Talk:Muhammad/images

Level of support for Resolute's compromise

In Support

1. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
2. --JN466 04:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
3. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
4. (modulo some tweaking of images, the number not being absolutely fixed) Mathsci (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
5. Probably. But the discussion got disrupted to the point that I am not sure what the proposal is saying precisely, when all later modifications (if any) are factored in. Hans Adler 14:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
6. Support: --Ludwigs2 16:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
7. It took me awhile to read and figure out just what Resolute's compromise is (since it's not linked in this section), but if this diff is an example of the way that images would be used,[1] then I'd be willing to support this. I'm still not thrilled with the Gagarin image (since it's not mentioned anywhere in the text), but the rest looks reasonable. --Elonka 17:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Opposed

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

Margarine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will not put my comment in the "support" or "oppose" sections because I do not believe such a poll has value. I have been a regular contributor here, but I am looking at this page less and less as time goes on, because, frankly, I am weary of it.

I commend Resolute's herculean effort to come up with a compromise. The proposal advocates removing images based on two reasons: layout and religious representation. I note with interest that aesthetic considerations (using an image to break up a wall o' text) have already been rejected by those opposing images of Muhammad. This cuts both ways; therefore, aesthetics (e.g. layout) isn't a reason to remove them either. Rearranging the existing images would be preferable, IMO.

As for religious representation, I don't see this as a compelling argument to remove yet more images beyond those that have already disappeared (Muhammad burning in hell, feminine-appearing Gabriel appearing to Muhammad, and some others). The removal of these has resulted in a good balance, a compromise (using Ludwigs2's phrasing) between opposing a POV and surrendering to it. Why change it? If we are to discuss removal of images, we should be talking about those that don't depict Muhammad at all. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of religious presentation. It's a question of what reliable sources use. I've pointed out many times that to date we have not a single Quranic inscription in this article, in stark contrast to reliable sources on Muhammad, where such inscriptions of his words on buildings are common illustrations – far more common than figurative depictions of Muhammad. At the same time, we are giving a lot of weight to a rare subcategory of a rare type of figurative depiction, for no source-based reason that I can discern. Certainly, none has been presented here in recent discussions. Instead, we've heard an acknowledgement that yes, we depart from sources, and we're right to do so. But WP:DUE weight is policy, and applies to all types of content, including images. --JN466 02:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, I have no objection to including images of Quranic inscriptions. But no compelling argument has been given that the addition of those must come at the expense of losing other valuable images. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I doubt any valuable images will be removed, just the unnecessary and un-NPOV ones. so I guess we're in agreement? --Ludwigs2 18:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposing to replace Plas1987 as source on images with Safi

It's a short and poorly written paper, which absurdly tries to speak of Muslims as a monolithic entity and to present general truths which are immediately contradicted by details from any of the other more detailed sources. It's also 25 years old, so rather unsuitable to present the current attitudes. And being the poor source that it is, it makes no time or space references. It almost reads like "Muslims, forever and everywhere"; LOL. Compare with what Omid Safi says:

“ Historically, the bulk of the images were produced by Sunni artists, though today one finds them more common in Shi'i Iran and Sunni Turkey. For reasons that are hard to explain, in the Arab context there was never a rich tradition of produced pictorial representations of the Prophet. Instead, the creative energy of Muslims in that context was channeled toward a rich poetic tradition in praise of the Prophet. ”

Falls in line perfectly with the other historical sources and fills in the gaps. Later:

“ Whenever Iranians and Turks came to our home, they would recognize the image as a common one they had seen on posters in Iran. But something strange would happen when we invited to our home Sunni Muslim friends from Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Egypt, who experienced a cognitive dissonance of sorts: how could a pious Muslim not only make an image of the Prophet but also display it proudly in his home? Once a dear friend from Pakistan came to our home for dinner, and we shared a wonderful meal. A great lover of Islamic arts, he admired the many examples of Islamic calligraphy around our home, and we had a lovely time deciphering the Arabic inscriptions. He finally came to pause in front of the image of the Prophet and politely asked who the image was depicting. I was surprised that this learned friend, very knowledgeable about Islam, would not have immediately identified the very common image of Muhammad; I stated that, of course, it was the Prophet. My friend's complexion changed from disbelief to offense, and he proceeded to emphatically state that it could not be, because "Muslims do not depict the Prophet." ”

Also covers the current geographical split in attitudes relatively well. So I think it's a vastly superior substitute to the platitudes from Plas87. By the way, can someone find the source for the statistics (80% or so among Sunnis, 15% or so among Shi'a)? It's not Plas87, I checked. Some surveys would be better than the anecdotal data from Sufi. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's by a notable scholar of Islam (Kees Wagtendonk) and takes a more high-level view than Safi. That's perfectly fine for an overview; we are using Safi well now to document the exceptions. (Thanks for the additions.) --JN466 16:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

For percentages, see e.g. [3][4] --JN466 17:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Jayen, you should have explained what "Plas1987" was, especially as you have just removed him from the article! ref name="Plas1987">Kees Wagtendonk (1987). "Images in Islam". In Dirk van der Plas (ed.). Effigies dei: essays on the history of religions. BRILL. pp. 120–124. ISBN 978-90-04-08655-5. Retrieved 1 December 2011.</ref> Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • No, John, he's still there. --JN466 21:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Can someone find Kees Wagtendonk's home page? Or a bio sketch about him? I'm having trouble finding any of that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Dutch, taught Islam at the University of Amsterdam, but retired some time ago. [5]. --JN466 10:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Better Quran images?

Existing images

• 
  Existing image 1
• 
  Existing image 2

Alternate images

• 
  Alt 1
• 
  Alt 2
• 
  Alt 3
• 
  Alt 4
• 
  Alt 5

Here are a few Quran images that we could consider to replace one or both of the existing ones.

It might make sense to have one old (manuscript) and one contemporary (printed) one. There are more files in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Qur%27an

Views? Other ideas? --JN466 00:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Quran images should be a high priority for the article. But alt 5 would be an improvement on image 1.

--FormerIP (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

For the first image, illustrating the section on the Qur'an as a source for Muhammad's biography, my preference would be Alt 1. It conveys a sense of antiquity, which is appropriate in that context, exemplifies some of the elaborate ornamentation commonly used in Qur'an manuscripts, and contains the customary marker for the beginning of a sura. So there's good educational content. --JN466 12:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

All the images look fine to me, I have no objections. If possible, we might try to find some better close-up images of the calligraphy as well, rather than just the entire book. For example, a sample of the actual handwriting from Muhammad's time, as his followers were recording his early visions. --Elonka 14:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

See History of the Quran#Oldest surviving copy. It's rather hard for non-Muslim historians to agree that writings from Muhammad's life exist. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Kufic 8th or 9th century

I don't think manuscripts survive that are much older than this Kufic example, which also works better at small size than any of the existing or suggested examples (and which I suggested last time we had this discussion. The Qu'ran would have been first written in Kufic apparently, though doubtless not such a fancy (or clear) version as here. I see the argument for a printed version, but I'm not sure how relevant it is for a biography, and another manuscript would probably have more visual impact. There are dozens of strong images on Commons. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The alternative ones look like an improvement, I don't care which ones you pick. As far as I'm concerned be WP:BOLD. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've dropped the Kufic one in for now. --JN466 16:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Quran manuscript from the 7th century CE, written on vellum in the Hijazi script.

Actually I see there are earlier manuscripts, like this one. I still think the Kufic one is strong at a small size though. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit one Quran image seems about right given there is only one section on the Quran in terms of overall weight. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

We actually have two sections on the Qur'an -- the brief one where I inserted the Kufic image, and "Beginnings of the Quran" (where the other image is located). Given that, by any measure, the Qur'an is why Muhammad continues to have an impact on the world today, I don't think two images are excessive. --JN466 17:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, clearly I missed the second section :o. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Image poll

There continues to be a disagreement on how best to present images (especially image of Muhammad) in this article. In order to try and re-assess, could everyone interested in the topic please offer a single statement here (hopefully no more than one or two sentences), with how you would like to see the images handled? Specifically:

• What kind of image should go in the infobox, if any.
• Approximately how many figurative images of Muhammad should be used in the article
• How should those images be presented

THIS IS NOT A VOTE. It is just an attempt to gather information. Also, it is understood that just because someone posts an opinion here, doesn't mean that they're going to stick to that opinion no matter what -- compromise and consensus-building are still possible. But it would be nice to know everyone's preference. Thanks, --Elonka 22:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Most of the images in this article are fine, but as for figurative depictions of Muhammand, my own preference would be an image of calligraphy in the infobox, or of the Green Dome showing Muhammad's tomb. Then put 1 or 2 images further down in the "Depictions of Muhammad" section, such as the Ottoman image of Muhammad veiled in the Isra and Mi'raj article, and maybe something from the Jami al-Tawarikh, such as the drawing of Muhammad as a baby. --Elonka 22:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• A poll like this is premature until the arbitration case is resolved. Therefore I will not express any opinion at this time. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Fine as it is, and this is way premature. Franamax (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• My preference would be the existing calligraphy in the infobox, and one or two figurative images in the Depictions section. One of these should be File:Miraj by Sultan Muhammad.jpg. --JN466 23:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Status quo - Don't really see the point of this being started right now as the arbcom case marches on, but if there's calls for beans to be counted, there we go. The article as it exists now is the product of much previous discussion and compromise. I would not oppose the reduction of calligraphy, as some have stated it is getting a little clutter-ish. Tarc (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Unless compelling evidence is presented to the contrary as per my comments on the evidence talk page an image in the Infobox with a single further image in the depictions section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this poll and therefore all changes to the status quo until the arbcom case is closed. There is no point changing anything now when it is quite possible that the arbcom closure will be game changing, for example if one or more people who have expressed opinions here are topic banned (and this has been requested by and of people on both 'sides') then there will be arguments about how much weight their arguments should or should not carry. It is equally possible that arbcom will mandate some specific process that would render this a waste of effort (and there's been far too much of that over these images already). Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Probably premature, but I might as well clarify my view. I am happy with the current infobox image, number and broad type of Muhammad images, and their placement (low down the article fairly near the incidents illustrated). The selection of individual images is different, & can be improved - yes we should should have a Mi'raj, very possibly the one Jayen names, & I'm happy to drop another for this to happen. One of the Qu'ran images is still sub-optimal, and so on. And no hostile Western images. There is at least enough calligraphy/writing already, what with all the templates. Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Most certainly premature and also very difficult to answer, because there are so many possible permutations to how images might be arranged in the article. At the present time, I would suggest that File:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg is a touchstone. There is a considerable body of community opinion in favour of this image in its current location. In my view, this is already too low down in the article for the first image of the subject of an article, given that images are available. It would not be acceptable to move it lower down, replace it with a veiled image or with (for Christ's sake!) calligraphy. --FormerIP (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• My view:
  1. The infobox should contain a calligraphic image of Muhammad's name, as the most common and recognizable symbol of Muhammad.
  2. The actual number of images used in the article is not important, so long as figurative images of the prophet are only used where they are clearly necessary to support some element of text.
     • Used in the section about the islamic depictions of Muhammad, where they would be needed to show that figurative images exist, and to exemplify different trends
     • Used in the European Views section, where figurative images are likely to be more common and representative
     • Excluded from sections on Muhammad's history or life, where they are potentially misleading and an unnecessary affront to Muslim tenets.--Ludwigs2 05:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• I think that the infobox should at least have a picture of Muhammad, if there is to be one anywhere. The image for the page on Muhammad should be a depiction of Muhammad. Having calligraphy or symbolism replace an actual picture would not be in the spirit of wikipedia. Regrettably, it will offend some people, but that is not, nor should be, the impetus behind any decision. A picture of Muhammad would be more encyclopedic and offer more knowledge, therefore, it is the only real option if this is to remain a truly neutral place to obtain knowledge. Also, I feel like there is an overabundance of images in this article. Lots of images of redundant or mildly irrelevant things, as if people are unconsciously putting in different images because they feel bad about putting in an image of Muhammad. Vincekd (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• Infobox: Nobody knows what he looked like and there is no established iconography of Muhammad other than that of representing him non-figuratively or at least without showing his face. Faceless depictions are used for other people as well, so the only iconography we can work with is his written name in calligraphy. That's what we currently have in the infobox, and it's the most logical thing even without factoring in offence. Presentation of images: The most important factor is proper contextualisation. Figurative images generally have an appropriate context in a section discussing how Muhammad is/was depicted and in a Western reception section. They are less appropriate in a discussion of Muhammad's life and totally inappropriate in the infobox. Number of images: The proper contextualisation of every single image is much more important than the number. Some readers will be shocked by the images, and they must see that we do that for a good reason. This reason exists wherever the existence of such images is relevant. IMO the maximum reasonable number based on the article's current state would be 3: One example of Western reception, and one example each of Muhammad with veiled face and as a flame. Anything beyond that would be to bring the article in line with Western viewing habits rather than to convey information. So, just in terms of number: 0-3. Ideally we could have one collage each of typical Muslim and Western images. (And yes: I do consider 0 figurative images a very reasonable option, as the way he is depicted is a relatively minor, almost off-topic point in his biography and just not worth causing offence over.) Hans Adler 13:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

The point of the poll is not to implement changes (which I agree would be unwise considering that the ArbCom case is ongoing), but simply to try and see where everyone stands. ArbCom is not going to make a ruling on content, they are mainly going to focus on user conduct. I don't believe it would cause a problem to simply gather opinions at this time. --Elonka 00:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• ArbCom may choose to indicate a path for the community to arrive at a resolution, so holding an "advance poll" is probably not a good idea. And given the level of strife over this, it's probably not a good idea for you to formulate a quedtion, then provide your own response as the first order of buainess, This is an important enough question that it should probably be framed by a totally uninvolved and neutral "best and brightest"-type Wikipedian. Not that I'm saying you're not one of those people or particularly involved here, just sayin'. :) Franamax (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • My guess is that ArbCom is going to order a community-wide RfC, which is fine, but again, that's not related to this poll at all. This poll is not binding, it's not a vote, it's just an attempt to find out where people stand. --Elonka 01:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Sooo... what is the purpose then? I've been watching this for a depressingly long time and I'm pretty sure I can tick the preference-boxes of almost everyone likely to comment here. What plan do you have for the derivatve result? Franamax (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, I'm coming in with fresh eyes. I'm familiar with the topic area, but haven't been heavily involved in this discussion, am not a party to the case, and am still having trouble figuring out who is who, and what everyone's position is. There's definitely a lot of discussion going on at the workshop page, but so much of it is not directly related to the article. Accusations fly about censorship, Islamophobia, freedom of speech, which sources to use, which sources to ignore, etc. etc. But when it comes down to what people want for the article, I'm still a bit lost. My guess is that other observers may be equally confused, so that's why the poll. It's a pretty simple question to everyone: If you were the one editing the article, which images would you use, and where? --Elonka 03:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

        If you'd like, I can summarize the basic positions that have been offered. Despite all of the ridiculous back-and-forthness of it it's really not that complicated. or are you looking for new opinions? --Ludwigs2 03:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

        Ideally everyone can post their own opinion, in their own words? --Elonka 04:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

        Ideally yes; but politically? Speaking in all fairness, there is cohort on this page that doesn't think discussion is appropriate (as you may have noticed from the responses you've gotten): they believe the issue is already settled as a matter of strict policy, and are simply waiting for the arbitration to close so that (hopefully) they can go back to maintaining the status quo. From their perspective your question is unreasonable: it asks them to express a positive rationale for image placement when their argument all along has always been that no positive rationale is needed. The images are there, NOTCENSORED prevents them from being removed for reasons of religious offense; end of discussion. They could fabricate a positive rationale out of that respect for the status quo to post, yes, but I don't think they will; doing so would undercut the purity of the strict policy position they are trying to hold. Nor are they going to be quite as willing as I am to present this strict policy position as a "position," because they see it as an absolute 'fact' and don't want to make the mistake of relativizing it. --Ludwigs2 04:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

        Well, let's let everyone speak for themselves? --Elonka 04:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

        As you like. I don't think anyone will disagree with what I said, mind you (or if they do, my apologies; it wasn't my intention to misrepresent), I'm just noting why your question may not get the results you wish. But I'll add my view; maybe that will get the ball rolling. --Ludwigs2 05:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

        I would very much disagree with any participant attempting to summarize the points of view of the other participants; I do not have good faith that such a thing would or could be done fairly. Let people speak for themselves in this thing and leave it at that. Tarc (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

        That's a bad faith assumption. I'm perfectly capable of summing up an opponent's position fairly and accurately. Or do you think I misrepresented it in what I said above. --Ludwigs2 15:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

        It would be nice to know if you think Ludwigs has misrepresented your position. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

        Too many times to count, I'm afraid. I'll leave it at that. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

        So by that I presume you are saying that he is entirely correct this time? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

        Facepalm I'm going to put this very clearly and succinctly for you. Elonka solicited us to provide a summary of our positions. I did so. Ludwigs stated "I can summarize the basic positions that have been offered". Elonka replied "Well, let's let everyone speak for themselves?" I am affirming my support for that opinion of Elonka's. Does that explain the matter to your satisfaction? Tarc (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

        It would have been nice to get there a little quicker as Kww has done below... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

        I got there from the first post when I indicated that I did not want Ludwigs to act as a clerk for Elonka's straw poll. Tarc (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• • • • He generally misrepresents mine. I can't speak for others. It's certainly OK to discuss the correct number and type of images in the article, so long as the discussion doesn't deal with religious offense as a selection factor, isn't motivated by an attempt to avoid it, and doesn't apply any standards that are different than those we would apply to any other image.—Kww(talk) 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

        Kww, Tarc. Very simple question. did the post I made right here misrepresent your position? I'll point out that continuing to try to paint me as an evil person isn't going to do you any good; there are too many editors involved now for me to matter much. So it's your choice: avoid the question in favor of more nasty comments about me, or engage a real discussion that might get us somewhere. which is it going to be? --Ludwigs2 21:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

        Yes, Ludwigs2, you misrepresented my position. There's nothing "unreasonable" about Elonka's question, because nothing about her question involved evaluating the images from the perspective of a religious objection, and she hasn't proposed doing so. My position is not that the status quo in the article is somehow perfect, but only that it needs to be evaluated in the same fashion as we evaluate imagery in all articles, without regard to religious offense, and without trying to apply some more rigid standard of necessity than we would for any other image. To date, every attempt you have made to summarize my position has substantially misrepresented it: I leave it for others to determine the motivation behind that.—Kww(talk) 22:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

        Well, that happens to be exactly what I said, just rephrased, but it's not worth arguing over. As for rest - you just couldn't resist the personal attack, could you? pfft. --Ludwigs2 22:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

        Actually, Ludwigs2, it's substantially different than what you said, and that you are either unable to see or unwilling to admit the difference is the precise reason that people said it would not be a good idea for anyone to attempt to summarize all positions in the debate.—Kww(talk) 22:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

        If you think it's substantially different explain how, and we'll adjust; that's how these discussions are supposed to go, Kww. You seem to want to refuse to allow that anything I would ever say might be useful; you make this intractably personal, by constantly asserting that everything I say is wrong and offensive and avoiding anything I say that might might lead to rational discussion. it's a political game; quit it. --Ludwigs2 01:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

        You'll just twist it again. I'm not sure if it's a comprehension issue or intentionally deceptive debating tactics. One way or the other, while it seems to be worthwhile pointing out when you are misrepresenting things, it certainly doesn't seem worth the effort to engage you directly in debate. Most readers will be able to read my statement and yours and see the differences.—Kww(talk) 01:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

        And that is exactly why this discussion has degraded to the mess that it has. You (and Tarc, and several others I could mention) have decided that you will not under any circumstances assume good faith about anything I say or do. I don't deserve this crap, and I'm not going to take the blame because you guys have decided to focus exclusively on ripping me to the expense of all productive discussion. --Ludwigs2 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

        Perhaps this can serve as a life...or at least a wiki...lesson that when you call other editors a bunch of racists that they will probably not feel too charitable when you do things like offer to summarize their statements. Take a lesson from Hogwarts; "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus". Tarc (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

        Bull, Tarc - this has nothing to do with that. It's politics, pure and simple. You all have just gotten so used to getting your way through bad faith assertions about other editors that you've lost the knack for good faith discussion. I keep hoping you'll wake up and smell the coffee, silly me. maybe it's time you stopped trying to play the angry dragon, hunh? --Ludwigs2 05:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ludwigs, above, wants to see figurative images "Used in the European Views section, where figurative images are likely to be more common and representative" - Let's knock this on the head (again). Of course all European images of M are figurative, they're not going to be calligraphic, are they? But in art they are extremely rare, far rarer than Islamic ones. There are of course illustrations to printed books of various kinds, but they are really pretty rare there too. Anthony Cole wanted to use the Washington full-length statue, but are there any other full-length near life-size statues of M anywhere else, or have there ever been? I doubt it - that is I think the only one; plus of course it is especially objectionable to Muslims, as monumental sculpture is exactly the kind of art they most object to, with reason, as it is the classic form of idols, and idolatry is what all their objections are designed to prevent. Commons only have 7 Western images of M that are not printed or from Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, vs well over 100 Islamic ones, and the real imbalance is probably much higher, as we have so few Islamic images generally. Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually Depictions of Muhammad mentions a 2nd statue in New York, also the subject of specific protests. But is there a 3rd? Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• John, you don't need to rebut. I noted those sections mostly as examples of places where we have a credible justification for using figurative images. I do believe there are places where these images may be useful and informative enough to justify using them over objections; my objection all along has been against uncritical use of such images, where NOTCENSORED is applied without any consideration of why the images should be there in the first place.--Ludwigs2 05:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  • The "classic form of idols" wasn't just sculptures. Buildings, trees, rocks, and live animals were also commonly treated as gods or containing gods (see Ibn al-Kalbi's Book of Idols). Also the claim that "idolatry is what all their objections are designed to prevent" is not true. An important factor for prohibiting depictions of prophets is that they are bound to contain misinformation. In this respect, I would say that the SCOTUS image would be less objectionable than the Russian painting. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 12:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but 3-dimensional, as all these examples are, rather than 2-dimensional. Why would SCOTUS contain less misinformation? Note that it and another staue in New York have already been the subject of specific protests. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No, there were 2-dimensional examples as well. According to a Hadith, during the conquest of Mecca the Prophet also destroyed 2-dimensional depictions showing Abraham and Ishmael performing pagan rites. Those depictions were created for propaganda purposes (similar to some of the images we have here) and did not convey true information. Thus when it comes to depicting prophets (even in 2D) the content of the depictions (not just the form) is also a determinant factor. Now, I'm partial to the SCOTUS image because I think that a) it has already been included in an RS, and b) unlike the Russian painting, it does not make any assumptions about the Prophet's surroundings. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You're being over-literal. I meant "classic" as in standard, characteristic, typical, usual etc. Your comments re Scotus are interesting but I'm not sure how typical such views are. Johnbod (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• • • Thanks Wiqi55. Is it okay if we move your comment up into the "poll" section? Or would you like to comment there separately? --Elonka 20:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I didn't realize that this discussion was part of a poll. I think I'll make a separate comment later. Thanks. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Unconsciously? Maybe. --FormerIP (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Blasphamous pictures of Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)

After a year i am again agitating in front of you people for blasphamous figuers of Holy Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon).Please remove these figures. I want to thank you and i'll salute to u people that u have removed one blasphamous image.Come to Islam as Islam is the Last and true religion.It's the fastest growing religion in the world.Respect our noble prophet and believe in one true God , i.e Allah.Even you guys are having blasphamous images of Prophet Esa(Jesus) (peace be upon him) on his page in Wikipedia.So we muslims respects all true prophets.Esa(pbuh) is also a great prophet among the prophets.In the end i would say the Last Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the most revered prophet among all prophets. I hope u ppl will include my comments without any prejuidice on ur page. Regards,

Farooq Turkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.167.34 (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We cater to a global audience, thus we do not defer to any religion's precepts or restrictions. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Farooq, thank you for your comments. Presently, we are reviewing the way we use images that may offend some readers. Striking the right balance between openness on the one hand and respect for the sensibilities of our readers on the other is a difficult thing. Please be sure, though, that your concerns are being taken very seriously in those deliberations, at the highest level of the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)