Talk:Muhammad/images

Irrelevance of content shown

In the Name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful I begin.

Reference to pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maome.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gagarin_PropovedMagometGRM.jpg , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Siyer-i_Nebi_298a.jpg … It is obvious that these depictions were merely initiated as images of a postulated truth as depictions are based upon artistically generated ideas (this being an artwork - judging from the type of the material), that do not necessarily infer any correctness or actuality in their content or foundation.

It is undeniable that this artwork was initiated as an idea concerning the depicted (Postulated as the bearer of this article - Prophet of Islam Muhammad), but these bear not hold any explicit reference to their trustworthiness as it obviously didn’t have into its consideration the pertinence (by any true relevance), to actual abiding citations of conformity as most of the other references accepted in constructing this article.

This therefore implies that the “depicted” might never have been truthfully or merely reliably pictured (or reliably depicted) thru such work of art, making this one too therefore vulnerable to being a mere fake in prescribing the actions of its presumed implied events and its artificially presented “truths”!

Therefore this raises an undeniable fact that this work of art cannot stand alone a trustworthy content; according to enactments of most of the other cited dependable references / sources held or worked upon in this article. This also implies that including this depiction in the article can/would be misleading information about the article’s bearer, since it includes presenting thus far unreliable imaging/(depiction based arts) about that particular mentioned event including himself in the presented content.

This therefore serves as both a notification and an urge to the Wikimedia foundation to act upon this threat to the reliability of the content of its articles and relaying upon the prosthetics cited references in validity proving. It is clear now that such art-work in such an article is in explicit violation.Fs50313 (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you are thinking about WP:VERIFY, but these are works of art and thus don't fall under that policy, anymore than the painting of anyone done before the age of photography or of someone for whom there were no contemporary portraits. Dougweller (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If you mean that they should not be regarded as historically accurate images then you are correct. Johnbod (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It Should Be Removed Kindly

Respectfully, I am having an issue with an article "MUHAMMAD" at WIKIPEDIA.I am a Muslim and representative of Islam.I am having problem with the images of our beloved Prophet uploaded in the article.The images of the Holy Prophet are not used any where in Islam,even the movies which are subjected to the Islamic history have not figured The Holy Prophet.These images are pinching for Muslims. The Muslim community is not satisfied about those images.I request you on the behalf of whole Islamic nation to remove these images kindly. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.188.105 (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the Wikipedia is not censored. Tarc (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Paintings of Prophet

This is blasphemous and not accordance with Islamic teachings that paintings of Prophet Muhammad PBUH be drawn or whatsoever; so please an action should be taken to delete those paintings depicting Prophet Muhammad PBUH images. Thank you please! Indusengineer (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the Wikipedia is not censored. Tarc (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Image rationale statements?

The RfC has determined that:

... editors should remember that calligraphic representations are the most common, and should not add images, especially figurative ones, without a clear encyclopedic reason to do so ...

In view of this, would it be a good idea to suggest that rationales for images be posted and required to gain consensus here, in a similar way that rationales are required across the project for non-free content, to confirm that non-free content "is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" (WP:NFCC #8), and for non-free content "multiple items ... are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information". (WP:NFCC #3a)

For non-free content, the reasoning as to why the image passes these requirements must be pre-declared in a written rationale statement. If something similar is intended here, would similar accessible statements of rationale similarly be useful? Jheald (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not going to happen, no; the article as it presently stands was overwhelmingly affirmed by the RfC ("we have concluded that the status quo of the Muhammad article should largely be retained."), and no further justification for the images therein is necessary. The "...should not add images, especially figurative ones..." is in regards to adding more. Tarc (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, this is a bad idea. We ended up with both an arbitration case and an RFC multiple RFC's because some people insisted on special rules for this article. In both cases, the result was that special rules were rejected. More to the point, your proposal fails to solve a problem. All it does is offer up a new venue for those who can't accept that Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia to bicker, argue and waste everyone's time. Resolute 00:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, bad idea. The existing images have been exhaustively discussed in the past, although there was in fact a lot of agreement that some of them were not the best of their types & no doubt we shall return to this after a long rest from arguing about this issue. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

We all wish. Some people are still trying to re-hash the same arguments that have gotten them nowhere since this latest debate began last October. Resolute 23:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a good idea, Jheald. And it should be applied, as the RfC closing statement suggests, to any images added to the article. It can't be applied to any existing images, though, because the community concluded narrative illustrations containing figurative depictions of Muhammad are necessary to the article.

Johnbod is wrong when he says the existing images have been exhaustively discussed, though. They haven't. Most of the exhaustive discussion here has been him, Tarc and others yelling at, ridiculing and abusing editors who ask what information an image adds to the reader's understanding of the life of Muhammad.

Their abuse drove me and many others away from this page. I invite you to continue pressing this point, if you'd like to get a sense of what I'm talking about. Or maybe just check this out. I was described as disingenuous and sly, and petulant for objecting to being called disingenuous and sly. I had encountered this kind of rudeness and refusal to discuss soon after joining in the conversation, [1] so at that point I pretty much gave up editing this page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Not true; most of the discussions were before your time, though not all. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The old discussions also involved not-censored activists with little knowledge or interest in the subject. Because of this, and perhaps other reasons too, the old discussions were not fruitful and left many questions unanswered. For example, like whether a image is illustrative of the event as described in the earliest biographies of Muhammad (which we rely on for our textual content). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 16:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. They were really shallow and cursory. Are you going to apologise to me for the way you treated me in that diff, Johnbod? Do you see anything disreputable in the way you behaved there? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Query

I'm not here challenging the authority of the RfC. Of course we will all abide by its excellent findings. I'd like to again congratulate the closers for their job very well done. Nevertheless, I'd like to continue to discuss the curation of controversial images on Muhammad.

Fgurative narrative illustrations:

1. aid visualisation and memory; they aid cognition.
2. Most are beautiful, from a Western point of view.
3. The reader sees how Muhammad was depicted in different cultures, later times and foreign regions.

If there are other benefits, please add them to the list.

Addressing these benefits, though: if I could bring an image to you that is an equal aid to visualisation and memory and is beautiful, but does not teach the reader anything about the depiction of Muhammad, all else being equal, would you agree to replacing the figurative depiction of Muhammad with that image? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

So there's no way you'll just drop this and move on with your Wiki career? SÆdon^talk 10:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want to join the conversation, don't. I'm not making you. You may ignore me. I won't think any less of you for ignoring me. Do you mind if I continue the discussion with any others who might join in? Is this kind of conversation banned here? Is that in the ArbCom result somewhere? If so, I apologise, I didn't realise. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no. *sigh* SÆdon^talk 11:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Why are you telling me to shut up? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Not only is the horse dead, but you've beaten it so unmercifully that other horses have committed suicide in hopes of avoiding the same fate; others have had to be institutionalized for PTSD. PETA, in response to all the horse suicide, has sponsored legislation that would define all equines as endangered species and it is expected to pass both the US House and Senate unanimously. On top of all this, the Yodarians, a culture of horse enslaving aliens, were so moved by the plight of horses on Earth that they have vowed never to abduct another horse again (and these are aliens who literally exist to enslave horses). Think of the horses, won't you :( SÆdon^talk 01:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned, discussion about the current images is over. This issue has been simmering here for years, it finally boiled hot enough to attract Arbcom's attention, who then mandated a high-visible RfC for the whole community to decide the issue. Which they did, and not in your (Anthony's) favor unfortunately. I think the other aim of the RfC was to put a lid on this for awhile and just let the status quo be for a bit.. Really, it is time to walk away from this for a bit. Not to be too pessimistic, but I think we'll be back here again in..oh, 8 months or so anyways. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, just FYI, while L2 is banned from WP for a year, he is indefinitely banned from any discussion involving Muhammad and I doubt we'll be seeing a lifting of that sanction. SÆdon^talk 09:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Saedon and Tarc; even though people may not be happy with the result, the point is that the general discussions should be over. Now, if there was a single, specific image, and you felt that there were a single, specific, clear rational for replacing it, then I think that would still fall within the bounds of both the Arbcom decision and the RfC. A general, vague discussion about how we might theoretically act in the future in the face of unknown alternative images is not. In fact, I would go so far as to say that trying to start such a discussion could be grounds for action by an admin under the discretionary sanctions authorized by the decision. I'm not an uninvolved admin (though I didn't participate in the RfC, I have discussed the issue on this talk page before), but I think that it really is time to let this go. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. I'm not uninvolved either, but I would view efforts to stir this up again as warranting a topic ban at the very least.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand how you feel. You guys don't want to talk to me about this, and I'm OK with that. Is there a problem with me discussing it with others, though? I didn't take that meaning from the ArbCom results, but I may have misread. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I am saying that yes, you discussing it with others would be exactly the type of discussion that the RfC was designed to finish. What would be the point of such a discussion, anyway, since you by definition can't gain consensus (key parties would not be involved), you can't override the RfC, and any edits to change the article pictures without a solid consensus would definitely be disruptive? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can't see any point to discussing the curation of images at Muhammad, that's fine by me. Don't engage in it. I said at the outset of this thread I would respect the RfC; if you find me overriding the RfC, or changing the article pictures without a solid consensus, which I agree would be disruptive, sanction me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

From WP:CONSENSUS: "...if a subject has been discussed recently, it can be disruptive to bring it up again." Singularity42 (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I doubt if I'll be disruptive but if you see me doing something disruptive, sanction me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What you are attempting to do is suggest some other image to replace one or more of the ones currently in the article, yes? Presumably replace one of the depictions of Muhammad himself? Tarc (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no. I'm not suggesting another image, I don't know one. I want to discuss the educational merit of the narrative illustrations in this article (something I was prevented from doing in the past by your and Johnbod's offensive behaviour) and the curation of images in general at this article. You don't have to join in, though I hope you choose to at some point. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You've made your point several times, including at the recent very widely publicized RFC. To a striking and unusual degree, hardly anyone agreed with it except for a couple of people already engaged in the debate here. You should give it a rest now. Your contributions here consist entirely, as far as I can see, of arguing on talk pages. If you want to do something useful I suggest you consider adding to articles yourself, rather than just distracting those who do. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm just trying to have a conversation, John. Here's my contributions to this article, and here's my contributions history. What about that disqualifies me from participating here? I take it you're not going to apologise for being abusive to me? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so the purpose is to discuss the merit (or lack thereof in your opinion), of the present images. Well, regardless of who does or does not participate in such a discussion, the outcome of those talks will not result in any actual changes to this article at all. The RfC stands as an endorsement of the present images in the article, and that will not be changed by another discussion of the matter at this time. Tarc (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

From the RfC: "With regards to the placement of other figurative images, we found that the current status quo -- of using figurative images of the highest encyclopedic value to illustrate important events in the subject’s life -- had the most support" (emphasis mine). Consensus has been reached. Disengaging from Anthonyhcole would probably be the best course of action as if there's no response to him, there's no need for him to rehash his arguments. He knows that if he tries to remove the current images, sanctions would probably be brought against him. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Well put, Neil. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, I won't be proposing that an edit actually be made to the article. That is, I understand the RfC rejected my view on the value of narrative figurative images, so won't argue for the implementation of an edit in that area. What I will do, provided the community allows me to, is argue that we can do better. I just want to argue the merits of the case. I wasn't allowed to before, but now there is sufficient scrutiny on this page that I may just be able to interrogate my opponents on this point. Community scrutiny may force Tarc and Johnbod to answer my questions which, hitherto they have steadfastly refused to do. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)