Talk:Muhammad

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

Skip to table of contents

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article, and removal of pictures without discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images will be reverted. If you find these images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display them; for instructions, see the FAQ. Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images.

Important notice: Wikipedia's Muhammad FAQ addresses some common points of argument, including the use of images and honorifics such as "peace be upon him". The FAQ represents the consensus of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read the FAQ first.

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Muhammad article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35: 3 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Consistency (Bahá'u'lláh disclaimer)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The editors who frequent this page have strong opinions about censorship & disclaimers. For this reasons, what are your opinions on the disclaimer used in the Bahá'u'lláh article? I feel that this article and that one should maintain the same policies & remain consistent, since it's the exact same issue. Also, note that on WP:NDA, it says that all disclaimers should be removed on sight, and consensus is to not have them. What should be done? Should we add a disclaimer here or remove the one form that article? нмŵוτн τ 23:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that they have it wrong in that article. I don't think the text used there is an out-and-out disclaimer though. I'm also really not enthusiastic about dragging that article into this argument either, it's already messy enough as it is. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

We should have both articles do the same thing though. I mean, shouldn't an encyclopedia be consistent? Let's come to a decision of what to do w/ both articles. нмŵוτн τ 23:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in theory consistency is highly desirable, I just think it's going to be even harder to get a consensus from two groups of editors on a controversial topic, than just one group. (on an unrelated matter, are you aware User:hmwith that your signature in Opera sometimes causes a large grey bar to appear on the page which blocks out your comments?). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

What? No, I've had this for a long, long time, and I've never heard that. Do you mind taking a screenshot? I have no idea why that would happen or how to avoid it, but I'd like to see the issue. Odd. нмŵוτн τ 00:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think that it's something that the community as a whole should discuss, rather than on the talk pages. This is a bigger issue than two individual articles. It's the idea of disclaimers & censorship as a whole. нмŵוτн τ 00:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The other article has changed, so this discussion no longer has value or relevance. нмŵוτн τ 07:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Commons link

Resolved

There are relevant icons in the commons pages. Could the following be added under External Links?

$\alpha$ 16:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's already there using {{sisterlinks|Muhammad}} - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical background

Scholars usually discuss the life of Muhammad in the context of pre-Islamic Arabia. Watt for example discusses the economic basis of Arabia, the Meccan politics and the social and moral background, and religous and intellectual background of the region. Anybody willing to pair up with me writing such a section as it seems to be too much for me alone doing it? --Be happy!! (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Article

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have created another article, Muhammed (no images) which does not contain depictions of the prophet (pbuh) himself. There is now a link at the top of this article to find the article which does not contain images of offense to some Muslims, but is otherwise identical. All changes to either article must be made here. Hopefully this will be an acceptable compromise. Franamax (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't self-references supposed to be avoided? Also the notice is in sort of a random place within the intro. Oore (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a self-reference, it's a compromise and a transclusion. Everything in the shadow article is here, just a few images aren't copied over. And yes, maybe the notice could be in a better place, but I didn't do it randomly, I really did think that was as close to the top as I could put it, and I think it should be close to the top (but not AT the top). Franamax (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean isn't saying "This article contains depictions of Muhammad" a considered a self-reference here? I'm not really sure, so I might be wrong. Oore (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right there, I'll fall back on WP:IAR. It's beneficial to those faithful who might wish to research the prophet's life without viewing images of that prophet. It's respectful, everyone has a way out of the argument, and it gets the job done. There are precedents elsewhere, we don't want too many, this is one. Fair enough? Franamax (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I should have clarified that I do support this compromise but I just wasn't sure if it followed all the rules. Also I wasn't aware of the ignore all rules thing. Thanks for pointing that out. Oore (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest putting it at the end of the lead section (so it appears just above the TOC). That way it doesn't interrupt the prose, also it's more prominent while not being right at the top. James086^{Talk | Email} 11:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I picked that spot so it was visible on the first "page" of the browser, there's no chance of it being too obscure, it seemed like a reasonably good break spot in the prose. That said, I'm not married to it, compromise is compromise, the end of the lead does discuss the prohibition on depictions. Do what you think, just keep in mind the experience of the average user or newcomer to the wiki, some of whom are Muslim, whatever you think is right... Cheers! Franamax (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... In my resolution I can see down to "3.1.5 Early years in Mecca". I'm not sure if it is average. If it wouldn't be on the first "page" of most people's browsers then perhaps leave it as is. I don't mind either way. James086^{Talk | Email} 11:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - I can see down to "Family tree - In Mecca" under "Life" in the infobox and I thought I had a pretty good monitor, and it's at highest res. You're seeing 30% more than me, I sure hope you're not average. Doesn't matter, you'll be obsolete too in a few months :) The safe way to see the lowest-common-denominator for the world is probably 1024x768 or so. That's why I figured third paragraph would be good. Franamax (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be convenient for the majority of people so I retract my previous suggestion and now think it should be left where it is (or nearby if someone has a better suggestion). James086^{Talk | Email} 12:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make one shadow article, you'll wind up having to make thousands upon thousands. There will never be a shortage of articles that people are offended by. In the end, this might be more of a job for a site-fork than a page fork. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Events will quite likely prove you correct Alec. This is a case where we provide information to the entire world and it's not hard to be sensitive. Perhaps there will be a need for an islam:wiki; we're not there yet. And it's not really a fork, it's a subset. We can always say "no more" and we can always say "even less", but we don't have to do it today. Franamax (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strongly opposed to a shadow article and feel there should be some serious discussion before implementing one. This is a slippery slope and could be a back door for censorship. I agree with Alecmconroy. It could easily lead to every person with an axe to grind demanding a separate article with their version represented. With all due respect, and I understand your intentions are honorable, we need to think and discuss seriously a potential site fork before doing it. Quenn (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the best place to raise those concerns would be at AN where the current action started. There are definitely some concerns with respect to site-wide policy, this is probably not the best page to talk about them. Franamax (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

absolute no chance this can be allowed to stand - where does it end? must be deleted. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Islamic point of view Mediawiki-based encyclopaedia project seems to already exist - http://muslimwiki.com/mw/index.php/Main_Page . But if this dealie will allow the issue to drop for a while, more power to it. The text of this article is what needs the attention, not the images. WilyD 14:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have AFD'd the article, I'm gobsmacked that someone thought that it would be a solution to this firestorm by creating such an article with virtually no discussion. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, more to the point, that this has been discussed, and rejected every single time. Judging by the early returns on the AfD, I doubt this POVFORK lasts the day. Reso lute 15:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol I give it 'til 20:00 UTC. WP:SNOW and all that! At least I'll get points in multiple heavens for trying :) Franamax (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, heh. As Frederick stated in the AfD, the idea is noble, but the community has no appetite for such a fork. If nothing else, at least we proved that consensus on the inclusion of images in this article remains as strong as ever. FWIW, I've asked on WP:AN if an opt-out option could be created. I don't believe Wikipedia should be censored for everyone, but if there is a way for users to self-sensor based on a list of flagged images, that is then left to individual choice. Reso lute 15:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted all my changes to this article. Franamax (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be opposed if I deleted the shadow article? Especially seeing as how it now has the images as well? Reso lute 15:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franamax has already commented on the AfD that s/he has no objections to a WP:SNOW deletion. Hut 8.5 17:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ending of first sentence...

"...is regarded by Muslims as the last messenger and prophet of God (Arabic: الله).[7]" Something seems to be messed up there. I don't know whether it's the reference or template but the Arabic text seems to be changing the order of the text following it. Oore (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has something to do with the non-latin character. Is that ref really necessary? If not couldn't we just have a comment in the code which would avoid the formatting problem? James086^{Talk | Email} 11:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is because '[' is a directionally ambiguous character. I'll try inserting an U+2060. --dab (𒁳) 19:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed {{Allah}} instead. I am a bit confused why {{rtl-lang}} should be necessary, since {{lang}} theoretically ought to be sufficient... dab (𒁳) 19:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

These pictures are just stupid. They provide no intellectual or educational purpose. I don't think anyone can gain from viewing these pictures. They just do a good job of pissing over over a billion people. Remove the images for the sake that they SUCK rather dying for some anti-censorship cause. If I put pictures up of some baby being murdered and the parents complained I'm sure they'd take the pictures down, not bitch about 'anti-censorship'. Wikipedia users are generally non-muslim, which means there is BIAS involved, I believe that is against Wiki policies too. If you think the images should stay, maybe its because your biased. Think about those facts.