion of one over the other, because despite the simple existence of the unveiled image, the tradition to veil it (which is a cultural decision that is NOT the same as censorship) is also an old one, and well-established -- even better established than the tradition of depicting Mohammed. Therefore: if you want to prance around here touting your horns about the sacredness of Wikipedia policy and tradition above all other things viewed as sacred, then in order to have any integrity about your hating of "censorship", you should remove all versions of this image altogether. Otherwise you are censoring, as well. Think about it. 129.116.79.240 (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To those that say discussions should only be among existing members of the community, well, for the record: I am a member in good standing of the Wikipedia community, I am an administrator, and I have stated (and will continue to state) that I am uncomfortable about the use of the images of Muhammad in some contexts on Wikipedia. Which doesn't mean that I think that they should be deleted, but it does mean that I think we can come up with more thoughtful ways of how and where we use them, to ensure that we are using good judgment and not just throwing pictures around willy-nilly because they look pretty. I support WP:CENSOR, but I also support WP:UNDUE. In some places, by using the images in an excessive way, we are giving undue weight to the existence of the images. This is a violation of our policy on neutrality, and I think it is worth us engaging in a good-faith discussion about this. To be even more specific, let's talk about the image of Muhammad and the Black Stone. Yes it was painted by a Muslim, but there are lots of different kinds of Muslims. That particular image was painted by a new Muslim, who was in a culture that had only relatively recently converted to Islam (the Mongols). As such, the painting, even at the time that it was created, did not represent the view of "mainstream" Islam, it was basically created by a minority subculture. By us forcing the use of the image onto articles that are about mainstream Islam (and don't even mention anything about the subculture), I think that we are doing our readers a disservice. --Elonka 23:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So you are demanding that all the images must represent the view of "mainstream" Islam. In effect, this amounts to imposing the internal rules of a religion on any Wikipedia article about a subject from this religion, and excluding all minority views within that religion (such as Mongols, Persians and Shiites, in this example), and any outside views. This is a far-fetched interpretation of WP:UNDUE which flatly contradicts WP:NPOV and Wikipedia's usual practices in the illustration of articles on historical figures.

Belittling the illustration from the famous Jami al-Tawarikh as one of "pictures [which are thrown] around willy-nilly because they look pretty" is in stark contrast with this scholarly assessment of the University of Edinburgh for example, which calls those miniatures "extremely important in the relationship of western and eastern schools of art". Similar arguments can be made for the other images.

(Sorry that this partly a rehash of arguments made earlier, but apparently it is inevitable that the same discussions must be repeated again and again, and on multiple pages, too.)

Regards, High on a tree (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is not "about mainstream Islam," Elonka, but about the individual named Muhammad. What you have in mind is Islamic view of Muhammad.128.208.76.85 (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Muhammad is an enormously important figure in the context of "secular" history. He founded one of the most important and influential historical empires and set down the legal code that still exists in a substantial amount of the world. Muhammad is not just an Islamic figure, he's an historical figure who's extraordinarily important to Islam, but it doesn't end there. WilyD 12:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, removing all images altogether would be censorship. Favouring one type of image over another would be bias. And, in fact, the article presents both veiled and unveiled images of Muhammad, so by your argument, both sides are being represented here, ergo, even on your definition, there is no censorship occurring. I would also point out that there has been little to no discussion at all about two versions of the same images existing, and which one to use. The arguments thus far have all been "this image offends my religious sensibilities, please remove it." Though, of the three images in this article, if you are aware of an alternate of that same image that can be freely licenced, I would love to add it in, as a side-by-side comparison of two images, one veiled and one unveiled would make for a fascinating and effective visual aid in discussion how the attitude towards depicting Muhammad has changed over time. Resolute 00:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Resolute. Further, I'd like to indicate that the term, "mainstream Islam" is actually an extremely nebulous concept. There is, in fact, no such thing as mainstream Islam. That's as absurd as saying "mainstream Christianity." --Veritas (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Policy

I would like to request a new Wikipedia Policy Any article that significantly contributes to tension between the west and Islam should be altered to prevent this tension we can name the policy WP:COMMONSENSE and it would trump all other policies.

Wikipedia:There is no common sense Nakon 23:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"WP:COMMON" redirects here. For Common outcomes of deletion discussions, see WP:OUTCOMES. For Use common names, see WP:COMMONNAMES.

Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. If you use common sense when editing, you are unlikely to do anything wrong.

Even if a contribution violates the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something disruptive is not forbidden in a written rule doesn't mean it's a good idea (e.g., don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point). The spirit of the rules is more important than the letter.

Invoking the principle of "ignore all rules" on its own will not convince anyone that you were right, so you will need to persuade the rest of the community that your actions improved the encyclopedia. A skilled application of this concept should ideally fly under the radar, and not be noticed at all. 81.86.218.6 (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

you will need to persuade the rest of the community that your actions improved the encyclopedia. The current consensus is that Wikipedia is not censored, were it for minors, muslims, or Star Trek fans. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I doubt that this policy would gain anything near a consensus. Wikipedia is not "the west". Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 11:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC).

Who painted the images of Muhammed to begin with?

It seems a bit strange to me, but who painted the images of Muhammed to begin with? Was it Muslims or Non-Muslims? If it isn't proper to have an image of him then who painted the pictures?--Twiztidstr8 (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, at least one of the images identifies an artist, but it appears to be the case all four images used where produced by Muslims. WilyD 22:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, the lead image was made by Nakkaş Osman. WilyD 22:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

They were all produced by Muslims. While they were obviously not created to be insulting they were created in a time without vast amounts of communication so such images weren't globally accepted or known about. They are minority views. gren グレン 23:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Paul M. Cobb, who teaches Islamic history at Notre Dame, some of the most beautiful Islamic artwork are manuscript images of Muhammad. Ref: [10] Soonerzbt (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposals for administrators

In the case of this article, when we have sleeper accounts being used to solely remove images, in the face of a blatant consensus against it, I would like to know what other administrators (and editors, although they can't implement the second template) think of:

• User:Daniel/MHI
• User:Daniel/MHII

I would never normally do this per WP:BITE. However, the following factors make me think that we should:

• These are sleeper accounts (per the semi-protection) with a single purpose
• They are edit warring against a blatantly clear consensus
• They will have been warned about the consensus before being blocked
• The constant reverts against consensus have resulted in protections, which mean that the encyclopedia suffers

I do not propose to use these on users making edits of a dissimilar nature to other articles, but your generic four-day-old two-edits-both-removing-images-from-Muhammad ones. One warning for the first removal, provided it's their first edit, and the second one is a block.

Thoughts? Daniel (talk) 04:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. However, I might suggest removing from the warning the specific time period that it takes to pass the semi-protection. -- tariqabjotu 04:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEANS, I guess. Good idea, done - using "allowed to mature". Daniel (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is - we do have new users coming here, given its advertisement on the foxnews main page. I'd like to keep it protected for 24 hours, then make it clear on the main page of the article that changes of the images won't be acceptable. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, no need for implementation right now. More thinking for implementation after the full protection. Daniel (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? I don't follow. This page has been in the New York Times, front-paged on Digg, on Fox News, and on Little Green Footballs... but what's the problem? Users that didn't have accounts before wouldn't be able to edit the article under the semi-protection, and, judging by the level of disruption prior to your protection, we will have a manageable number of sleeper accounts left to block. Daniel's proposal does not say block every user that removes the images, but block those users who have no interest in commenting on the talk page or otherwise contributing to Wikipedia contrustively. I really don't see why these proposals keep coming up and yet people keep protecting the article; it seems like a no-brainer to me to approach the article in the way similar to that noted above. -- tariqabjotu 05:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Keeping the page protected is just going to aggravate things. I've seen at least three people cite the protection as oppression of muslims. Zazaban (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not the reason I think the protection is unwarranted; and, with some it seems a damned if we do, damned if we don't thing. -- tariqabjotu 05:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How about this: we fully unblock the article, and let all hell break lose until things simmer down. Then we re-semi it and fix everything. Zazaban (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that is exactly why protection is needed (at least for now). I suspect semi-protection will last a long time. Yahel Guhan 06:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's going to always be protected in some form or another. Jmlk17 06:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that's a real shame. Couldn't we unblock it entirely for a week until all the opposing groups do their bit, and then pick up the pieces? Anythings worth a shot right now. Zazaban (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to remove the semi-protection (especially) at this time. -- tariqabjotu 07:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There's simply too much drama involving this article, especially considering its current media profile. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, if we unprotect the article, we can expect it to be heavily vandalised, and if we do not unprotect it, we can expect to be accused of intolerance. Keeping it protected is obviously undesirable, but so are the alteratives. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 10:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC).

What's I'm saying is let the vandalism happen for a while and let it get out of people's systems. Sooner or later, somebody is going to assume they've 'won'. Zazaban (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Many of these accounts are genuine new editors who simply don't know the score. We need to be gentle but firm. No biting. WilyD 12:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

has someone googled around where these "new editors" may be coming from? The way these things go, there is probably no dearth of internet fora where users are being called to come over here and complain. dab (��) 15:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, in the last two days, this issue has been mentioned in both the New York Times and on FoxNews (or at least their respective websites). Additionally, canvassing is known to be going on from various sources ... so yes, some are maybe "meatpuppets" but some are drawn genuinely, and all are new and clueless. Gentleness is called for. WilyD 15:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Bahaullah connection

(originally titled "There ought be a note at the top of the page saying that there will be depictions of Muhammad in the article.")

Hello I am a Bahai and I think it's only fair that my prophet and Islam's prophet are treated similarly. Right now, the article on Bahaullah, there is a note in italics saying that a copy of the photograph can be found at the end of the article. There should be something similar here.--Goon Noot (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Hopefully the the note on Bahaullah will be removed, since it seems to be in violation of Wikipedia's policy on disclaimers in articles. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it as it is already covered in the content disclaimer. Nakon 04:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Leave that article alone. Like this article, the Bahaullah has undergone a great deal of discussion about the image, its placement, and the "disclaimer". If you think it needs to be removed, take it to that talk page. The discussions here have little to do with what is/should be going on there; we're just talking about the Muhammad article. -- tariqabjotu 05:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

for the record, I am absolutely opposed to the present "Bahá'u'lláh solution". Precisely because it sets a terrible precedent. The image placement may be arguable, but the disclaimer is problematic. dab (��) 10:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the early discussion about Muhammad paintings discussed that. The biggest difference is that the Bahaullah image is 100% doubtlessly relevant since it's a photograph whereas the Muhammad images aren't. But as the days go by I think we are generally being arbitrary on this decision. gren グレン 12:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The way to proceed: Principles and not Practical Solutions

I think before coming to a consensus regarding the practical solutions, we have to come to a consensus regarding the underlying principles.

I have tried to list some of the principles that had been brought up by different users so far. If I am missing something please let me know:

Principles:

1. No Censorship

2. Non-consenting readers should not unexpectedly, involuntarily or unwittingly be exposed to the images when visiting Muhammad (If you search Muhammad on google, wikipedia comes up at the very top).

3. There should be some harmony between the type, nature and number of images of Muhammad in the article and the type, nature and number of images of Muhammad in Muslim history.

Please discuss which principles you do not agree with and why. Here we are trying to see each principle in its own terms and not in relation to practical limitations or other principles. BTW, if you do agree with some of these, please indicate that so that we can know when consensus is formed. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion:

Only the first is a principle, the other two relate to operations. The second is unenforcable unless you plan to remove every image on the site - because althought we keep saying that people who visit the article Penis or autofellatio should expect to see pictures, we have no way of proving the validity of such a statement, it could be a sizable percentage only expect to see a description of either and we would then fall foul of your "unexpectedly, involuntarily or unwittingly" on pretty much every page we have. The third is so wooly and contextual bound that it's essentionally meaningless. In addition, it can only be put in place if we give undue weight to one perception of islamic history - and the point is, this is not an article about Islam or muslims, it's an article about a historical figure who has significant overlap with those two things - so we are would be giving undue weight if we gave one groups view of how a historical view should be viewed too much perference. We write articles about those things but we are trying to scholars of islam not islamic scholars. --Fredrick day (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you search for penis, you expect to see one. But if you are Muslim and search for Muhammad, you don't expect see one. See ChrisO's "Analysis and a proposal" above. For the third, see Gren's and other's comment above.--Be happy!! (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No that's your claim, you have no way of proving that a significant proportation of readers only expect to see a textual description and maybe a medical diagram not a photo - I don't have a photo of a penis in any of my paper encyclopedias (which is an arguement used to remove the picture of muhammad here - that paper encyclopedias never displayed them). The archiving of the talkpage for penis is full of people expecting the photos of penises to be removed, the help desk regularly gets people shocked that a picture of a cock is displayed and will someone not think of the children.. so no I don't think "people expect" can stand without very strong supporting evidence. --Fredrick day (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim on the third point. Throughout all of history images of Muhammad are rare--not just Islamic history. And to say this is an article about Muhammad, not Islam or Islamic history is... well, you can't separate the two. Muhammad was created out of Islamic history. Most of what we know about him was written down over a hundred years later. It's clear that Muhammad has changed with Islamic history not only in fact but in perception. To try to separate Muhammad from Islamic history and just give "fact about the man" would be like writing a children's book not an academic encyclopedia. In the end I'd rather have one traditional Persian image and the image of Muhammad from Dante's Inferno in a section about demonization in early Europe than what we have now. I think. gren グレン 11:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional Principle 4 . Common sense. If the pictures bring no real value or little value, but it offends 1/5 of the population it should be removed. To gauge wether the pictures bring value we should reflect on the fact that Mohammed is the most written about person in the history of mankind, and yet no one else deemed illustrations as necessary to describe him , other than the 3 or 4 examples shown. This falls under WP:Common —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.19.98 (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If the pictures bring no real value or little value, but it offends 1/5 of the population it should be removed. -- your insistance at removal goes back to the core arguement here. We are trying to come to an equitable solution, but your lack of willingness to compromise is counterproductive. --Mhking (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the very existence of these depictions is of huge historical and artistic importance; for one thing, it shows that some Muslims, despite what has been put down, actually did make a number of images that depicted Muhammad. Trying to argue against that point is, at least, moot; also note that they also are quite important, as they are comparative sources for the medieval religious artistry of said people, and also show how these people thought of Muhammad.

The supposedly offended fifth of the world's population is both an unverifiable number (for one thing, I doubt that even half the Muslims in the world have ever had or will ever have the chance to look up Muhammad on Wikipedia, keeping economic stati in mind) and assumes that all Muslims are automatically offended; it also says nothing of the rest of the world who would most probably find the idea of being unallowed to view these images based on a petition (which is hardly a conductive way to proceed with such matters) which has supposedly been signed by a hundred thousand people (most of which signs are not signed at all!) quite repulsive and contrary to any principle of freedom and abjuration of censorship.

Finally, please keep in mind the key policies and guidelines of wikipedia; as willing as editors may be to your requests, we simply cannot deface or delete the above images — it's against not just rules, but even principles. — RaspK FOG (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Mohammed is the most widely written about person in history. Yet in order to describe Mohammed only a handful of people out of the millions and millions who have written authoritively about Mohammed have created illustrations. What this means is that it is perfectly clear an authoritive biography of mohammed without illustrations is not only possible but preferable. Granted the illustrations have historical significance, perhaps there should be an article about the illustrations and the pictures put on there. In terms of wikipedia policy please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Use_common_sense 78.86.19.98 (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

which is em.. not policy. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"If you search for penis, you expect to see one. But if you are Muslim and search for Muhammad, you don't expect see one." I disagree. If you are a Muslim and you visit a Muslim website, then, yes, I agree, you would not expect to see such images. If you are a Muslim and you visit a secular website, then you need to be prepared to accept that images may be displayed. Personally, I find it rather difficult to believe that Muslims are ignorant about the internet, so I choose to discredit this argument. Not to mention that as a result of this petition, there is virtually zero chance that any Muslim readers venturing into this article is not already aware of the existence of the pictures. Resolute 15:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

what information about Mohammed's biography do you derive from an illustration painted hundreds of years after Mohammed's death? That someone depicted his as tall, short, broad, etc? The physical characteristics of Mohammed are well depicted in the historical literature. 78.86.19.98 (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Operational activities

Ok a quick suggestion - it's sucking up a lot of time repeating the same answers over and over again - can we not generate a page of stock replies that we can cut and past to answer the most comment questions? Like the PRATTS that have been used with creationists for many years? --Fredrick day (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

you mean Talk:Muhammad/FAQ? I'm not sure how we should handle repetitive requests to compile a FAQ, since it appears pointless to state in the FAQ page that we already have a FAQ page. --dab (��) 10:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No - because nobody reads FAQ - I mean a stock source of replies that we as editors can drawn up upon to cut and paste in response to the same questions and points over and over again - we can then try and ensure a consistent approach to our replies and make sure that replies are a) polite b) informative and c) push those people who want to know more towards the correct policies pages. It's a tool for us not a tool for people coming here --Fredrick day (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How about User:Frederick day/Muhammad. Then you can use whatever content you have on that page by doing {{subst:User:Frederick day/Muhammad}}. Lots of people do that for welcome templates, etc. gren グレン 11:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

that's not a bad idea. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection reduced down to semi

I've reduced the protection down to semi. It's inevitable that we are going to get an influx (as we already have done) of IP's given the recent news stories about this article and leaving it completely unprotected will decrease the decorum. If images are removed, the best thing to do is simply revert for now - consensus at the minute is that the images should be included per WP:CENSOR and I believe we can make an exception to WP:3RR in this particular instance, so don't be worried about getting blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I propose we put the images in collapsable boxes, which are automatically set to hide, and if users wish to see the images, they simply press show and they appear instantly. This would mean users who wish to read the article are not automatically obliged to see the images, removing the offence taken by muslims whilst also allowing those who wish to view the images being able to do so. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

While I personally have no strong feelings about this technical change (my personal opinion is that I'd prefer a disclaimer, but that would start the spoiler war all over again), I think this is a change that should be brought to wider community consensus before implementing it: if we do it here, I see no reason for not doing the same on other articles with "shocking" images (Penis comes first in mind, but I'm pretty sure people will find dozens of articles). -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, well, someone suggested this earlier (someone in the massive archives of this page)... and people turned it down for this reason: the precedent it sets. People get upset about images in lots of articles. Should we do this to those? I'm all for consistency throughout Wikipedia, so if you do it to this article, we should do it to all of them. And I wouldn't be a fan of that.

Lucas, doing that to the images on all of those articles would be a very bad idea. Where does it stop? Which ones are "bad" and which are "okay"? It's all objective, so it would be impossible to tell. This is an encyclopedia, and it is not censored. We'd have to completely change our policies if we did that. нмŵוτнτ 17:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree this would be a tremendous precedent and would spread on a lot of articles, that's why I'm saying this would need a wide community input first. My guts agree with you (some Star Trek fans will add the collapsible spoiler tags back in no time), but I'm starting to think that perhaps some middle ground should be brought into consideration in the "extreme" cases. In all honesty my educations makes me unable to understand the fuss around these pictures and I'd prefer no removal/hiding at all, but well... -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Very strong opposition to this suggestion. Wikipedia is not censored, and forcing the box hidden would be to censor it. Opens the door to an almost infinite slippery slope, as already noted. Resolute 17:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't feel we should make any change to the status quo until the near-constant disruption to the article we have had over the past few days passes -- for good. In addition to not wanting to set a precedent regarding censorship (for lack of a better word here), I also do not want to set another precedent that if you whine and complain and disrupt Wikipedia without any interest in discussion, you will eventually get your way. Decent discussion regarding these images preceded the petition onslaught and decent discussion should be the only thing that leads to a change. -- tariqabjotu 17:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a technically solution that'd default images to "show", but allow a "hide" button to be click'd before any images were visible without scrolling? WilyD 18:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 26#Template:Linkimage. Prolog (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Penis example is totally bogus (all incivility removed)

All the references here to the penis article, trying to use that as an example to justify inclusion of potentially "shocking" or objectionable images on Wikipedia for "educational and informative reasons", without regard to what readers might expect, are bogus. If the penis article had education and information as its top priority, then why are there SIX pictures of HUMAN penises (one pierced!) on that page, and ZERO pictures of penises from any of the millions of other animal species that have penises? And except for the schematic diagram, all the penis pictures are of WHITE men!

If we use our brains, we can learn something from this example. Many Wikipedia articles (perhaps even this one on Muhammad) do not reflect objective, informative, or useful reality. Their appearance results from the whims of the editors, or editors' personal desires to publish whatever they want to without "censorship", instead of asking the real question: is the article doing the subject justice. The title of the penis article is not "white human penis". In my assessment, there is one reason, and one reason alone that those six images of white human penises appear, like it or not: the white human editors know full well that images of flaccid, erect, and pierced human penises shock, titillate, make you go "hmmmm", and help the editors who post them in the first place feel justified about their decisions to include whatever content they want while hiding under the bogus principles of "non-censorship" and "accuracy and informativeness". If those are genuine principles that should govern Wikipedia, rather than smokescreens that editors use to mask something that more closely resembles a culture-war, then there ought to be images of penises from other organisms on that page. Not SIX pictures of WHITE human cocks.72.48.250.225 (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

After examining the cocks closely, I can conclude that most do indeed, seem to belong to people who are white. I will see if we can get a couple of pictures replaced with some black cocks instead, so that there is balance. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That's only half of the point. Get some pictures of insect, fish, lizard, and anteater penises on there, and you might begin to convince me that the article is not merely a venue for human cock-shots. Then, when you're done with that, come back here and pick-up the discussion of who's censoring whom over here.72.48.250.225 (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So fix it :) (I personally can't take any non-white picture at the moment, but I won't forget to ask) -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about the penis article one bit. I'm just questioning everyone's attempt to cite that as an example that justifies what's going on over here with the Muhammed images.72.48.250.225 (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So what do you want, a more varied selection of Muhammad pictures? I don't really see how that is relevant to an argument to remove the images on this page, its a (very valid) criticism of the Penis article which should go on that articles page.--172.142.59.101 (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

All I want -- all anyone wants -- is for you to open your mind to this reality: a lot of the editing that goes on at Wikipedia has nothing to do with information or objectivity, and has everything to do with culturally biased editors doing whatever they feel like doing, regardless of whether it does the article justice. 72.48.250.225 (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have asked that some donkey or horse cock pictures are used on the page to counter any perceived bias. Also I'll see if a boyfriend of mine will allow me to take a picture of his cock and I'll upload it later. See, this is how wikipedia works - people ask and we try to help out. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, my point is not what images are or aren't included in that article. My point is that it often seems that editors don't really care about doing the subject justice, but instead try to wave the flag of "non-censorship" to do whatever the hell they want to do, often within a context of fanning-flames or deliberately angering people. I feel that this is exactly what's happening over here with the refusal to make intelligent decisions about the use of Muhammed images.72.48.250.225 (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So, what actionable request are you making here? Resolute 17:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone knows what the request is. The VASTLY OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of images of Muhammed have the face veiled. The VASTLY OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the historical tradition of depicting Muhammed has the face veiled. More than 100,000 human beings have signed a petition asking for those traditions that have been established for centuries, to be continued here. And yet apparently, none of those facts seem to sway this article's editors' definition of "consensus" or "objectivity". Instead, those ideas are dismissed as irrelevant -- sometimes rudely dismissed, while referring people to the penis article as "proof" that what's going on over here is justified. I am challenging the editors of this article on those decisions, and I am asking them for the sake of intellectual integrity to consider whether they may be trying to mask a culture-war as some kind of noble exercise in non-censorship. It is likely that it is THE EDITORS HERE who are the censors of centuries of facts and tradition.72.48.250.225 (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So does that mean that you want the images removed, the opinions of the editors be damned? Am I understanding you correctly? --Mhking (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be *excruciatingly* reasonable and productive, if, at-long-and-painful-last, we were to place functional links to the images of Muhammed's unveiled face on the article for interested persons, instead of simply posting them in the main article for all to see. That action would not represent censorship. It would represent intelligence. 72.48.250.225 (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The petition is irrelevant, so does not factor in this discussion. Images that depict Muhammad with his face uncovered do exist, so as a matter of historical context should remain. I am not opposed to adding more images with his face veiled or blurred, provided you can provide them, if that will satisfy your request for balance. Hiding the images is contrary to policy. The policy is that Wikipedia contains things you may find objectionable. It does not say that Wikipedia will obscure or hide that which you find objectionable. Resolute 18:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The petition is NOT irrelevant, and neither is this: the fact that my post on this page yesterday explaining to readers in the general world that they can contribute to the article if they become active editors – was moved to another page. That's censorship, and it’s hard to deny that. Sneakily disguised as content management, but censorship nonetheless. How is yanking that post and putting it a click away different from requesting that the same be done with the images in question? Hypocrites.72.48.250.225 (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And quite frankly, I think your suggestion of linking to as opposed to posting the pictures is a load of used food. I don't see the same sort of firestorm on other websites, nor in other secular venues. I think that you and others like you are more concerned with forcing your world view onto everyone else. I keep hearing tell of 1.6 billion Muslims (despite the fact that the numbers who are insistant on removal of the images represent a subset of that larger number) who are upset with this; this ignores the remaining 4.5 billion people on the planet. But all that is non-germane to the conversation at hand. The bottom line is that any form of capitulation in the form of special treatment (i.e., other than that afforded to other religious articles on Wikipedia) would be, as far as I can see, bowing to the cultural blackmail being pushed forth on Wikipedia. --Mhking (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Me and others like me"? Are you insinuating that I'm a muslim, and then continuing to insinuate that Muslims are forcing their world view on others? Here's a newsflash: I'm female, an atheist, white, American-born-and-bred, living in the Deep South U.S.A., and I've got a head on my shoulders. The issue isn't about cultural blackmail, it's about being a responsible citizen of the world in the 21st century.72.48.250.225 (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with everything you have said so far 72.48.250.225 (talk) and the replies from editors here beggars belief, and the repeated use of "cock" shows the mentality of some editors on wikipedia, do they think that they are going to shock or what??? And I can feel a racist undercurrent appearing in the latest replies. BigDunc (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Good lord. (80.42.202.6 (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

Archiving of this talk page

Given it is nearing 200kb, it might be time to archive some of the dead topics. Question is, should we just do this manually with topics that are resolved, or perhaps get a bot operator to automatically archive sections that haven't been edited after a certain period of time? Resolute 18:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I boldly archived all threads that were not added to on Feb. 6 or 7. Talk page is still >300 KB, but it's something...—Chowbok ☠ 23:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Overkill

First of all, I didn't post this on the /images sub-page because I'm not sure whether most of us check it... and because I would like broader feedback.

Secondly, it is extremely difficult to suggest any changes with regards to the images issue given the current media attention and off-wiki petitions, especially as it's important to not give the impression that we are "ceding to demands" or "bowing to pressure" (see: bad precedent).

I believe much of the discussion here has been about whether or not to keep the depictions. What I think isn't being given due attention is how we're presenting the images, and I think this is contributing to the uproar, although it's not easy to say how much so.

Here are some facts about the tradition of depicting Muhammad:

• It existed.
• From a historical perspective, it was generally speaking non-existent in non-Muslim cultures/regions.
• From a historical perspective, it was not a prevalent tradition in Muslim veneration of Muhammad. It would be fair to say that it was generally a minority tradition ("extremely rare in Islamic art", say Bloom and Blair).

The above is not related to what the prominent view in juristic circles was regarding such depictions, whether they were prohibited or not. In either case, it seems that depicting him was avoided for whatever reason, a lot of the artistic veneration of Muhammad appears to be through alternative techniques such as calligraphy.

Here are some facts about the article as it stands:

• We have four depictions of Muhammad in the article.
• They are all prominently positioned, within what can be called the "top half" of the article (top third, even?). I also see them as being in relatively close proximity to each-other (but that's just me).

I see a disparity here in that we are over-representing, and over-emphasising this minority (do not read as "insignificant") tradition by granting it undue prominence and focus, when weighed against the article as a whole. This is what I think is contributing to the impression that the page is deliberately trying to offend sensibilities as opposed to providing dry, clinical encyclopedic coverage (I clarified on this a bit more above [11][12]).

I have proposed here and elsewhere that two sensibly placed depictions (one in the depictions section... which, ironically, doesn't currently have one; and one elsewhere in the article depicting a major event, such as the Isra/Mi'raj) is a bit more balanced and looks less like we are barraging our readers with a series of depictions once they click on the article. This is fully consistent, in my view, with Wikipedia policies WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT#CENSORED. ITAQALLAH 18:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How about this idea -- which is so rational, it would be very hard to argue against it. Create a new article called "Depictions of Muhammed" or something like that. Put everything you want in there, including these images, and even the cartoons from Denmark. But remove all such images from this article, which is about Muhammed, and not about depictions of Muhammed.72.48.250.225 (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Depictions of Muhammad.

The article already exists (at Depictions of Muhammad); but despite that, it is a separate point from retaining the images in this article. Nice try, though. --Mhking (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "nice try"? That article exists (which I didn't know) -- and I think it's a great idea. So why be redundant and put the images here too?72.48.250.225 (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Because depictions of Muhammad are relevant in an article about Muhammad. Just as they are also relevant to the Depictions of Muhammad article. Resolute 19:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

and that article complete blows out of the water the "it's shocking because they don't know"/informed consent argument. It's called DEPICITIONS and they are still trying to delete the images, so the idea that spoilers, disclaimers, placement will solve the problem is nonsense. Even it it's clear from the name what is to be found - the tactic is still to try and censor. --Fredrick day (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(to 72.48.250.225) First, there is already an article similar to one you talk about. Surprisingly, it's called Depictions of Muhammad. Second, the article is not meant as a dumping ground for all images of Muhammad.

(to Itaqallah) One thing I find quite fascinating is that after all these fiascos about the way Muhammad is portrayed -- the cartoon tiff, the response after the Pope's comments, the thing about the teddy bear recently, and now this (not saying Wikipedia is that important, by the way) -- those who cause so much drama over these depictions still haven't realized that they do not help their cause and only serve to make the rest of the world think Muslims are uncivilized. That effect on the rest of the world essentially discourages people from having a decent conversation with the offended, because they, judging by some of their actions, just seem unreasonable and impossible to work with.

We are, no doubt, having a similar effect here. The fact that Muslims are, once again, creating a firestorm over something most find to be not a big deal is turning people off to the idea of compromising where otherwise they would have been willing to do so. So, I think we should really table making any change to this article until the firestorm calms down, not only because we don't want to suggest the bully tactics work, but also because we need people to once again be willing (hopefully) to talk about these images in a rational manner. However, for the record, I must say that the number of unveiled images (two) and their placements are just fine and relevant. -- tariqabjotu 19:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I have to say that I am remarkably impressed with many of the people entering this thread to protest the inclusion of the images. While they are persistent in their demands, they have remained, for the most part, highly civil and polite. Resolute 19:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, today may not be the day for intelligent discussion on their placements. For what it's worth, once can find a nontrivial amount of depictions of Muhammad in "western" art of various types. Beyond that, I would suggest both the "face veiled" tradition and the "face unveiled" tradition are worth demonstrating. The Kaaba one, as the oldest surviving depiction has significant merit, I would suggest. The Nakkas Osman image is of higher quality and better pedigree than the other face veiled image (which quite frankly, I don't much care for). But today may not be the day for this discussion. WilyD 18:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I know, I know. I was in two minds about whether this was the right time. I felt it needed mention though because in my mind at least it seems to be how we are going about presenting these images rather than whether we are at all (despite the simplistic demands): the levels of vandalism at Depictions of Muhammad have been much lower comparatively, as far as I can tell. ITAQALLAH 19:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

put up a petition about it with a direct link to the page and then circulate emails about it - then see how they compare. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that Itaqallah and it has been generally my position from the beginning. I wonder what some of the off site visitors will think when they realize while there is room for discussion on this article there is no room for discussion on the removal at Muhammad cartoons or on the depictions page. gren グレン 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Lose here and you will just have to re-fight these arguments on those pages. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Relocating images

I can agree with the point that spacing the images out may help "balance" the article. Specifically, the lack of a depiction of Muhammad near the section of the same name is surprising. The image of Muhammad preaching the Koran seems appropriate, so perhaps Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg, currently the second image of Muhammad in the article should be lowered to the section on depictions, and one of the images of arabic script on buildings near that section moved up to replace? Would effectively leave an image near (but not at) the top, one towards the middle, and one towards the end. Resolute 19:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the one about Muhammad preaching the Qur'an - it seems the context of the image is not verified. The source of the image says nothing about what is occuring therein - I don't know who deduced it was about Muhammad in Mecca preaching the Qur'an.

I am more inclined towards WilyD's proposal, which was to have an example of the face-veiled and face-unveiled images each. I also agree with WilyD that Mohammed kaaba 1315 (face unveiled), being the earliest recorded depiction, is of particular significance, and I personally perefer the Isra/Mi'raj image as an example of the face-veiled. I think the other veiled image, currently in the unconventional position of a second lead image, can be done without- though I'm happy to have it moved down with the Isra/Mi'raj removed instead if WilyD prefers that one; and if we lack appropriate context for the other one mentioned earlier, it might be better to just save that for Depictions of Muhammad. I think those two images correctly positioned strikes a much fairer balance. I do recall that gren had two other images in mind... and I would be interested to hear that too. ITAQALLAH 13:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Penis thread was censored by deletion. I've put it back.

It wasn't an "insultfest" -- the points are valid. It's also censorship to move it to the images talk page. Leave it right where it is, WilyD. Editors here: watch out. Your actions are not going unnoticed. Where do you get off simply deleting an entire discussion because you view it as an insultfest? It was nothing of the like. 72.48.250.225 (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Roughly speaking, when everyone violates rules on civility, it's often easier to simply remove the offending material rather than block everyone involved. Insults, baiting, trolling are not tolerated. WilyD 18:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful. Now, if you go back over all the posts on this page, I think you will find that all cases where those things have occurred, have not been subject to massive, blanket removal like you did. Please do not cite Wikipedia policies to the convenience of your own agendas.72.48.250.225 (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Huge amounts of trolling, baiting, personal attacks and insults are being purged from this talkpage. It's a simple price of doing business. That unacceptable behaviour sometimes slips by doesn't mean it's acceptable. WilyD 19:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

WilyD: I am reporting your 3-times censorship of that thread and argument. While there may have been inappropriate and insulting content (non-unique to this page), it does not justify blanket removal of the entire thread, which contained many valid points and a productive discussion, not to mention a documentation of a previous censorship act.72.48.250.225 (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN - go wild. WilyD 19:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

All incivility has been removed. You cannot justify censoring this again.72.179.59.200 (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I cant see any reason why it was removed in the first place. BigDunc (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it consisted of only baiting, personal attacks and the like without any constructive attempts to improve the article. It served only to poison the atmosphere here. WilyD 19:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it was removed for precisely the reasons that the thread itself mentions – bully editors who censor others at will, while curiously championing the cause of non-censorship.70.112.75.86 (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I cant see any personal attacks and any baiting was done by editors who replied to IP 70.112.75.86 still I dont feel it is a just reason to delete the thread. BigDunc (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to strongarm or bully any editors who advocate for non-censorship and consistantly degrade the quality of dialogue here. No baiting, no trolling, no personal attacks, no off-topic arguments. WilyD 19:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The argument was hardly off-topic. Also: by definition a "personal" attack is directed towards a person. The original version of that thread made more general comments about certain editorial styles, comments that were directed to more general readers. Be more discerning, WilyD.70.112.75.86 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It was not off topic and I dont like your threats of blocking me. Again where are the personal attacks, baiting, trolling that you keep bringing up. BigDunc (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

BigDunc: he threatened to block the original poster of the thread too, if s/he continued to insist that those contributions not be censored. It's a good thing this is being documented.70.112.75.86 (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

WilyD please read talk page guidlines before you attempt to remove this topic of discussion. --Domer48 (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the talk page guidelines. Look, the short of it is, this talk page has an extremely problematic atmosphere that's escalating the relevant innately heated issues. Baiting, intential or not, is not acceptable. Escalating conflicts is not acceptable. Personal attacks are not acceptable. Rants are not acceptable. Civility means more than using polite language when calling your fellow editors racists, liars and the like - it means you don't do that. We're not here to make broad, negative accusations against any group of people, and it won't be tolerated. Discuss the article on its merits - if you want to do something else, google can find you an appropriate place to do it. WilyD 20:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this section of WP:TPG justifies WilyD's removal of the topic in question. This, of course, doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt to remain civil when dealing with the removal of comments; proper justification for the removal should be provided, and any relevant warnings should be placed on the talk page of the user in question (generally). I personally think WilyD may be a bit too aggressive in his actions here, but his position and the act itself would appear to be appropriate.--C.Logan (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

We should be certain that all parties are aware of the reasons surrounding the removal of comments. First of all, though the "incivility" has been removed, the topic is only of peripheral relevance to the subject at hand (that is, the Muhammad article). Everyone is encouraged to remain on topic, and we are consistently reminded that this is not a forum in which individuals should rant about the article subject in general- or, even worse, unrelated article subjects.

The "penis" topic attempts to justify its existence by acting as a response to the usage of the penis article as an example which illustrates that users should not complain about the possible offense caused by images on the articles of subjects where it would seem quite obvious that images would be included. The gist of it is that if you are offended by images of penises, don't frequent the article. This topic, however, rides this wave out and almost immediately changes focus to a rant that pertains almost exclusively to the penis article (and at that, it is all little more than a massive violation of WP:AGF in its poor presumptions about editor habits and motivations).

While I have no objection to the criticisms raised concerning the representation of images in the penis article itself, the placement and underlying tone of this comment (and, even after the "removal of incivility", is still one massive personal attack) make it indefensible as an element of this talk page; as such, I support the removal of this comment from this talk page, although I remind the editor that she is free to bring up these concerns on the penis talk page (though certainly while assuming good faith and using a more constructive tone). Please keep in mind that this reply has thus far only been in reference to the initial post of the topic in question, although some of the responses which I have made can be applied to other posts in the topic as well.--C.Logan (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It is absolutely not of "peripheral" relevance! Read it again. It contains centrally relevant points about what content is included in an article, and whether it reflects objectivity or editor bias and agenda.70.112.75.86 (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a lengthy rant concerning the possible mis-steps made by editors on the penis article. The supposed relevance you tout is based entirely upon a blanket picture of Wikipedia editors, as if the state of the penis article is relevant in any manner whatsoever to the behavior of editors here. I will remind you again that this in and of itself is a WP:AGF violation. I don't oppose bringing this topic up per se, but please keep in mind that basing such an analysis on the presumption that editors are deliberately trying to incite feelings amongst particular groups of individuals (Muslims, here), and specifically while using an entirely unrelated article as an example, is not the proper way to do it.--C.Logan (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am restoring the thread, because I think it makes a very valid point. The point is not the quality of the penis article or the images therein; thus, its inclusion to that talk page would not serve the intended purpose. The point is that the penis article provides a good metaphor for what's going on over here, especially since so many of the editors here cite it as a good example of non-censorship. The argument is that the penis article (and this one) contains certain images as a result of what could be viewed as an insistent bias towards a deliberately shocking or conflict-fueling trend -- instead of having images placed under the guidance of what is representative and what does the topic justice. I am restoring that thread because all incivility has been removed, and because it is very relevant to the debate over here at this article. Continued attempts to remove it are not justified, and will only escalate the problem further.70.112.75.86 (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you need to assume good faith in the matter. Whatever the issue is concerning the images presented on the penis article has no bearing on the practices and attitudes of editors who work on this article- Wikipedia has thousands upon thousands of editors; some are good and productive, and others are POV-pushing, ignorant of policy, etc.

It's unwise to attempt to paint editors in such a manner: not only is such an analysis nothing more than conjecture, but it is a terrible violation of WP:AGF which ignores the sheer diversity of editors involved in this article alone (and it also makes an unsupported connection between the editors of penis and the editors who act here).

I still cannot see how this topic has a rightful place here; the only justification provided is, again, a violation of WP:AGF. In addition, WilyD's removal is certainly defensible: I've provided links above to the relevant section of the talk page guidelines which would appear to support his edits. I'll leave this to your own discernment, of course.

Be aware that the problem only escalates when one is unaware of policies and guidelines and becomes difficult to deal with (either because they misunderstand, or because things weren't clearly explained to them, which I believe is more the case here). Your comment does nothing towards working to improve the article, and is based entirely upon an unprovable assumption which caricatures the editors here and likens them to shock jocks.

Reading this concerns me, because there have been years of discussion on this topic which have, again and again, made it clear that the inclusion of these pictures is not due to the wicked satisfaction the editors get from inciting unrest among particular Muslim readers, but because of the historical and encyclopedic value of these images and because of their relevance to the subject. Analyzing the topic from an elementary point of view makes it clear enough: an article on a particular subject should contain images which offer depictions of that subject. Peripheral issues such as placement and the problem of undue weight of representation are currently under discussion (and have been for quite some time with no easy solution).--C.Logan (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:AAGF C.Logan, at least you are trying to explain the reasoning behind the actions of WilyD instead of throwing unsubstantiated threats around. BigDunc (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

While WP:AAGF is merely an essay, it makes a nice little point concerning the use of the WP:AGF policy. However, just as it is in the policy itself, one is only required to assume good faith until evidence is provided to the contrary. I do not see how this anon can justify their comment, as she cites no examples whatsoever which would lead one to believe that the assumption of misdoing on the part of the editors here is a valid perception of the situation.

The anon states, "There is one reason, and one reason only that those six images of white human penises appear, like it or not: the white human editors know full well that images of flaccid, erect, and pierced human penises shock, titillate, make you go "hmmmm", and help the self-righteous editors who post them in the first place feel justified about their decisions to include whatever-the-Hell content they want while hiding under the bogus principles of "non-censorship" and "accuracy and informativeness"."

Are we really supposed to assume the assumption of good faith with statements such as this being presented? It seems quite clear to me that this is not the case. Again, note that I am using elements of an actual policy and applying them to the essay which you are citing.--C.Logan (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

70.112.75.86 that is exactly the way I read it. --Domer48 (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I see it that way too and WilyD could you supply diffs for my supposed rule breaks to back up your threats to block me. BigDunc (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't be the only one to keep trying to restore that thread as WilyD continues to delete it over and over and over again. There will be more than one complaint filed about this.70.112.75.86 (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Already circling the wagons here BigDunc (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please sign up for a Wikipedia account. It is very simple and takes only a minute or so. The presence of three IP addresses complicates this discussion.--C.Logan (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that would be a good idea as it can get confusing. BigDunc (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I totaly agree with the removal of the insulting discussion, it violates the terms of use. please take action, no suh things must be tolerated.. it has no educational bases, nor adds any value to this discussion. Fix this soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.44.214 (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And i find it shameful to be forced to sign for a wikipedia account to participate in this discussion. whose rules are those? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.44.214 (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You're not required to sign up for an account, however there are lots of good reasons to and none not to. Editors are allowed to ask you to, even if they can't force you to. WilyD 21:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. What is the issue that you have with a polite call for registration? When a discussion involves several different IP addresses, it can make the discussion extremely difficult to read (as the IP number series are often overlooked, it is easy to accidentally treat three or more users as one- I myself had made this error). I'm not saying you have to, but it gives the user more privileges and makes the discussion easier for everyone else to participate in.--C.Logan (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous description of picture of Mohammed

Resolved

There's an image linked to that is described as the earliest known depiction of Mohammed, but is now pointing to the following image:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_cartoon.jpeg

I don't think that's quite right, as this image is from the Dutch cartoon series that caused an uproar. I'm an atheist myself, but it strikes me as rather childish to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.87.85.34 (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism - already removed. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, Danish, but the image is deleted, and the editor blocked for a good long time. WilyD

Another thought experiment, not off-topic

Reading many of the posts above, it sounds like many are arguing for the inclusion of Mohammed images because "they exist" and provide a certain "historical context". For the sake of testing such ideas, in principle, I am wondering if you think it might be acceptable to post photographs of dead, mutilated babies, or perhaps baby-pornography, within the article infant. Those images exist, and there is a certain historical context for such images. If you do not find it to be acceptable to post such images, then what reasons would you give? Oh, and here's another surprise (not!) reminiscent of the penis article, and the heated discussion above about editorial bias: there are seven images of infants on the infant article. All are white. Not that I care about that article, at all. 146.6.25.210 (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And how would your suggestions improve the infant article? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

To educate, to inform, to present reality, to NOT CENSOR THEM... all the same reasons given here for including the unveiled Muhammed images.146.6.25.210 (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

First, child pornography is illegal in the United States, so we could not have it in wikipedia no matter what. Dead or mutilated babies would be irrelevant to the article Infant, which does not discuss that topic. The article Vergeltungswaffe contains a photo of a mutilated child as an example of the damage inflicted by such weapons, so yes we do use other offensive images on wikipedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but why not put those images on the infant article? Why not? Heck, you could even blur-out the details of the actual pornographic act, but still provide the image legally. That would make it acceptable, right? And that's all that anyone here is asking. 146.6.25.210 (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As Calliopejen1 said, they'd be irrelevant to the article. If I'm reading about an article about a person I'd expect to see a photo, painting, or other representation of that person. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, but why must you insist on a minority depiction that so many object against, if for no other reason but to titillate a culturally ignorant curiosity? In this case, your expectations -- to see images of Muhammed -- are not well-founded.146.6.25.210 (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"...culturally ignorant curiosity"? Methinks WP:CIVIL is worth a visit. This is an encyclopedia. People come here to learn about a subject, unfettered by any censorship or cultural/religious taboos. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't a personal attack, it was a general statement. Also: if you really wanted to educate people here, you'd emphasize providing images that are representative. Unveiled images of Muhammed are an anomaly, and it's counter-educational to present them as if they're not.146.6.25.210 (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I ran into an edit conflict here...

First of all, the emphasis is on historical value, not historical context. Images are included because they illustrate relevant points within an article or because they depict the subject itself.

I think you'll find it hard to defend the inclusion of images of a dead infant on a page whose only mention of such a topic is found in the "infant mortality" summary section- that section (and the accompanying article) deal largely with the statistical data and overarching causes of the concept rather than with the specific subject of "dead babies".

If there was an article on "dead babies" (and not simply infant mortality), then the inclusion of such an image would make perfect sense. Relevance is obviously a major factor for consideration, and the context which the article provides is also a deciding factor which determines whether or not an image should be included.

Additionally, I'm getting rather sick of the insinuations concerning the motivations/biases of editors. Everyone is encouraged to counter systemic bias; as such, instead of bitching about it, a more productive solution would be to simply add pictures which you feel reflect diversity more so. There is no policy or guideline which requires such a presentation, but it would likely be an improvement in my opinion.--C.Logan (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the "value" of providing images here that represent the minutely vast minority of depictions of Muhammed, especially when so many take offense at them? Is the value in the mere fact that they are rare? What is the *intellectual* value that justifies their inclusion here, rather than in the article about depictions of Muhammed? The more and more I read these discussions, the more and more I'm convinced that the images only stay here as a matter of stubbornness. The best way to prove you have a mind, is to change it.146.6.25.210 (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not such images are "offensive" is not quite a factor in image selection per our "no censorship" policy. Rarity is also not really a consideration, though it may contribute in part in certain cases (I don't believe this is the case here).

The images depict the subject. They are of great historical value and are recognized by scholars as such. They were created by Muslim individuals with the intention of depicting the founder of their religion and particular events of his life. We do not censor articles in the interests of any particular group merely because of the offensive nature of images or text. Relevance to the subject and notability are primary determining factors, and these images satisfy those requirements. I see little reason to remove the images; almost none of the arguments presented actually appeal to the policies to which we are bound.--C.Logan (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There is another article about depictions of Muhammed. So why do those images belong here, too?146.6.25.210 (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

They depict the subject. There is nothing which requires that images be exclusive to a sub-article or its parent article.--C.Logan (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)In a biographical article, the inclusion of images of the subject is highly useful. This is standard across every biographical article we have where we have an image (either a photograph from modern times, or a drawing/depiction for older times). The image depicts the topic of the article. Images of Muhammad on an article about Muhammad is relevant. An image of a mutilated child on the infant article would not be relevant unless the article itself significantly discusses the mutilation of children. If such material were to exist in the article, then yes, an image may be appropriate. Context is important too. Resolute 22:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

By the same argument: you can have an image of Muhammed here, fine, as long as the face is veiled. But this article is not about the irrelevant topic of the unveiled face of Muhammed, which can be demonstrated to be an anomaly, a rarity, and a potentially offensive topic. If you want that image, go to the "Depictions of Muhammed" article. To satisfy biographical standards, retain a veiled image here.146.6.25.210 (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In what way does that "satisfy biographical standards" except that it satisfies your obvious preference for imposing shariah-derived limitations on what can and cannot appear in this article? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would we want to censor an image/depiction of a person in an article about the person? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"But this article is not about the irrelevant topic of the unveiled face of Muhammed..."

I don't even know what to make of this statement. This is getting ridiculous.--C.Logan (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Using the same logic we should remove all pictures of hockey players out of uniform as most photos of them show them wearing a uniform. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of piling on, this article is about Muhammad. Depictions of Muhammad are relevant. Whether to use an image with his face showing, or veiled is a religious decision which Wikipedia is under no obligation to honour. Rather, to honour it would be disingenuous, as Wikipedia caters to no religion. Images of Muhammad depicting his face were common in history, and as noted in several discussion threads, remain common in many places, including Iran. I am happy that you agree the images should remain, but in the interest of neutrality and fairness, we cannot remove one type of image in favour of another. Resolute 22:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing Muhammad and a mutilated baby? Or implying that the people that painted the pictures in the XVth century, as Nakkaş Osman and the person illustrating Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī's manuscript did, were doing such a thing as mutilating a baby? -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ehrm, no. Not even close. I'm raising the issue of image relevance and trying to use another example to explain that just because images exist, may reflect truth, and provide content or context, does not immediately justify their inclusion in an article.72.179.59.200 (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The examples you raised are strawmen pure and simple. Child Porn or mutilated babies on infant? The former is illegal and the latter is irrelevant for talking about infants. Race of the babies? That's a non-sequitur for talking about this article. Take it up over there if it bugs you. In any case, there's no censorship going on. Muhammed is a historical figure both in- and outside of the religion he founded and historical artistic depictions of him exist. Since WP:CENSOR there is no reason not to include said art in the article even if it upsets some users. -68.100.179.10 (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the article needs the images Mohammed. They do cause offence. This discussion in relevent to this article talk page. --Domer48 (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Offense is irrelevant. They depict the subject of the article.-68.100.179.10 (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Longhorn! How's your hand inside that sock? Weren't you were blocked from home earlier today for raising a similar specious argument using penises.68.100.179.10 (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Um... and??? I'm not sockpuppeting to make it seem as if several people are supporting my case, I have been in several locations today for work related reasons, so the IP's change. Getting blocked for unjust reasons and refusing to accept them and continuing on, is not sockpuppeting.72.179.59.200 (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You've used four anon IP accounts today to raise the exact same tired point. If I hadn't tracerouted/whoisd your four IPs I would have thought it was four different people making your argument. You were blocked for 3RR and you're using other IPs to avoid your just sanction. That's sock-puppetting. Why don't you accept that consensus is against you and move along. -68.100.179.10 (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sock-puppeting is a deceptive attempt to make it appear as if several people are making the same point. That was not my intention. As I said, I moved around a lot today for work, which is why my comments came from several IP's. Also: refusing to accept one bully editor's block and continuing to post through another route, is not sock puppeting. It is standing up for oneself. Finally: please don't shake your "consensus" fist at me. Do the math and figure out how many people who've visited these pages lately support the images, and how many don't. Consensus by the loudest and most controlling voices who are most wiki-savvy, is not a consensus at all. But you may continue to think it is, I suppose.02:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.250.225 (talk)

Consensus will not remove the images, as many have stated before, they're protected under the rules about censorship on this site. The matter is settled: the images stay. You can sit here and complain about it (which this talk page is not for) or you can stop using wikipedia - no one is forcing you to stay. -99.241.142.163 (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

But you didn't own all of your IPs and say you moved. While your intent may not have been to SP, that's the way it seemed. Apology accepted. On your other point, consensus is, in this case, backed by policy, so you're really raging against the wind on this one. This place has rules, and they mustn't be bent. (formerly 68.100.179.10 - registration is free and easy )- MasonicDevice (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

100,000 Muslims protest Wikipedia

For those who have not heard, many Muslims are marching in protest of Wikipedia [13]. Again, a quick search didn't reveal any previous discussion of this, so please forgive me if this has been brought up before. --Hojimachong^talk 00:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, that petition was what started this entire incident. We've known about it since the beginning over a month ago. Zazaban (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Marching against an encyclopedia? "The most costly thing we pay for is ignorance". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see that in the article. Zazaban (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't operate by petitions. It operates by community consensus on fundamental project policy, see WP:5P. Since the petition appears to be reaching the threshold of mainstream media attention, we should create an article about it, Depictions of Muhammad on Wikipedia. The entire mess can then be reported on there. dab (𒁳) 12:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hojimachong... no one marched as far as I can tell... they signed. dab, I don't think it's time for that, yet (although the time might be coming). So far it has been on back pages and small news stories. gren グレン 19:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Marches tend to happen on Fridays after the faithful have been whipped into a frenzy by their Imams. Seeing as we've made it through most of today, things shouldn't really get too much worse until next weekend at least. - MasonicDevice (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me..? who was whipped and how is this relevant to the point?...I am surprised by all the hatred MasonDevice carries in his heart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.44.214 (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Most marches in the Muslim world do happen on Friday for the reason I mentioned above PLUS the fact that it is a day of rest (ie. weekend, no work). It's the same reason big marches happen here on Saturday, or that the Orange and Green marched on Sunday. No hate here. I just watch and shake my head.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MasonicDevice (talk • contribs) 21:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Who cares what the Muslims think?

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia for people to do research and become more informed about our world. To censor the images of Muhammad is clearly a disgrace to the internet, the people who use it, and the art of free speech. It's an outrage that people are demanding it be removed. Azwethinkweizm (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Which is ironic, given the very same freedom you champion gives them the right to request the removal of the images. There is no problem with them expressing their views, they have every bit as much right to comment as you do. Resolute 03:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they do not have a right to start violence because of a picture. I do not condone violence. If they resort to violence, they are low class scum. Azwethinkweizm (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

How exactly is "protesting on the internet" a form of violence? Or, for that matter, editing the image out of the article (only for it to appear again)?

They are entitled to their opinion, regardless of what you think of it. But I do agree that Wikipedia should not censor the article in any way, since that goes against everything it stands for as an encyclopedia. --RoyalFool (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And yet, it will never do a damn bit of good. Welcome to Wikipedia.72.48.250.225 (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Because WP has the right to tell them to take a long walk down a short pier with their theocratic rules. -MasonicDevice (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I care..

Have some respect.

Have some respect for the sentiments of those who are different than you. If you cannot respect them then you should cease from discussing that which they hold dear.

These pictures are a heresy and blasphemous for Muslims. If you cannot respect their beliefs then please refrain from discussing it. It's just as simple as that and puts everyone to ease. It;s just respect, nothing more, nothing less. Less hope you are able to maintain respect about which you claim to possess knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.92.194 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an historic work of art! A beautiful drawing. Representational art is forbidden in Islam and for Muslim, how about us? The public? The non-muslims? How can we find information of Islam history if pictures were taken off? Just take off the whole Islam section from Wikipedia if the public are not supposed to know about other religions. The public need unbiased information, Wikipedia is the place. I'm sick of this. We are all sick of this. I'm concerned about the freedom and rights of all. -165.21.154.72 (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy to think that it should be kept merely for aesthetic reasons. You must understand that Muslim tradition of representing Muhammad is the most important aspect and that representation of his human form is in the minority. The Western bias for such depictions is at play in this article and it definitely downplays Muslim dominant modes of representation. That being said being insulted is no reason to remove the images. I also support having images--just one or two important images and having more calligraphy and poems to/about Muhammad which have been prevalent in Muslim history. Also, try not to make this into a large political "freedom of speech" issue. It really isn't one. It's an issue of Wikipedia policy and how to deal with collaborative issues with an influx of new, single purpose users. gren グレン 19:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody needs to try to make this into a large political "freedom of speech" issue. That's what it is, in fact, but that's the least of what it is. This particular issue with this particular article is the flash point of a tactic (harassment and intimidation) employed worldwide in a strategy to make Islamic law apply to everybody, Moslem and non-Moslem. (Yes, that's another way of referring to the new, single purpose users.) If the tactic works here, it will naturally be employed elsewhere. And, frankly, anybody who is tired of the fight had better get used to the idea that it's only started. Mike Romete (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I should have been more clear. Wikipedia is the place to discuss the creation of the encyclopedia article for Muhammad. Wikipedia is not a place for any discussion of a large political "freedom of speech" issue. Attempts to make Wikipedia into a forum for debating the role of Muslims in Western society or the like will be removed with prejudice. These pages should only contain conversation about how to improve this encyclopedia article. gren グレン 20:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it could be argued that discussion of the strategy motivating, and thus the tactics employed by, the innocuously named "new, single purpose users" would not be germane. So be it. But I sure wouldn't argue it, though. Mike Romete (لن أستسلم) (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I am the new in Wikipedia, but according to my small knowledge. “The Prophets are the most beautiful and best personality persons, chosen by God’s for his special tasks” I am talking about all the prophets send by the God so it is not possible to portray God’s best creation. Is that any human can create adjustment to God’s creation? I hope every believer says NO. So in my small opinion we should remove all pictures of all prophets because we are not that good creator and we cannot compete with God’s best creations (prophets). May God gives us guidance and help us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murtaza76 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

But that is specifically Moslem theology, if I may put it that way. Christian theology, or at least some strands of it, see human works of painting, statuary, fiction, and poetry, et al., as minor works of creation (wholly derivative of God's creative power, of course) which human beings engage in because they were created in the image and likeness of God the Creator. Mike Romete (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a Muslim encyclopedia; religious dogma has no place in articles here, whether on Islam, Christianity, Judaism or whatever.Eik Corell (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on people, isn't all this fight a little too much?

First of all I'm really sorry for adding a new section inspite of your demand not to. I just really felt that I can give an opinion that might satisfy most people and help solve this debate.

I'm a muslim myself, and I agree that in Islam depictions of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) are not allowed, but as lots of people already said: wikipedia does not have to comply with that, it's a free and open encyclopedia. And it only displays what it displays for the sake of knowledge only, with no intention to offend anyone.

I'm not really sure whether these pictures were actually painted by muslims or not, but in any case, I think it would be only fair to add a Wikipedia:Content disclaimer to the top of the page, warning about the pictures. It's a wikipedian thing already, nothing new.

Also, for the sake of knowledge, a note can be added to the pictures, saying something like "see the section on Depictions of Muhammad", so that people would know that most muslims do not approve of this. It's knowlegde, and people have the right to know.

Again I apologize for starting a new section. If any of the administrators feels that my post is not useful, please go ahead and remove it.

--Mcwikiman (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

and where will it end? it's clear what the Depictions article shows and still people try and delete the images and censor the article - so it's a red herring that shifting the problem there would solve anything - the end game is total removal. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, when the pictures are in a separate article about depictions, which states clearly that Muslims do not approve of this, this would be much less provoking than when they are on the original article about prophet Muhammad, without a notice to even say that Muslims do not approve of this. You see when something's forbidden in your religion, and then you see a supposed picture of someone of your own religion doing it, and in a context that doesn't even say that this actually forbidden, you have to admit it's going to make you angry. --Mcwikiman (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, when the pictures are in a separate article about depictions, which states clearly that Muslims do not approve of this, this would be much less provoking - and that's why people are busy trying to delete the images from that article as well? --Fredrick day (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If you read the discussion page there (and I'm sure you did), you'll see that it's nothing like this one.

Look everyone, I'm proposing a solution, if you agree with me, please post to say you agree so that something can be done to end this overgrown debate.--Mcwikiman (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

But it's only "nothing like" that because that page hasn't been directly linked in a petition that has been read by 100,000+ people and circulated in god knows how many emails - once the images are removed from here, how long do you think before the bandwagon moves on to that page? --Fredrick day (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly my point: the Muhammad page is accessed by hundreds of people everyday. So it's very easy to spot the pictures there, and circulate it to petitions or whatever. That's besides the context part I mentioned above. The depictions page, however, doesn't have that much traffic, and at least explains the topic from all angles, including that angle that matters to muslims: that this is forbidden in Islam. So even if there's still going to be a debate, it's going to be like tens of people fighting instead of hundreds... Progress!--Mcwikiman (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And hey, I'm trying to come up with a solution here! What use is it to keep saying: "Nothing will work, this can't be solved!" --Mcwikiman (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has a general content disclaimer, so such an addition is not needed. And what exactly are you trying to solve? I don't see any problem. An article has images that illustrate that article. Sure, some silly internet petition has meant the article is going to be vandalised for a while but we already have mechanisms such as protection to deal with that. --81.158.148.64 (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

People are going to remove and re-add these forever. It does not matter where they are. We just need to decide in an adult way whether we think they should be there (and removing them is vandalism) or they should not be there (and adding them is vandalism). There is plenty of disturbing stuff on wiki as I found out on my first day (Pit of despair is not for the faint hearted) so I think they should stay but that does not matter. The real question is how are we going to decide this? Vote seems out of the question as 1. we are not a democracy and 2. This is too high profile for it not to be rigged. Any other suggestions? Shall I call Jimbo?

CaptinJohn (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you CaptinJohn, but I am supposing an other and easier solution already: which is to add a content disclaimer and a note or a link below the pictures pointing to the depictions section or article. I think this is an easy to implement solution, not involving vandalism, and preserving respect to Muslim culture. If this solution is found to be unsuccesful, then do whatever you want to do. --Mcwikiman (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you have created a new header and perpetuated the debate you say you'd like to end. --65.40.35.52 (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't perpetuate anything, the debate was going on regardless of what I did. I just don't see why such a fuss is being made, when the solution can be very simple. And for your information; 90% of the people who want the images to stay have no interest whatsoever in actually looking at the pictures, but are just objecting because they have this common misconception that Muslims want everyone to obey their rules, which is not true. I tried to show them that by asking for a win-win solution, but it seems that some people just want the argument to get bigger instead of trying to find a solution. --Mcwikiman (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The best way to end the debate is to recognize that the pictures will not be removed. --65.40.35.52 (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I never asked for removal. --Mcwikiman (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate your efforts, however I have to state that given the Danish cartoon controversy, this controversy, and others, I very strongly doubt that many people interested enough to seriously read an encyclopedia entry on Muhammad would not already be aware of how some Muslims oppose the use of such images. I find such a disclaimer would be redundant, although I note that the final paragraph in the lead section does discuss depictions of Muhammad, and does mention that there are images in the article as part of that paragraph. Anyone who reads this article should not be surprised then to see such images in this article. Regards, Resolute 15:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Mcwikiman this has to stop here or it will never stop! Once we give in to non-encyclopedic pressure on this issue it will be open season on wikipedia, every religion and special interest group will launch a full out attack on the bits of wikipedia they don't like. I do understand that you are trying to help but the big picture is much more important than these pictures. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure whether Hypnosadist thinks we should keep the pics or not but he is right about on thing. This has got to stop. If there is a vote I will vote and if there is some other form of decision making process I will participate but I think we are destined to go in circles otherwise, so I for one and going to try to keep my mouth shut.

CaptinJohn (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I guess we are going in circles afterall. Anyway thanks to you all for being civilized in your conversation, and I hope this issue resolves itself with no problems :). --Mcwikiman (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

again, what issue? there is nothing to resolve! Your proposal is redundant, as Wikipedia already has a general content disclaimer that automatically applies to all pages. The concerns of all those who "signed" that online petition are irrelevent, because their concerns have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy (infact quite the opposite, see WP:NOTCENSORED). The only possibly issue I can see is the unfortunate fact that the page will most likely have to stay protected from edits by anons and new users for the next few months until all this silly fuss dies down. --81.158.148.64 (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I totaly agree with this request, it makes some sense, and it doesnt harm anyone. very fair request and is suits wikipedia and its policies.

Wikipedia's Organization Status

The pictures should be removed because Wikipedia is a non-prophet organisation. :) 216.165.95.5 (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Was that supposed to be funny? --Mhking (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a cookie or two. 216.165.95.5 (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cute, 216, but same old story. Read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Wolf m corcoran (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Best reason yet for removing these :-) --•CHILLDOUBT• 18:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Now this is something I can get behind ;-). Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 06:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC).

A more concrete proposal

The state of the images on this article is rather unfortunate, right now, and frankly I can't see any reason for the way it's set up now, except for the fact that people yelling about the appropriateness of images has muddied the waters. Here's what I propose:

• Remove the veiled image. It's rather confusing to visitors to the article, and it's not how one typically expects an article about the subject in question to be illustrated anyway.
• Replace the duplicate calligraphy with Image:Muhammad callig.gif as the lead image (though long-term I think the two should be swapped, and Image:Muhammad callig.gif should become the icon for {{Muhammad}}).
• Move the warning about images to the first image that contains Muhammad.
• Move the ref that was in the veiled image into the intro text.

I've mocked these changes up at: User:Harmil/Muhammad. Perhaps the caption for the lead image should make some note of the fact that calligraphy rather than images are used as a result of the taboo relating to picturing Muhammad, but I'm not sure.

I'm also in favor of a warning. It's not quite the same as a content-warning about nudity, etc. There is a clear need to direct people to the appropriate resources for understanding why Wikipedia doesn't adhere to Islamic doctrine on this article when every other major publication has. We're the ones taking an unusual step, here, and we should explain ourselves. A small banner that directs those concerned about images in the article to a Wikipedia: namespace article would suffice. -Harmil (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Two things. 1) I would switch the calligraphy. Put that small image you linked in the template and the other more historical one as the primary image. 2) I'm against a disclaimer but I think the first calligraphy could contain a "disclaimer" of sorts something like. "The name "Muhammad" in traditional Thuluth calligraphy by the hand of Hattat Aziz Efendi.[1] Calligraphy is the traditional form of representation of Muhammad in Islam since the majority of traditional Sunni jurisprudence has forbidden icons of Muhammad" But, make it more readable, etc. You can even mention "the photos below are atypical, usually only found in Shia tradition and rarely in Turkish" if you want to mention that there are images below. I think that is a fine type of disclaimer. Also, I disagree with your reasoning about the veiled image. Veiled images or other methods of obscuring the face are probably more common than images showing the face... so, it's not about what people expect. Overall, not a bad idea. gren グレン 20:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Grenavitar, I concur. I didn't want to go through mocking up a copy of the {{Muhammad}} template just to swap the two images, but I agree that it would be the right thing to do for the final edit. -Harmil (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I also like the look of that page. I've one (minor) comment on Gren's verbiage, though: Don't use the word "photo". Stricly speaking, these aren't photos. They're images of manuscripts or tapestries created by (adoring?) Muslims. It probably won't satisfy the ultrahardcore, but it will make clearer that WP didn't gin these up for its collective amusement. - MasonicDevice (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is essential to keep the Veiled image because this is the more common way pictures of Muhammad peace uponh him are made.

I dont understand the reasoning for changing the icon for the Template. I think the icon calligraphy now suits it purpose. I agree to adding the disclaimer mentioned for the calligraphy. I also support adding the other disclaimer under the images and at the top of the article but, changing it to be like this "the photos below are atypical, usually only found in Shia tradition and rarely in Sunni Tradition". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.44.214 (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made the changes suggested by Grenavitar and MasonicDevice. As for the anon edit, above, read my original posting. There's no need for the veiled image at all. It contributes little to the introductory paragraph, and which audience is it there for? Those unfamiliar with Muhammad will be looking for a picture of the man, face included. Those who have seen other reference sources will expect no image at all. So who is the target audience that needs a veiled image for context? We have three images in the body of the article. The intro paragraph simply doesn't need a face to illustrate it. -Harmil (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, once again I don't think we're looking for a target audience. The veiled image shows the common practice of masking faces in representations in the Muslim world for figures in general. I disagree with the premise that the images are for aesthetic purposes rather than to represent tradition (and, obviously their importance is from tradition since they have little to do with the actual historical figure--sort of like European paintings of famous Greeks). Generally, I think you could replace one of the face images with the veiled one to give the full spectrum--that would be far more in line with my views of how the article should be. I would remove the Black Stone one because the veiled image shows the Kabah and also, if I'm not mistaken, that image was cropped from the original, anways. We also need to change my wording. I just wrote something off of the top of my head. User:Grenavitar/mimages might have some cite-able material since it's the page I created from stuff quotes about Islam and traditional forms of representation in the original debate over the images. (I had wanted fewer images and wanted them chosen to represent specific strains of iconic representation) gren グレン 22:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Grenavitar. I liked what you said about removing one of the face images, and putting the veiled one instead, they both have in common and the veiled one will show the other side of the Islamic images of the prophet. though i will remove the other one, since the incident of the black stone is of high importance, but the other one i can't understand its educational value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.44.214 (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"once again I don't think we're looking for a target audience." -- I'm curious what this means. All works, be they Web-based, or print (or performance, for that matter) have a target audience, and Wikipedia's target audience is actually pivotal, here. The English Wikipedia's target audience, for example, is assumed to speak modern English and have a basic grasp of Western cultural idiom.

"The veiled image shows the common practice of masking faces in representations in the Muslim world" -- That's as may be, but we're not talking about a body paragraph discussing the intricacies of Muslim practices with respect to Muhammad. Instead, we're introducing the article and setting up the initial context that readers will require. I don't see how that image has any value at all in that context, do you?

"I disagree with the premise that the images are for aesthetic purposes" -- So would I.

"Generally, I think you could replace one of the face images with the veiled one to give the full spectrum" -- That seems reasonable.

"I would remove the Black Stone one because the veiled image shows the Kabah and also, if I'm not mistaken, that image was cropped from the original, anways." -- Good point. -Harmil (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What I mean by "I don't think we're looking for a target audience" is that while most Westerners will expect an image with a biography that is not necessarily proper. So, of course we have a target audience in terms of understanding English, etc. But, expectation of cultural norms should not dictate content. Basically, I very much disagree with the idea that because Westerners expect paintings/images of a person along with a biography that they should be provided just because they are expected. Say for instance no Muslims had ever drawn pictures of Muhammad and the only known image was done by some Westerner in 2004. Then no image should be included even if that image from 2004 was released freely. Notability and importance to tradition are necessary for figures of whom we don't have photographs. Because unlike a photograph which is "real", other images are important only from the context in the tradition in which they are made. This is why a "more accurate" version of Jesus with darker skin or whatever anthropologists believe he would have really looked like is far less important than the tradition of iconography created in Europe which presents him as a White man. The same goes for Muhammad, and while I think a limited number of the images reach that threshold of importance, having too many images clearly misrepresents the importance of the traditions under which Muhammad has been depicted introducing POV and systemic bias into Wikipedia. This is why I think the "we have images so let's use them otherwise it's censorship" position is very unsophisticated. Because you must have a compelling reason to use the images in the first place to make their removal censorship. I hope that explains better. gren グレン 01:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is why I think the "we have images so let's use them otherwise it's censorship" position is very unsophisticated - where has this position been advocated? "We have" far more images that those few which are used in the present version of the article - which is a very long text with a much lower image density than many similar articles, such as Jesus.

In any biographical article in a general encyclopedia, there are several "universal" aspects to be covered: The life of the person himself, his work, historical context, his impact on religion, politics, history, literature, science ... and art. Now, it might be the case that the impact of this person in one or more of these areas is neglible (usually there is no need to describe some pop singers's influence on science), but what you are saying is different: If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that one of these areas (art) is only covered because "most Westerners" are conditioned to have some pretty images to look at. I disagree, I think art is one of those universal aspects.

The conflict about the images (and the honorifics) does not arise because of systemic bias (West vs. East), but because many Muslims want to have an article about Muhammad as a religious person only and written from the perpective of their religion only, which excludes this kind of art. The same kind of conflict can and does arise with topics about Western religions. (A historical example is the quest for the historical Jesus, which sought to widen the understanding of Jesus from a purely religious view to the first aspect mentioned above - or: from a purely theological to a more "encyclopedic" perspective, if you will.)

Regards, High on a tree (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you on too many issues and I agree that it is less dense--and I think there are an acceptable range of opinions of how this issue should be treated. I don't know if you have been around for the original discussions before the petition but it was commonly said that users like Aminz and I were just "cloaking censorship".

I think you have the general idea about how famous figures are represented. Muhammad's impact on art is important. And the most important aspect of it is how the hadith led most Muslims to shy away from any representation of the body let alone representations of him or his face. His purported sayings are one of the main reasons there is so much geometric design rather than figurative work in Muslim lands. This obviously changes some when you get into Mughal territory and other areas with strong figurative traditions. So, I don't dispute that we shouldn't address his impact on art but, as the article mentions it was often the rich 'secular' (although such usage is not exactly proper) types who disregarded the ulema that were likely to have these figurative images. So, I am not saying that art should not be covered. I am saying that many of the editors here take art to mean figurative art at the expense of the Islamic tradition in which figurative art plays a minor part. A while ago I took down some related quotes on this page. So, art is important but the notion that because we have pictures they must be more important is very misguided in my eyes and that is what I was complaining about.

Honorifics are not an issue of systemic bias--they obviously shouldn't be used. And including figurative images is not bias either. Doing it at the expense of the more commonplace forms of representation of Muhammad is. I have always felt that some inclusion of figurative images was warranted since they have an important place in history. But their addition must properly show their place--which is as a minority strain in courtly art. I realize the article will not be from the Muslim perspective but it is difficult to argue for the inclusion of an image if it has no importance in history. I spent many hours in the library during the original debate trying to find information about figurative images of Muhammad and it just isn't a subject that is covered often by art historians like Oleg Grabar. There is a reason for this--and it's not because Muslims told them they couldn't study it. It's because it is an issue of limited importance. That is what I want to have reflected in this article. I honestly don't see why some Muslims are upset about the images in this article. The images are public domain and will not be deleted from the commons or removed from other subpages. I would support a well done Figurative images of Muhammad. The images are here to stay but their usage in Muhammad must be thoroughly justified in the context of history. gren グレン 04:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for the veiled image at all. It contributes little to the introductory paragraph - I also think there should be an example of a veiled picture (preferably with flame nimbus?) in the article. By the way and for what it's worth, Britannica has a version of Image:Muhammad 20.jpg at the very top of its article on Muhammad. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of the proposals above (including Grenavitar's wording of the "veiled disclaimer" ;), but I think that the Black Stone picture from the Jami al-Tawarikh should stay because of its special role as "The earliest depiction of the Prophet Muhammad that has reached us" according to the cited reference (I am aware that Baker's book cited on User:Grenavitar/mimages is more cautious - "perhaps the earliest" -, but Wijdan Ali seem to have studied those manuscripts in more detail. And also there is a Flickr page out there claiming that some coin from 693 AD shows Muhammad, but this is probably not a reliable source.)

The fact that it is cropped can also be viewed as an advantage, because the depiction of Muhammad is better visible that way.

Regards, High on a tree (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole issue is what were those images originally meant to represent. The answer is not Muhammad. It's a scene from the Qur'an or sunna. By cropping it you are making it more a portrait which these are definitely not. It's important that they are not shown as portraits in this article because it would give completely the wrong impression. My whole issue about systemic bias is that we want to have portraits of all our historical figures when in some cases they don't fit. The images of Muhammad are not important because they're of Muhammad--they are apocryphal in the sense that they have little to do with the historic person of Muhammad. They have everything to do with how certain groups centuries after viewed him. That's what they really represent and I think just about any art historian would agree... --gren グレン 04:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least the two art historians/scholars that we have mentioned so far disagree with your statement that those images are not representations of Muhammad - Patricia L. Baker calls this image one of "representations of quranic prophets, including Muhammad", and Wijdan Ali calls it a "depiction of the Prophet Muhammad" (not "of a scene from the Qur'an or sunna"). It it a truism that any artistic representation (even a photographical portrait) is influenced by the views of the artist and his time. And nobody said "portrait" - if you insist that the image is not intended as a portrait of Muhammad, but instead is meant to show him doing something, fine, but the cropped version shows the essential elements of that scene just as well (Muhammad, the stone, the cloth, the clan elders holding it). Regards, High on a tree (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course. In a beach scene you would have a depiction of water. My post was in more general terms. gren グレン 06:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I like what is written here, and the substitution of one of the face images with the veiled is very reasonable and balance. It can illustriate how Muslims depicted Muhammad and how that was done throughout history. I also suggest the addition of pictures of some of the personal belongings of Muhammad (PBUH), to give the reader a better feel of how that important figure lived his life.

Tweaks

I made a few changes to Harmil's version, the result of which can be seen here. I removed the Isra image because we already have the Aqsa one in there and it squashes the text a bit much; reinserted the Nakkas Osman one and placed it into the Muhammad in Mecca sect; moved the 1315 Kaaba image down to the depictions section due to its significance as the earliest recorded one; and finally removed the Maome one because a) I think two images are sufficient, and b) this one lacks sufficient context: the caption isn't verified by the source. So we have one quite close to the top, and another close to the bottom - reflecting both veiled and unveiled traditions. I think that's a fair presentation. Feedback? ITAQALLAH 13:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a very nice work, I like it. I think you covered it pretty nicely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.44.214 (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I can live with this compromise, but what is this going to do to stop the vandalism? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we have two seperate issues here that we are tending to blur - what is our view on how many and where pictures should be placed? This is an editoral matter and can be discussed and tweaked here. The second is vandalism and that is a process issue. The bottom line is that vandalism will always continue on this page as long as any images are displayed. My own take is that we are just going to have to accept that, deal with it (with the various levels of protection and the eyes of editors) and hope that it eventually dies to a managable level - but our process issues should not influence our editoral decisions and our editoral decisions should not be taken with a view to solve our process issues. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been a little talk of including a western image of Muhammad in the article as well, which might also help balance the images. Perhaps adding a third image down in the "Western view of Muhammad" section? Resolute 15:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's worth considering. It might be useful to have a picture from the North Wall Frieze (which shows the major lawgivers of history) in the 'Modern times' sub-section. The one currently uploaded on Wikipedia shows Muhammad only, whereas it might be nicer to have a bit more context by widening the image and showing him alongside some of the other figures. I still prefer sticking to two images, but if this helps us achieve a compromise then that's fine too (A version with this implemented can be seen here). ITAQALLAH 15:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be an excellent image to use, and I agree, if we could get one that includes the other lawgivers around Muhammad, it would be highly useful and contextual. Especially given that image acknowledges Muhammad's role in the history of law, as even recognized by the western world. Resolute 17:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see what a Western image would add. Muhammad isn't a Western figure, and his image is rarely included in Western art. To single out such a rare case would obscure its rarity and even imply the opposite. Images that help to illustrate fact make sense. Images that help to obscure or alter fact are not helpful. -Harmil (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad is an enormously important figure in the development of the West, and "depictions of Muhammad" has about as many "western" depictions as Islamic depictions. I'm personally rather partial to the depiction of Muhammad on the American Supreme Court building, but our freely licensed version is of mediocre quality. WilyD 19:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

He did have an impact on the west, however, and there is a sizable section of this article discussing that that. An appropriate image, such as the sculptures on the SCOTUS would be appropriate in that section, imo. Resolute 19:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have inserted an image of the sculpture here which has been widened a bit. Not sure about how to get any better quality than that, though... ITAQALLAH 21:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I, too, can live with this compromise, especially if an image of the SCOTUS frieze is included, as the Western impact should be included, at least in terms of images. But I echo the concerns above -- would this counter the continued and highly vocal minority that continues to attempt all forms of vandalism to the page? --Mhking (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There will always be those who will remove any depictions no matter what. We can't help that, other than to revert as needed. Resolute 20:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I still dont see the value of adding a wester image, even if such image existed that doesnt mean it is relevant. this article is about Muhammad, and his life, not on how he was seen in different cultures. So, the west has no part of his life. Maybe the west was influenced by Muhammad peace upon him, but he wasnt influnced by the west. so adding that image, wont add anything to this article, it will only help confuse the reader even more. Any reader will think that this article talks about Muhammad, so adding an image from the west will force the reader to believe that the west had influenced his life, which is not true. I like the article that is edited by ITAQALLAH, it is fair and very well balanced. --Prince charming456 (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The West had a very profound influence on Muhammad. He took almost all of his religious ideas from the West - specifically, from the Judeo-Christian tradition. TharkunColl (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

How exactly did he do that ? i dont remember that he had any direct contact with the west, and whatever contact took place that happened after "his ideas" where already out. And on a more concrete bases, his ideas werent his own but they were all a relievation from God. The similarties between other religions comes from that these religions were once also a relievation from God.--86.60.44.214 (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This will never be resolved. It offends me, but i just choose not to visit the page. simple as that.Bkovice (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the changes made here after i clikc on the link provided, but when i search the word "Muhammad" i go to the same old page. When are these pages going to be effictive?.--Prince charming456 (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Gallery?

I noticed that many articles have a "gallery". That is to say, they have a collection of images in a section at the end of its own. Perhaps we could have images of Muhammad in such a section, that is originally set to "hide". User, who wish to see the image, can click "show" to display the image(s). I'm not sure, but this may already have been suggested before.

Would this be a compromise?Bless sins (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Already been suggested... Generally speaking removing them would be vandalism since they've been added after thorough discussions. That's the general problem; that there isn't any. The problem I could see would be this: Where would it end? First the Muslims, then the Catholics, then the Scientologists... It'll go on like this if you give into religious dogma. In my opinion this issue is pathetic; it's been discussed already. The only thing that has changed is that the fanatics have organized and tried to impose their dogmatic norms on a website it seems less than half of them really know anything about. My solution is just to wait it out, they'll run out of steam.83.92.244.246 (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Bless sins is a long time user trying to give a proposal--not a new "fanatic" brought in by the petition. In any case, treat other users of this encyclopedia with respect. gren グレン 05:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think anyone would accept that to replace the images in text. I think it's generally a bad idea, especially when a commons link is just as affective. gren グレン 05:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)