This is an archive of past discussions about Muhammad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello all, as Tivanir2 pointed out above,[1] there is no picture of a veiled or flame Muhammad in the article. I'd suggest that we (a) add one, or (b) replace an image of the same artistic origin with such. Jayen466 pointed out[2] this image (File:Siyer-i Nebi 151b.jpg) above, which seems it may be suitable (and is apparently PD). Preferably, a newer image of this sort would be prefered, as Tivanir[3] and others[4] noted - so feel free to find & propose a better suited image of this type (ie: newer). Thus I propose the following (please feel free to show strong support, support, weak support, object to either, or object to both, or comment or whatever):
CommentYet again, this is simply untrue. The Kashmir image shows the Prophet wholly as a flame (top left), and the one near it with a veil. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes - I have now clarified that in both captions. That the Prophet can only be seen by clicking on each image to some extent mitigates the potential offence, I think. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Support Not very strong feelings, but the more narrative images probably illustrate the article better, as well as being rather more typical. As pointed out yet again above, this proposal is based on a complete misnomer as there is already a veiled image in the article, and a flame one. From "1595" this is hardly "recent" - three of the other images are more so, or of the same date, and the phrasing of the question is POV. Note that the proposed new image is from the Topkapi Istanbul manuscript catalogued as Hazine 1222, and the existing veiled image from a manuscript of the same work that is Hazine 1223 - I suspect these are volumes 1 & 2 (or whatever) of the same manuscript (later: yes, they are). If so to have both would be excessive. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Better suited new/recent image of this type (please provide link and ensure licensing (ie: public domain, etc) is suitable):
I'd gladly support a more recent image if anyone can find one that's public domain or that uses a suitable copyright (CC, for instance). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN17:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I could swear I have seen that particular image in this article. I didn't notice it had gone away. It's on Commons so it's fair game to use on Wikipedia. I have fixed the link in your comment above to point to it. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I've examined the history of this article and the talk page archives, and based on that I have to oppose adding it. See my comment in the section above. I have no objection to more flame-faced Muhammad images but that one just didn't seem to fit anywhere. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see that particular image under discussion. Can you point out a diff or something? For some... reason... that conversation got rather cluttered. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN17:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
If you read the section up to this diff you'll see that there's no real objection to replacing the image "Muhammad at the Ka'ba from Siyer-i Nebi" which is the one being proposed here. Ludwigs2 made the change, someone reverted it, then Qwyrxian undid the reversion. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
If I may be so bold and actually jump out on a limb to improve the article. Can we either add something about the black stone or remove the image associated with it? It does depict muhammad but it has no supporting info anywhere throughout the article so I was thinking either a short explanation and a link to the black stone article or taking it out and perhaps finding an alternate picture. Thoughts? Tivanir2 (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
If historically relevant to Muhammad (as opposed to Islam or such), I'd support additional content to support the image. Otherwise, I'd support image removal. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN20:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind including it and it is another picture of him but if we are referencing a specific event we should at least have a line or two and a link if it is important enough to warrent a picture of the event in my mind. I can see what references I can pull for it but I haven't looked for a reference in a while so it might take some time. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
So much has been chopped from the article (such as the "Depictions" mini section that jumped to the full article)... the history is a sad tale of events in that respect. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN20:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Two proposals
Hello all, I have been giving this much thought in light of proposals on the table here and at AN/I. Here's what I've come up with as the only two proposals I think are valid and properly address these issues uniformly across Wikipedia.
There are various contributors who believe that due to the fact these images are not pictures or portraits of Muhammad (and are only visual depictions made years later) that they bring no historical, artistic, societal or educational worth to this article. Assuming that (as claimed) none of such belief is being biased by a religious perspective, then I propose the appropriate thing to do is to start a Community Wide RfC that addresses such an issue in regards to Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, Josiah, Adam_and_Eve, John_the_Baptist, Mary_(mother_of_Jesus) (and the countless others like them) using such justifications. Anything else, such as picking a single article, especially in light of the fact that it has been (again) pointed out that such issues exist many places and need to be dealt with, would lead at least me to believe there is some bias affecting such interpretations of image worth.
If anyone does indeed find in their heart and mind that their objections are solely towards these images due to religiously based offense (or unduly influenced due to that), I propose we formulate something for Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) to address changing policies to include religious objection/offense as grounds for content removal.
WP:IUP says images should increase readers' understanding of the subject matter, but many (most?) articles contain images that may illustrate the topic in some way, may be relevant related (see the lead image of Pain or second image in Economic inequality), but can't be said to increase readers' understanding in any significant way. This disparity between policy and practice needs to be addressed.
I generally see no harm, in fact I like artists impressions of historical events or images that symbolise abstract concepts but don't add to the readers' understanding. I believe, however, they don't belong in articles when they do harm or when readers find them offensive. That is, I'd like to see WP:IUP amended to allow such images, but not when they are offensive, harmful or, of course, contrary to other policies.
Do the images of Muhammad here or of Jesus at Jesus fall into the category of relevant related, illustrative but add nothing to understanding of the article topic? I think most do. But I don't see the point of arguing their merits on that ground until image use policy with regard to such images in general has been clarified. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I was using "relevant" where I meant "related". --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I think I have a better set of RfC proposals. I think they will be ready to post tomorrow. I'll let you know. The biggest issue seems to be a divide over the educational value. No, I'm not going to start that debate either - I'm simply pointing out that I don't think there's an intent to ignore IUP. I simply think there are various camps on what worth (in that respect) the images impart. And I suspect that will be our biggest stumbling block. If we all agreed either way (not of value or of value), the images would simply remain with minor complaints - or would all be removed. Alas, not the case. I'll send you a message tomorrow if I manage to finish my new proposal. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN05:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Cool. On this, it seems to me there are degrees of image usefulness
misleading or harmful
useless - no relation to the topic
related to the topic but adds nothing to the readers' understanding of the article or section
adds to the readers' understanding of the article or section
adds enough to the readers' understanding of the article or section to justify the space it takes up (related, educational and WP:DUE)
On "misleading or harmful" we run back into the problem of the numerous other articles I've presented. My interpretation of such would thus be determined by the way the images are used. As a for instance, the images here are dated and labeled with "Depictions of..." making it clear they were made long after Muhammad's death and are simply depictions - thus I don't find their use (which is what I think the valid criteria) misleading or harmful. Ironically, some of the images on the other articles I cited are not being given such care - something I think should be rectified (and intend on addressing if policy will allow it).
On the last one - it is hard to judge how much understanding it will give to a certain reader. As a for instance, 10 or so years ago (+/- a few years), a study was done in Baltimore, MD that showed over 1/3 of the adult population was functionally illiterate. Inotherwords, they can read, but at a 6th grade level or less (if I recall the study correctly). I'd bet that pictures (properly labeled) would serve them very well and add a greater understanding than say for someone who wasn't pictorially oriented. Then there are simply those who are pictorially oriented, and those who consume text and pictures with equal voracity (such as I, who read at decently over 100 pages an hour but love pictorial representations).
On the rest, I think the three of us agree - the problem though (which is what I was trying to point out above) is not our agreement or disagreement on those points. The problem is determining what others feel on the matter. Let's say (hypothetically) Anthony isn't big for pictures and is more textually oriented - and that Wiqi and I are very pictorially oriented. It would be very difficult for Wiqi and I to convey the worth of the images because it is simply something Anthony cannot perceive in them. Thus, we run in circles, round and round. Now, there is another side to the coin, which is cited someplace in WP:SIZE I think, where apparently studies show that breaking up large blocks of text help enable readers to better follow the text (ie: nothing to do with whether they appreciate the pictorial representations - simply that breaking up the text with them makes it easier to follow/read the text). And sadly, I think all of that brings us back to heated debates on the worth of any images. :-/ ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN16:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
That they improve readability is not, in my mind, a good reason to include controversial pictures. We're trying to define the conditions necessary to justify inclusion of a controversial image. (Just thinking out loud.) We agree truly gratuitous is inappropriate, and important content is appropriate. Where you draw the line between the two is the problem. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
As a general statement, perhaps (but even that I am against blanket application of - too much of an excuse to say, for instance lobotomize Scientology due to the massive controversy it created). But in this instance, we are talking about a religious dictate that not following generates "controversy". The basis must be analyzed, not just the end result.
There is a difference for as long as policy states we do not adhere to such. And it clearly states such. No "may" or "should" - but a distinct and definite "will not". Leaning in that direction requires a policy change to address the solely secular policy in place. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN17:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Your opening proposal contains a syllogism: An image that is not an actual picture or image of X brings no historical, artistic, societal or educational value to an article about X. (If you think I've unfairly summarized, let me know.) I don't accept this syllogism, but lets see where it leads. Your proposal is to start an RFC to discuss this issue in the context of a very narrow list of examples. My first question: why so narrow a list? For example, the list would include Satan, Big Bang, Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, and Sacagawea, all of which contain images meeting the criteria that they aren't photos or portraits of the article subject. A substantial proportion of all of our history articles would need substantial removal of images. Do you disagree?--SPhilbrickT13:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
According to the various articles on the topic, there are sects of Islam (perhaps other belief systems, too) that ban all images of human likeness, does this make almost all our articles on human beings controversial and offensive? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
As for Western reception, I'd favour replacing the present "Muhammad preaches" with a picture of the SCOTUS Muhammad, as the latter's physical place says a lot about modern Western reception. There is room for another image in that section and I'd favour a medieval illustration of the medieval European view. Perhaps "Faith stepping on Muhammad." [6] It shows the disrespectful tone without the ghastliness of the Dante illustrations. Placing the latter above the former would, in my opinion, show the historical shift away from demonisation. Thoughts? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I do think we should avoid plainly disrespectful depictions - this is something that has been aired various times in the archived sections. They are rightly covered at the depictions article. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I should have said, I don't support SCOTUS here, as a) It's a tiny little photo you can hardly see, b) it's already used at "Depictions", c) unlike Gagarin it has been a focus for (ok, very limited) Muslim protest already. Johnbod (talk)
I agree with regard to the quality of SCOTUS. But I don't agree with leaving out two images exemplifying the the very essence of the section – the shift from demonisation and disrespect in the Middle Ages to a more tolerant treatment in the modern era – on the grounds that Muslims or any others are offended.
This may seem to contradict my wish to remove the black stone image but the consistent thread is relevance. Western treatment of Muhammad in the Middle Ages, and the later shift in that treatment is quite important to the topic, especially in an English language encyclopedia, and the images I'm suggesting are not mere artist's impressions of some event, they are examples of the very treatment being discussed: very highly relevant. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The one reference source about Muhammad that has had it's images cataloged (the Cambridge book above) had two images in it's Western views section and one was the SCOTUS image. The other, however, was of Muhammad preaching. Anyway I figured I'd bring that up here because it is an example from a quality reference source. Those images, in the Western views section, were also the only two in the entire book to show Muhammad's face. I think that is another example we could follow. Even in the depictions section, I think a veiled Muhammad would be best because it illustrates aniconism in action.Griswaldo (talk) 11:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
An outside opinion
1. WP:NOTCENSORED does in fact prevent us from making exceptions to our policies because "it offends people". It is a bad argument for not having images--as long as there would have otherwise been images. It's clear that images belong in articles on depictions of Muhammad and on the Denmark cartoon controversy, simply as necessary illustrations of the subject, but what about here?
2. WP:NPOV does apply to this article. It's clear that, just as many Muslims are offended by images of Muhammad, a lot of people find the ban on depicting Muhammad distasteful to their notions of free speech. If that leads people to plaster images all over everywhere just to annoy the fundamentalists, we have an npov problem on our hands. On the other hand, by removing all the images we support the point of view of those who oppose images.
3. This is an article on Muhammad, not on the controversy over depictions of Muhammad. As far as I can tell the images are just there to illustrate events in Muhammad's life, not as examples of Muslim exceptions to the ban on representational images.
4. Muhammad has occasionally been depicted by Muslims, in various circumstances. This is the exception rather than the rule--only a minority of Muslims do this. In an article on the Buddha, visual depiction of the Buddha is the norm across Buddhism; this is more or less the case with Jesus as well. But if we only had Eastern Orthodox images of Jesus or Vajrayana images of the Buddha, that would be an WP:UNDUE problem. (That said, those other articles maybe haven't given so much thought to the weighting issue; images of the Buddha are slanted toward Indian Buddhism and images of Jesus are slanted toward Western European images of the Baroque and Renaissance).
5. There are ways in which we do take "sensitivity" into account as a matter of course--as long as those sensitivities are widely held in Western culture. Certain types of sexual content are viewed as too extreme; the nude on pregnancy is likely to be removed because it makes an otherwise innocuous article NSFW. Yes, I'm contradicting myself here, and I'm not sure these are good analogies.
6. Compare the Arabic article; it mostly uses aniconic imagery, with it looks like a couple actual depictions of Muhammad. Maybe it's going to far in the other direction, but it shows that what the English Wikipedia is doing with images isn't the only way. Regional biases shouldn't exist with NPOV but in practice they are inevitable (for instances, the Turkish Wikipedia being more skeptical than other wikis of the Armenian Genocide. en is just as likely to be at fault as any other version of Wikipedia. 169.231.54.14 (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
As has been pointed out above, there are no depictions in the Arabic article (the ones you are thinking of are of other people), but 5 in the featured Farsi article - several the same ones as here (and minus our one European image, the same number). None in the pretty short Turkish & Indonesian (bahasia) articles either. Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the IP has summed up the situation quite nicely. And there are a lot of useful images in the Arabic article (calligraphy, relics and others) that could help us shift the balance in our article here. (Unfortunately, some of these also have templates pointing out copyright problems.)
The difference between the Farsi vs. the Turkish, Indonesian and Arabic articles seems indicative of the fact that Iran, as a Shiite (and non-secular) country, is actually more tolerant of Muhammad imagery [7] than predominantly Sunni societies (even secular ones like Turkey). --JN46609:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I have a similar, but lengthier opinion here if anyone is interested. If this ever comes to a RFC this would form the guts of my objections to the removal of purportedly offensive images. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex04:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I richly commend the above-linked essay; all but the last sentence which I vigorously oppose with every fibre of my being :), --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The part about only revisiting consensus if there is an indication the community has changed its mind? That line is used to head off tendentious editing and civil POV-pushing, where essentially a single editor or small number of editors continuously bring up a topic until the patience of other editors is exhausted and they leave. Essentially, if you've raised a point three times in the same environment (policies, guidelines and community is overall unchanged), and in particular have no new arguments and the response is always the same, stop bringing it up. Ludwig2's original point about the WMF's new resolution on least surprise and its applicability to the images is a change to the community and thus merits some discussion. I don't think it's legitimate reason to remove the images, and nor do most people, and once the discussion is over it should not be raised again as a reason to remove the images unless there is a reason to (i.e. the WMF has explicitly stated that the resolution applies to the Muhammad page). We have specific policies and guidelines about editors who continually push against consensus without changing it because it exhausts the community's patience and draws people away from the act of creating an encyclopedia. They are meant to be used, not sit an a metaphorical shelf. There's a FAQ at the top of the page that addresses squarely and exactly the essential points that have generated thousands of fruitless, repetitive, pointless words of discussion with nothing new arising. I don't think it has helped anyone - not the minority of editors who support the use of images only in line with the thoughts of a single, religiously-motivated minority of the world's population and not the majority of editors who believe those religious motivations do not apply in a secular, non-Muslim educational work. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex13:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
"Offending"?
I don't know where else to put it. I beg your pardon for starting a new section. Here is a quote from Tariq Ali, a Muslim who rather feels offended by people who consider Muslim depictions of Mohammed offending:
"In the 13th, 14th and 15th century there were Muslim painters in Herat in Afghanistan, in Persia and in parts of Turkey who painted the prophet. So the notion that this is outside the Islamic tradition is absolute rubbish, which is why I was very angry with the way that some people responded to the Danish newspaper cartoons that attacked Islam. The cartoons were racist - and should have been attacked on that basis. They should not have been attacked on the basis of an Islamic theology which outlaws depiction of Mohammed. That is nonsense." (The Socialist Review, November 2006)
Well, there is not a single Islam, just like there is not a single Christianity. The differences are as wide as those between Mormonism and Roman Catholicism. I don't think our socialist writer was particularly knowledgeable in that regard. You could argue as well that Christians should not be upset about the Quran allowing a man to have several wives, because "Christianity" allows it, too. (Aside from the theological argument, the pragmatic argument – that the cartoons could have been attacked more effectively for their racism – is of course sound.) --JN46610:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
And there is the reason why we will run into debates and controversy on this issue no matter what route we take. Remove the images, and you will have "encylopedists", those of other sects of Islam or of other religions and various others complaining. Keep them, and you'll have some of various sects of Islam and those trying to support them complaining. But, only one choice leads down a very dangerous path. That dangerous choice is removing content over religious beliefs or religious objections (again, Scientology article, anyone? Age of the Earth article (where myself and others just had to remove (yet again) the (paraphrased) "you're all wrong, it's 6,000 years old, my Bible tells me so" edit) and numerous other articles). Heck, even in the topics related to Christianity, by the time we are done removing "incidental" and controversial issue at the behest of one sect or another, there wont be anything left in the various articles. And thus, that returns me to the only two major points I've been standing fast on: (1) no special case exceptions - they will spread elsewhere until a lot of articles become special case exceptions (especially when this makes news, which depending on our final resolution, it might just), and (2) take an entirely secular view on all articles (there isn't a single article on religion that I can think of off the top of my head that isn't "objectional" or "controversial" to some or many). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN20:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the only way we can make it editorially fair and policy-compliant, and be seen to be doing so, is by applying the basic NPOV rule that we represent significant viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. We have established that, broadly, Shiites do not seem to have a problem with images of Muhammad, while Sunnis do. Shiites make up approximately 10–13 per cent of the world population of muslims. Their view is a significant minority view that needs to be represented, but per NPOV it should not overshadow the article, but be represented in proportion to its prominence.
If we treat figurative images like the Persian miniatures as specifically Shiite, then certainly the proportion of exclusively Shiite Islamic media – that Sunnis could not identify with – should not exceed 10–13 per cent; indeed, it should be rather less than that, as some of the Islamic media we have in the article, like the calligraphic symbol of Muhammad's name, are meaningful to all muslims, whether Shiite or Sunni, in such a way that Shiite views are in part already reflected in the presence of these common symbols. We should exempt geographical features and the like, as a hill is neither Shiite nor Sunni, but we should include in our thinking whether a mosque we show is a Sunni or Shiite one, or one frequented by all muslims. I think this way we could at least handle the Islamic art, and demonstrate that we have thought about neutrality and tried to apply policy in a meaningful way. --JN46600:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Look, this has been covered above at length; it is a false distinction, but one that some POV Sunni editors here are keen to make - pushing all images into a "Shia" box. Certainly historically many Shia divines objected to images, and no doubt there is a considerable range of views today, although the kneejerk reaction that they are "un-Islamic" that they produce in some uninformed Sunnis is probably missing. The Persian miniature tradition grew up in a period when the great majority of Persian rulers, and a rather smaller majority of the people, were Sunni, and often fiercely persecuted Shias. I hope we all know that the present nearly-all-Shia demographic of Iranian Muslims only goes back to the Safavid dynasty who came to power in 1501, by which time the artistic traditions, including depicting Muhammad when appropriate, were well established. In fact the majority of surviving images of Muhammad come from Ottoman Turkey, which was pretty solidly Sunni - very solidly in the royal family, who commissioned the Siyer-i Nebi etc. Traditional images still fail to shock there, at least in big cities. The area where there is very little evidence that images were ever accepted widely is the Sunni part of the Arabic-speaking world. Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. However, while all of that is historically true, when we apply NPOV we usually go by the present-day publishing landscape, rather than viewpoints from 500+ years ago. I accept there have been Shiites throughout history who objected to such images, and there have been Sunnis who produced some (though clearly not many for the past few hundred years, and not in the core regions of the Sunni faith); but in terms of showing or republishing them today, Sunnis generally don't like it, and Shiites are okay with it. To be NPOV today, we should reflect that. --JN46602:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Turkey is not "core"? That is even before we go into the issues of Muslims outside traditionally Muslim countries, and the range of views they have. Or the question of who is likely to read English, or have internet access - surely fundamental to the "publishing landscape". Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Come, don't be so pugnacious. ;) You know very well what I am trying to say. I think the IP made a good point above: no one present-day "school" of Islam should dominate the article's approach to illustration, certainly not a minority school of thought. Please consider it as a way to put this to rest, based on an easily defensible NPOV argument, rather than an eternally contentious application of the NOTCENSORED hammer. Best, --JN46602:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
There's a false premise in the notion that we should consider the proportion of Shia vs Sunni: the assumption is that in writing this article we should adopt a Muslim point of view. We can -- and should -- write about Islam without doing that. The vast majority of the world's population has no objection to images of Muhammad; from a scholarly perspective (encyclopedia, anyone?) there's certainly no objection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
It's a tricky issue: but our illustrations are Islamic art, and should reflect Islamic art appropriately, in the correct proportions. We would strive to do the same if we illustrated an article on Buddha—we would not just use imagery from one Buddhist tradition. --JN46608:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Even for the "correct proportions" I don't accept that we should pay much (if any) attention to population proportions. In any event, since you didn't respond to it directly, I'll say it again: we should not write/edit this article from a Muslim point of view, giving any weight (in editing decisions) to normative Muslim ideas about what is "appropriate". If you need another example where that question arises (and quickly gets dismissed): Scientologists would prefer that we not write anything about Xenu. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
from a scholarly perspective (encyclopedia, anyone?) there's certainly no objection. There isn't? Because I'm a non-Muslim (non-religious in fact) scholar of religion and I object. Are scholars "offended?" No, but objection is a wholly different matter. Now let me be specific here. I don't object to deceptions of Muhammad on principle and indeed would object to their removal from contexts where they belong, like Depictions of Muhammad (or even one deception in a section by name in this entry). What I object to is their overuse in the entry on Muhammad, an overuse that does not reflect scholarship on Muhammad, or references sources covering the topic. Does that make it clear to you? This is not an art history entry. Have a look at other encyclopedias, introductory religion textbooks, and other reference sources that cover Muhammad as a topic and tell me what kinds of images you see. In fact here's a good exercise.
Go through the sources that are used in this entry and see what type of depictions of Muhammad you find within them.
If no images at all exist because its just a prose text of course that doesn't mean anything, and I wouldn't argue that. But see what types of images exist. And btw, the argument below about the profit motive deterring encyclopedias from putting depictions of Muhammad in them is nothing but misinformed editor speculation. It is also a clear attempt at a cheap end-run around our foundational principles when it comes to sourcing. Anyway without anything substantive backing the perspective it can't and shouldn't be taken seriously. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, but on what grounds do you "object"? Most people on this talk page who object to the images do so because they are offended or because they believe we should cater to the fact that "Muslims are offended by them". It's fine if that's not where you're coming from, but we can't ignore the fact that that's what is driving most of this discussion (indeed the very existing of this sub-page). It might be possible to have a sensible discussion about "overuse" if we could shut down all the crap about whether the "offensiveness" of the images should play a role in editing decisions (and in any event I'm pleased you agree with me on that latter point). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure we agree on the offensiveness part actually. Offensiveness should always be considered. If we're detracting from the educational value of our entries because we're trying not to offend a handful of people then I agree that we're doing something wrong. But all things equal, we should strive not to offend, but even that isn't the situation here. All things are not equal educationally because flooding the entry with those images actually has a negative educational impact. Again this is not the case in a section specifically about depictions, or in the main entry Depictions of Muhammad or in a relevant section of Islamic art. But in the main content areas of this entry presenting these images presents undue visual information about a subject that is not known through this type of visual information 99.9% of the time. That is what differentiates Muhammad from Jesus and Buddha, btw, both figures who are well known through this type of visual information, and have been throughout history. I've made this argument in several locations already, but I guess I haven't done so here. The surest way to settle this issue is to go back to the sources, and the best sources to start with are the ones use to write this very entry. I'm not a specialist in Islam and I'm happy to consider that my experience with introductory western religion texts, introductory texts on Islam, etc. etc. might be off. But an argument from art history is not about to convince me of that. Go to the sources about Muhammad, not the sources about his depictions because this entry is about Muhammad and not Islamic art. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think it's going to be quite difficult to have sensible discussions about the educational value of visual representations until the offensiveness question is resolved; we would only be engaging the former issue because of the latter dispute. Would you argue under some specified ceteris paribus condition that we should try to avoid offending scientologists about Xenu? Should we cater to the preferences of Haredi Jews not to see pictures of women? (Some factions now digitally remove them from newspaper photographs even when there is no problem of tzniut). I really don't think it's possible to have a consistent/coherent position along these lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I remember that editors agreed to remove one or two cartoon images from the Xenu article a while ago, because of undue concerns. Not to avoid offending Scientologists, as Scientologists would still be offended by the images that remained, as well as the existence of the article itself, but just because it was over the top and actually detracted from the article. --JN46618:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, but from your description it would appear that the handling of those images ("not to avoid offending scientologists...") reinforces my point rather than the opposite (as perhaps you intended). In any event, I am curious to know Griswaldo's answer (anyone else's, of course, but Griswaldo's especially) to my question about Haredi Jews: should we (say, in editing articles on Jews in general or on Haredi Jews specifically) pay any attention at all to their preference not to see pictures of women? To be a bit more specific: should we give any weight at all to the fact that they are offended by pictures of women? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
While we're waiting for Griswaldo. There are 90 people depicted in Haredi. One and two halves of them are women. At least I think they're women; I can't make out their faces but they're looking at dresses. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity I'm not sure how you missed the fact that I've already answered the question. "All things being equal ..." is what I wrote. I have no idea what you mean by the Xenu comment so I can't really address that, but with Haredi Jews, clearly we don't remove all images of women from Wikipedia to satisfy one extremely small religious group. That's not "all things being equal," and indeed that's quite clearly diminishing the educational value of the project. Do I have to write specifically, and you will need to use common sense, for you to understand that some manner of rationally considered discretion is necessary when figuring something like this out? But I'm not sure either why you are forcing me to answer this question in the first place, when I've already said that all things aren't even equal in this matter, and that educational value is diminished by not following the lead of other reliable sources on presenting information about Muhammad. Indeed, that was the reason I "objected."Griswaldo (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm pressing this issue because I (as I said above) I don't think it's possible to have a coherent and consistent position that gives weight to the offense various people take. You wrote "Offensiveness should always be considered". I disagree; when Haredi Jews feel offended about pictures of women, that's their problem not the problem of wikipedia editors, and it should be given no consideration at all in any editing discussion or decision, even when "all things are equal". Really, none whatsoever. Do you really disagree (as your general statement, quoted here, would imply)? All the other stuff -- educational value and reliable sources and all that -- is of course worth discussing. But given the origins of this particular discussion right now it will be difficult or even impossible to do so until we can separate it from the "offensiveness" question. That's what this thread is about (see the section heading) and it's what the various other threads on other pages are about. I'm interested in trying to resolve it, and it is difficult to do so when people continue to try to change the question. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
You write that "offense" ... should be given no consideration at all in any editing discussion or decision, even when "all things are equal". Really, none whatsoever. If that is your position why are you asking anyone to discuss anything with you? It is an ideological adherence to a extremist doctrine that says never to even consider offense when making editorial decisions. You're welcome to that POV of course, but it leaves no room for discussion with anyone on the issue, ever. My position is that it should always be considered but not that it should always be acted on. Rationally considered based on things like educational value (+/-), levels of offense, and outcomes of offense, different situations will have different answers. Not considering offense, especially if all else is equal, means being willing to possibly damage our reputation and/or lose readership. Of course it is in the best interest of any Encyclopedia to try not to do those things. Also, please understand, that outside of publications that want to offend someone, all publications "consider" offensiveness if the issue is brought up. Sure they have different standards and different conventions for resolving questions of offense, they all consider it. Why? As human being socialized in large groups most of us develop empathy and the ability to consider our actions in terms of cause and effect. If you need to me to expound further on that idea I'd be glad to. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I can only assume (while noting that you decline to address the issue directly) that you would be willing to "consider" the offensiveness to Haredi Jews of pictures of women -- and perhaps, all other things equal, to refrain from causing offence by omitting such pictures. I am not willing to consider it; I don't see how that amounts to an extremist position (quite the opposite, in fact), and I also don't see how it is preventing us from discussing it (what else are we doing??). Of course, I can see why it would be uncomfortable for you to address the issue (Haredim/women/pictures) directly. But that only shows the difficulty of adopting a view on offensiveness that one could describe as consistent and coherent. By the way, lest anyone think the Haredim/women/pictures issue is something I've simply conjured up, an article in today's HaAretz[8] would dispel that notion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
"... noting that you decline to address the issue directly." Uhm, no that's entirely false. I addressed it directly and here's what I wrote:
clearly we don't remove all images of women from Wikipedia to satisfy one extremely small religious group. That's not "all things being equal," and indeed that's quite clearly diminishing the educational value of the project.
Do you need me to rephrase that? The Haredi case is pretty clear cut. Removing all images of women from Wikipedia means a large negative impact to the project's educational value with very little gain in terms of trying not to offend anyone. So there you have it. I "considered" the offensiveness issue you described and in my opinion its not worth the damage. What more do I need to say to address the issue directly? Can you answer my question now? Why are you asking for discussion about something that in your mind isn't open for discussion? I find it disingenuous and a huge waste of time. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
But you haven't answered my question. You've turned it into a different one, one which you naturally find easier to answer (speaking of disingenuous...). You've said, it's not all things equal and so we won't delete pictures of women. But I am asking: if other things were equal (hypothetically), would we give consideration to the fact that Haredi Jews are offended by pictures of women? (If it helps -- imagine that the question pertains not to all pictures of women on Wikipedia but to use of pictures on articles about Haredi Jews.) My question tries to clarify the nature of the principle that says we should consider offence. Once again, I think the feelings of those who are offended by pictures of women deserve no consideration at all. I then find it difficult to embrace the principle in general; to put it the other way around, I don't see how one could embrace the principle in general without embracing the implication that we should care when people (e.g. Haredi Jews) are offended by pictures of women (an implication I abhor). As for your question: I've never said I don't consider the issue open for discussion, and I am plainly interested in discussing it. I'm trying to convince you and others that my position is right; if you've failed to convince me that your position is right it hardly means that I think the issue isn't open for discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity either engage a real situaion or a hypothetical one, but don't take a real subject that I and others have a certain amount of information about and then ask us to make it hypothetical in a way that isn't true to the actual situation and forces us to put aside what we know. You want to make this hypothetical? Group 1 is offended by activity X. All things being equal we could engage in activity X or activity Y here. Either would be just as educational, just as representative, just as easy to do, and only one of them, X causes anyone offense. If that is your question then I have an answer. Do Y instead of X, and that would be my answer every time. The idea of "all things being equal" is something to think with, not something that usually happens in the real world. As I've pointed out in the real situations of Haredis and depictions of women and Muslims and Muhammad all things are not equal. In the Haredi situation it would hurt us educationally to not offend the group (especially since we would need to remove all images of women and not just on the Haredi entry). In the other, when it comes to certain entries, we can actually both offend the group less and increase the educational value by decreasing the number of images in our entry that show Muhammad depicted, and especially that show his face. The Muhammad entry is such an entry. So you have your hypothetical answer now too, just don't ask me to answer about a real group based on unreal premises. I wont do it. It makes no sense and only confused things. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Black stone image
I removed the black stone image with the edit summary "Per WP:IUP and WP:DUE." It was restored by Nomoskedasticity with "Surely we would want to discuss removal of images, under current circumstances." Which is fair enough. The rationale is that the incident depicted is not referred to in the section, which makes it redundant. Discussion on this page includes
I personally think this one is fine, if it were actually illustrating material in the text. It isn't, in fact the story of Muhammad moving the Black Stone is not even mentioned anywhere except for the cryptic reference in the image caption. nableezy - 19:00, 25 October 2011
The one about showing the Black Stone episode may be a remnant of a time when the article had a description of that. It was removed as being unimportant, and we already have an article on that event. Amatulić 13:33, 27 October 2011
I would genuinely be happy with a picture by picture proposal as this allows the weeding out of irrelevant works (kicks black stone again.) Tivanir2 17:55, 28 October 2011
If historically relevant to Muhammad (as opposed to Islam or such), I'd support additional content to support the image. Otherwise, I'd support image removal. ROBERTMFROMLI 20:06, 3 November 2011
I don't mind including it and it is another picture of him but if we are referencing a specific event we should at least have a line or two and a link if it is important enough to warrent a picture of the event in my mind. Tivanir2 20:11, 3 November 2011
So there is agreement it does not support the text. On that basis it should go. If after a discussion of different elements of the topic – particularly with regard to the relative importance assigned to the different elements by reliable sources – it is decided that scholarly reviews of the Prophet's life of this size, or reputable encyclopedia articles on him, tend to include a description of the black rock incident, then I'd favour adding a section on it and discussing whether an artist's impression of the event is WP:DUE. Presently it doesn't belong. May I move it out? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be best if people commenting said how they feel on the overall issue as well - as a strong supporter of removing all images of Muhammad here, it is hardly surprising it is "fine" by you. That goes for Anthony too. Johnbod (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
If I were as single-minded about it as you intimate, I would not have drawn attention to the presence of such images in the Cambridge Companion in the preceding section. I do feel we have too many figurative images; I'd be quite happy to have none here, as long as we have a link to the depictions article, because we have plenty there and in other articles; and if we have some here, I think they would be best housed in a section on depictions of Muhammad and the European reception section. --JN46611:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
First, about the text. I personally feel the incident should be mentioned, in two or three lines, whether or not the picture is kept. If the picture is just removed we won't even have a link to Black Stone. Incidentally, that article gets 37k views per month, is illustrated by the same picture, and the talk page shows only one complaint (Jan 2011) since 2009, when it was moved to about 1/3 of the way through the article, below most people's first screen view but right next to the account of the incident. Before that there were about 3 complaints since 2006. That the incident was felt important enough in the 14th century to be one of only about ?12 scenes from the life illustrated in this manuscript is significant I think, and the hits our article gets suggest it remains significant. Personally I find the image unusually good as pure illustration of the incident by medieval standards, once one knows what is going on. Against it is that it is from one of the Jami' al-tawarikh manuscripts commissioned by its author Rashid-al-Din Hamadani, as is the first image showing Muhammad above. Note that there are two such manuscripts, one dated 1306 & one 1314 in Edinburgh (article here) with presumably one here from each, explaining the date discrepancy noted by someone above (1314 vs 1315 in our caption may be a calendar issue). These are absolutely key volumes in the general history of the Persian miniature (the JSTOR page explains this well) as well as the specific subject of illustrations showing Muhammad, but maybe two here is excessive. Personally I would keep it, as one ok with the status quo, but it may be the best candidate to go if we are looking for a reduction compromise. But then we should add text to cover the incident. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I notice that Amatulić believes a description of the incident was removed as being unimportant. The first case to be made is the case in favour of including a description of the incident. That will involve assessing whether reliable reviews of similar size to this article, or other reputable encyclopedias tend to mention the event. We can't rely on the assessment of individual editors here. In the meantime, may I remove it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to think if there is an incident in the life of Jesus that gets an equivalent nearly 10% of the views of the main bio that isn't mentioned at all in that bio. I would be surprised if there were. Our views seem a perfectly good way of assessing importance to our readers. You should let this section run for a few days - what's the rush? Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm referring to the relevance of the story in the illustration to articles about Muhammad. Is it usual to relate that story in articles this size about Muhammad? Do reliable sources of this scope usually mention it? I don't know but that will need to be established if you are asserting its relevance to this article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
So am I, but the very high level of hits our article gets is also a measure of relevance. We should be careful to include Islamic sources too, as I'm sure you would agree. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The stone is central to Islam. It's more of a focal point than Calvary is to Christianity. The relevance we need to determine is the relevance of this charming and enlightening anecdote to this topic, does it, the tale of the four-cornered blanket usually feature in articles of this size and scope? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The story is only a small part of Black Stone, which is of interest as a central element of the Islamic faith. I don't think it's correct to infer that the article's page views are predominantly due to high interest in this particular story. --JN46622:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
What's the worry with removing it? No one is putting the image up for deletion, and it can be added back. IMO, the only serious argument for keeping images of Muhammad (that offend some people) in the entry is to increase it's educational value. Images that depict scenes that aren't described in the entry clearly have no such value.Griswaldo (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
It's irrelevant, and doesn't belong here per WP:IUP. That may change once (a) the importance of the event has been established and consensus arrived at, and (b) a thoughtful, relevant mention has been added. I realise that may happen in a matter of hours or days, or it may never happen if, generally, it's not considered important enough to mention in most similar reliable sources. Right now, it's not compliant with policy. May I remove it until its relevance has been established? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD it should now stay until discussion has been given a reasonable chance. Given the number of active sections here, & the exhaustion of many of the regulars after so many thousands of words in the last 2 weeks or more, that should be a good few days, not 3 hours. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Sure we can wait a couple of days but let's be clear about something. WP:IUP is a policy and WP:BRD, while a great practice to live by when we can, is only an essay. No essay trumps policy, if there is a policy violation. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I see two different ways that I'd like this resolved, and I don't greatly care which one people prefer. One would be to add in some context by mentioning the event itself. If we decide not to do that, I think it should be replaced with another image. I'm on an iPhone right now, so I can't really look for replacements, but I'll try to do that in the early afternoon EST. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Blade. Can you please explain for me what is the reasoning behind your proposition that, if this picture turns out to be unsuitable, we should replace it with another image? Is it because you want to maintain the same number of Muhammad pictures, or the same number of pictures in general? And, in either case, what's the rationale there? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
More images in general; if the paragraph stays, then it should be an image of Muhammad, but if we remove it then just a related image would be fine. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)
Actually, just so we're on the same page, per various policies, content needs to be relevant: i.e., related and important to the topic. Is there a particular part of the text that you believe needs an image to make it clearer? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've had a chance to look at it from my regular computer screen, and now I can type normally. I think the best thing to do would be to move an existing image into the place where this one currently is; people have indicated we're a little calligraphy-heavy in spots, so we could perhaps stick one of those images there and balance it out a bit. I agree that if we remove the section on the black stone that this image should go as well (although it could certainly fit in Depictions of Muhammad, that would be a matter for the talkpage there). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
As far as image by image discussion goes, I would note that there are probably too many images in this article (26 at last count), so an overall reduction may be warranted. Given that this incident is not currently covered in prose, this was an image I had figured could be removed. There is also a ridiculous number of calligraphic images that also need to be cut back. If we are not considering overall reduction/balance, and it is felt this image is unnecessary, I would like to see it replaced with another depiction. Resolute14:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Balance of the debate. As I have stated on both your talk page and here, I favour an overall reduction of images. That would, one would expect, include a depiction. But I don't want to see a debate that simply removes this image, then another debate about too many images that attempts to axe another depiction. Resolute16:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm only trying to impose relevance here. My precise agenda, as you know (but I'm open to persuasion) is to have two very relevant and, incidentally, offensive images of Muhammad in the Western reception section, and one (or two, including one natural, if two looks OK) images of Muhammad in the Images section, and one or two images of Muhammad as flame or veiled elsewhere. But I haven't arrived at this number of depictions arbitrarily, it's the outcome of addressing the text. The above plan has the inestimable advantage over the present situation in that it only places natural depictions where they are deeply relevant, where they don't just illustrate what's in the text, but exemplify it.
My objection to the present image use, and the objection of every person on this page with an objection, isn't that it offends Muslims, it is that it offends Muslims gratuitously, they're mere artists impressions, mostly misleading in terms of appearance and dress, of virtually no didactic value. I'm proposing an alternative that, sadly, will still offend some, but for a justifiable, compelling educational reason. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I trust your intentions, but not those of a couple others. Certainly, if a better depiction that is more relevant to the text - or one for which the image caption can be of educational use - is available, I readily support such a replacement. Resolute23:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Tom. That looks good. I think the reference link in the caption is broken. Is it necessary, or will the reference cited in the text cover it? Could you please justify the addition of that text, in terms of importance? Only, it's been mentioned that this story was removed in the past because it is unimportant. Is this story usually included in scholarly or encyclopedia articles about Muhammad? I'm sure you'll understand I have a reasonable concern that that text has gone into this article in order to justify the insertion of a picture, rather than based on its own relevance. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I am still good with removal even reading the black stones article directly I could see no reason to keep the entire section as more than a few lines in the life of muhammad. So as long as no one comes up with a good reason to keep it (I may have overlooked something - it happens) then I support removal of the picture in question. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I have been asked to comment, but after reviewing the text and the discussion here I don't have strong views either way. I am only pleased that it is being discussed in a reasonable manner (surely due in part to the way Anthony began this thread). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it is a nice to see a bit of rationality that is absent elsewhere. As for the image, it seems that when this was up foe debate earlier this year, the general tone was that it was acceptable if there was mention of it in the article. I tend to agree with that sentiment. Tarc (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Anthonyhcole asked me to comment (I haven't had time to follow the intricacies of the wider debate recently). I'm in agreement with the majority above: if it's not covered in the article, we don't need a picture. Actually, I would go farther and say that if we do include it, but only do so at the level of 1 or two sentences, then it still needs to go, as it is not common practice to try to illustrate every point in the text. Plus, I'm with the group that says that the overall number of images (both figurative and non-) is too high. For me, any time an article ever has a substantive amount of text squeezed between two images (or an image on one side and an infobox on the other), then the article has too many images. Heck, I don't even think it's appropriate to have running images all the way down one side. As to whether or not the story itself belongs in the article and to what degree, I must simple bow out and say that I don't have the knowledge or the time to do the research necessary to make an informed comment on the point. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Given the religious opposition to pictures, it seems as likely that in the past the incident was declared unimportant to justify removing the picture. Per Black stone in comparable works below, there are any number of comparably good articles this length that could be written on Muhammad. I don't think deciding what to include should be driven by whether or not that will lead to a picture of Muhammad. It seems to me we should include material and pictures or not on the same basis we would in Julius Caesar. Including pictures of Muhammad in the article about Muhammad needs no greater justification than including pictures anywhere else, though neither should we add pictures (here or anywhere) only to annoy people. The picture of Mount Uhud seems of little value. I don't see how it could increase the reader's understanding enough to justify its space. Likewise the picture of the Quran, and the multiple calligraphic representations. Any thoughts on those? The reference seems to work now; thanks to whoever fixed it. Tom HarrisonTalk01:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The text was removed by AAA765 (talk·contribs) in this major cleanup back in 2008, in response to a {{too long}} tag but they retained the image. So the image has been in article for three years without any relevance whatever. All the images you mention, are related to the topic but most, like most of the depictions of Muhammad, have no real educational value. But they do make the article look nice. I disagree with the removal of the landscapes, though. They, at least, tell us something about the actual topography and scale of the landscape in which the events described took place. I've restored them but am more than willing to discuss their relevance. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry so long... very busy next few days, so, here's all my thoughts at once. Sure you all will work this out in the meantime
On to the image at hand and the section removed. Here's my feelings. Some or all of which seem to be feelings in part by one or more. Some might not be. The text that is "missing" seems like a relevant event that should be in the article. As for the image, without the text, since it is a depiction of a historical event, I do not think it relevant to the article and should be removed. With the text, I'd like to see it stay, but it isn't a strong feeling.
As for the removal reasons (too long): I personally (various of your opinions may vary) think that certain articles (such as Thomas Jefferson) should not be constrained by such. When a full fledged "sub-article" can be created, great... summarize and jump-link. But if not, on such an important figure as Jefferson, lobotomizing an article because of a guideline thatsuggests the article may be too long seems silly. Now, back to the topic at hand, now that my thoughts (and bias on the article length issue) are known. This article is about a very very important religious figure, and one of the most important religious figures in Islam. With my thoughts known on lobotomizing an article of someone important simply because of some suggestion in a guideline, I am guessing everyone can theorize I am for reinstating that section, as well as any other information of suitable historical importance that has been removed. IF the content is enough for a sub-article, then a "jump-link" to that before a short summary is great - if not, that's still no reason for not including any important historical event, even if it means a bit more work for all of us in reorganizing the article to flow a little better (currently engaged in just such an effort on another article, piece by piece - we just finished the lead and are moving on).
Which brings us back to the image (to summarize): if we don't reinstate the text, I say delete it. It's not a depiction of (just) Muhammad - it is a depiction of a historical event with no relevant text to support its inclusion. If we doreinstate the text, I'd be for leaving the image - but not strongly so. In that respect, for those who are more knowledgeable on the topic than my memory of my studies from years ago, I'd leave that to your judgement to determine how important the historical event is. Inotherwords, let's say it was a biography of Jefferson; I'd fully expect there not to be a picture of him eating breakfast by himself on a regular morning, even if there was a blurb about "Jefferson ate breakfast in the morning - he enjoyed (whatever) with each such meal". Not a big deal, don't need an image of it. So, I'd say if you all deem the event is of historical importance, we should leave the image (with text reinstated), if of minorimportance and the text is reinstated, image, no image, whatever - I've got no real feelings either way. What's sad is I actually extensively studied this stuff - and then my computer and other careers took off and I've let all of that lapse. :-/ Best, ROBERTMFROMLI |TK/CN06:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Anthony posits that the picture was made irrelevant by the removal of the text three years ago. I don't think that is the only way to look at this. I think it just as likely the editors thought the incident relevant and decided to represent it pictorially instead of in writing. Perhaps, they should have left in a sentence about it, too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Alas, IUP and MOS\Images indicate requirements that images are relevant to the article topic or the text. In this case, the article topic is Muhammad and not "The Black Stone", thus making depictions of Muhammad (that fit within the rest of the policies and guidelines) relevant by nature of what they depict. I'm still firmly of the opinion that an image of a historical event isn't relevant to an article not about that event unless that event (for relevant reasons) is mentioned in sufficient detail to allow an image. Inotherwords, a single sentence (to me) does not create a reason - and no text on the historical event creates to relevant reasons for including the image in an article that isn't really about the event itself. But that's my interpretation of this issue. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN18:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I did not understand this. In a biography, if a picture is of the person, does it somehow become irrelevant because it also depicts an event? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
My opinion would be that the picture is of a historical event, and happens to include the person (and possibly other people). Thus, the key element of the picture is that it is of a historical event - with the "relationship" element being that the person happens to be in it. Inotherwords, each picture has a point of most significance/relevance - in this case, the historical event depicted. Per IUP and MOS\Images, whatever is the primary depiction factor should be relevant to either (a) the article, or (b) the section. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN22:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, but I am having a hard time thinking the artist painted that event (or anyone would care), if not for the importance of the central character, he chose to portray in his picture. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't matter why they painted it - it matters what it is. It is a picture of a historical event that happens to have Muhammad in it (central figure or not). Inotherwords, it's not "here's a picture of Muhammad" (that was not the artist's intent). It is instead "here's a picture of a historical event that centers around Muhammad". And alas, policy and guidelines constrain such use (and I think my understanding of it is pretty accurate - as others seem to agree). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN23:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Black stone in comparable works
I've been rooting around on the web, & I must say have found plenty of accounts of the early life that are either a good deal longer or shorter than ours, but none really comparable in length. I've noticed there is very little consistency, even in considerably longer accounts. Incidents like Bahira (who we mention; his article gets only 2K hits per month) and his uncle's well (which we don't seem to cover anywhere that I can see) are either given at some length or omitted completely, and the accounts of the Mi'raj are wildly variable in length and completeness. On the whole, as in this article, the space devoted even in full length biographies to the first 40 years of his life is remarkably little (there are exceptions). There is no consistent attitude to what is admittedly a difficult range of source material, with few universally accepted elements and some that even few modern Muslim scholars seem to regard as not likely to be true. So I think this comparison will be unlikely to produce a clear result. On the whole, we seem to cover his first 40 years pretty rapidly, & I would lean in favour of some additions. Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica includes the event in the entry on "Muhammad." The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad doesn't mention it. Brill's Encyclopedia of Islam doesn't mention it in their "Muhammad" entry. Britannica is closest to us in type, and in size, but it's odd that the other sources, which treat much more information about Muhammad, don't include the event.Griswaldo (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually the Encyclopedia of Islam may be referring to the story when it says, "Equally little confidence is to be placed in the story of the part said to have been played by Muḥammad in rebuilding the Kaʿba," which would support John's point about scholars questioning the veracity of the story. If that is the case I wonder if we ought to include it here.Griswaldo (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I think you'll find the Bahira story is equally questioned by some, and often omitted. As I say, there seems no unanimity in what is included - a striking contrast to the early life of Jesus, where a few incidents are in the gospels, and other stories were stamped on hard relatively early on, and excluded from the main tradition, only surviving in things like the Protevangelium of James. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
If Britannica mentions it that's good enough for me. It's a delightful story that, apocryphal or not, is an important enough element of the tradition for mention in an encyclopedia, so I have no problem with us mentioning it.
Now we need to seriously address the question of educational value. Leaving aside the fact that we happen to have such an image at hand (that's no argument for inclusion), that images make articles more readable (there is no shortage of images) that this image is a fine representation of the art of this era or that tradition (this is not an article or section on art, or depictions of Muhammad), does this artist's impression increase the reader's understanding of this event enough to justify the limited space it takes up? How does it add to the reader's understanding of the event? Does it mislead the reader?
Please understand I'm not on a campaign of stripping images of Muhammad out of this article. I want to ensure all image use here is relevant and as educationally potent as possible. I argue (above) there are much more useful, educational and relevant images of Muhammad that deserve inclusion here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
All but 2 of the current 9 sections on this page actually relate to images, and should have been moved there. On the other hand currently there is discussion on the images question on about 5 different pages, and a posting referring to these here might be useful. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
There's four fewer pictures: an open Quran, redundant calligraphy, and two landscapes that might be anywhere.[9] Please restore any that should be kept. Tom HarrisonTalk01:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The calligraphy is useful, as that is how Muhammad's name is written in full. I would consider the Quran image one of the most essential images in the article (even given that we have an image of a page in the Quran further down), and where it was it related to the text. Restored. --JN46603:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the name calligraphy, a strong & certainly key image, could go lower down the page, where there are actually sparsely illustrated stretches. I didn't think that half-open Quran image was optimal. Personally I'd go for a single early Kufic page at this point (example shown). Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I've redistributed the navigation templates on the right-hand side, putting each into the section it relates to; they are no longer bunched up the way they were. I've deleted one such navigation template: the one on wives of Muhammad. All the wives are listed in the infobox, so there is no loss of information. I've moved some images as well, always keeping in mind that they should relate to the content of the relevant sections. For example, the image of the Medina mosque containing his tomb was at the beginning of the Life section, i.e. the section on Mecca; I've moved it to the section covering his death. The images are now better distributed. --JN46604:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree the Kufic page would be a nice image to have, but I would suggest that a contemporary image of the Quran is essential. The Quran has a more immediate significance to Muhammad and contemporary Islam than the Bible has to Jesus and contemporary Christianity. Muhammad "is" the Quran in a way that would not apply to Jesus and the New Testament; partly because it's his own words, rather than a collection of third-party accounts. How about adding the Kufic image where the Quran image is now, and moving the Quran image to the legacy section? --JN46604:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that there are numerous images of the Prophet Muhammad in the article Mahomet on fr.wikipedia.org. Did somebody suggest otherwise? Personally, if images are to be chosen, I would hope that at least one could be of the Night Journey through the Seven Heavens on the mythical steed Buraq, such as this veiled one File:Miraj_by_Sultan_Muhammad.jpg, a featured image on the Turkish wikipedia, used in the French article and numerous other articles. (There is also an unveiled image File:Muhammad_1514.jpg from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.) There are plenty of sources that describe these images. which were frequently fontispieces in illuminated manuscripts. The section on "Religious painting in the Islamic period" by historian of Islamic art Ernst J. Grube in the book Peerless Images: Persian Painting and its Sources (Yale University Press) contains a number of descriptions of several of the miniatures in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France. There are a large number of images available on their website.[10] Here is one of the images there from a whole volume illustrating the Night Journey. [11]Mathsci (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I have uploaded that last image here File:Miraj-BNF-1436.jpg. It is image 20 on the online guided tour of the BNF exhibition above. There a French lady can be heard discussing the miniature at great length. Mathsci (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Above Jayen466 has suggested using "Islam for dummies" as a source while at the same time dismissing Ernst J. Grube, the eminent historian of Islamic art. That seems contrary to wikipedia policy on secondary sources. Could he please explain what is going on? Mathsci (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Islam for Dummies, despite the engaging title, is published by John Wiley & Sons, which is a scientific publisher, and written by Malcolm Clark, a professor of religion (A.B., Harvard College; B.D., M.A., Ph.D., Yale Divinity School; Post-doctoral study at Hebrew University, Israel Biblical Studies, Islam, Religion and Gender, American Religion). It is a best-seller and required reading for American army officers—a good general source that gives a useful overview to inform our talk page discussion. I don't think I suggested citing it for anything, though it clearly meets RS. The other source I linked to is by Kees Wagtendonk, from Amsterdam University, and one of the foremost European experts on Islam. It is entirely proper for historians of art to be interested in depictions of Muhammad. It's a notable topic in its own right. But none of these historians of art would argue that these images reflect the Islamic mainstream. They are all aware that such images are (comparatively) rare, and that the Islamic tradition is generally word-based, with calligraphy as its main artistic medium of visual expression. Grube himself, in the book you mentioned, states: "Yet for many reasons, a fully developed Muslim iconography – in the sense that the West would understand it – never emerged in Islamic culture, although representations of Muhammad comprise a special category of Muslim religious painting that developed within the framework of Islamic art ... And however unexpectedly the image may appear, there are also illustrated Muslim texts that deal specifically with the life of the Prophet and, even more astonishingly, with the metaphysical and highly mysterious mi'raj, the journey made by the Prophet during the course of just one night through all the Heavens and into Hell ... Islam, by contrast, never officially adopted a figural religious iconography; indeed, the very lawfulness of images was hotly debated in the early Islamic centuries. In mosques there are no cycles of paintings illustrating the prophet's life and deeds comparable to those of the life of Christ or the saints in Christian churches or, for that matter, the life of the Buddha in Buddhist temples ..." (p. 133). It's iconic, not unexpected images that we are interested in in a high-level article like this, just as we use iconic images in the articles on other religious founders. --JN46623:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
One interesting thing about the night flight image uploaded and the sources Jayen mentions, is that the image appears to be Ottoman (likely Sunni audience) and not Persian or Moghul. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
If you mean the BnF ones Mathsci links above, In fact the MS is Persian/Afghan, Herat 1436 [46], but yes Sunni (the Persian rulers were Sunni at this period & until after 1502). There are plenty of Ottoman and Sunni illustrated Mi'raj manuscripts. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that it was from Harat but I thought that Tamerlane's empire was Turkish, although he did rule over Persia, and I was noting that the illustration was captioned in Turk (and Arabic) and thus, not clearly directed at Persians. And perhaps I misunderstood that some were saying, that images were limited to Persian Shias or to the later Mogul Empire (1526).Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
It is in Turkish/Uighur, Arabic & also Persian, reflecting the mix of languages used in the Timurid courts. There is indeed a common misconception limiting such images to Shia use. In fact surviving historic images - Persian and Turkish mainly, are more often from a Sunni context, though modern images of Muhammad are nearly all Shia. Ottoman ones are more common than Mughal - but both are Sunni dynasties with few Shias at court. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. If the captions on the night journey photograph include languages other than those listed, when it was uploaded, would you be willing to clarify the description? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
If I may make a suggestion on the picture of the koran. Instead can we find an actually closed koran with the front script shown? From the view on the open one you can't make anything out and it looks like it could be any book in existence. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to get a picture of one from (at the very least) a better angle. The one in the article has a somewhat off-kilter perspective; if we want a picture of the koran open, we could at least try to get a shot of it from straight above or standing directly in front of it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
This page is strange
As far as I see, all the images of other articles (Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, etc) in the info box are paintings or photos. This article is the only article on wikipedia that presents just a written name as the infobox image. 203.81.67.182 (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
It's because that is the most common visual representation of Muhammad, and WP should try to use such a depiction in the infobox (just like how we prefer infobox pictures of sports stars to have them either playing or at least in uniform, when we can get them). There are paintings of Muhammad's body further down in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Using the same logic, one could say that the most common visual representation of anyone is their name in writing, rather than a picture. In fact, it is patently clear Muhammad is treated as a special case here, so as not to offend Muslims. ðarkuncoll15:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it's not at all for that reason. If we didn't want to offend Muslims, we wouldn't include the Prophet's picture anywhere in the article, but, of course, we do. We get people commenting here every few days telling us that we have to remove the pictures of Muhammad because they are false and not allowed, and we tell them every time that we don't follow their rules. No Muslim is going to say "Well, it's okay to use the image, so long as its not the lead image of the article". They either accept or reject images of Muhammad entirely. The image in the infobox is not Muhammad's name in writing. It's the image you would see of Muhammad if he were depicted in art. It's not like it's just "Muhammad" in 12 point Times. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
That argument is just plain silly all the current "image does is prove you can write Mohamed in calligraphy and make it look stylized and it is clearly an unsuccessful attempt to appease the religious fanatics, a proper image was in that box for years, there is no credible reason other than appeasement that it has been changed. This place used to be proud to resist censorship, not ant more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.163.174 (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Other historical figures get an artistic depiction of them. So does Muhammad; the artistic depiction is most commonly rendered in calligraphy, so we use an example of the most common artistic style. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Given that both sides of the argument are offended by the current article's content, I believe we have reached a fair and balanced approach. Singularity42 (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The most common "image" or representation of Muhammad in the world today is the calligraphy version, so I see no problem in using that at the top of the article. Note also that the God article has no image at the top, even though many suitable, classic images exist, some of which are used in the article. Rklawton (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. And I think the article reflects a well thought out compromise on the issue. One the one hand, Wikipedia is not censored and how Muhammad has been depicted historically is of encylopedic value. On the other hand, there is no policy that a historical painting of the subject should be at the top of the page in the Infobox, and the most common modern representation of the subject is the version currently in the Infobox. Singularity42 (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not an artistic depiction it's just written words in a foreign language , it is still just written words even if added to paintings often. By the above logic all info-boxes should not be photographs but copies of the written word that have been published in newspapers as these are most common way of representing the subject. It's amazing how the need to appease overrules common scene in this PC world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.163.174 (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
You're not understanding. It's not "added to paintings." It is the painting most commonly used for Muhammad. If you took all of the artistic renderings of Muhammad in the world, and counted them, you'd find (warning: completely made-up statistic coming) that 99% of them look like our infobox, and well less than 1% like the images farther down the page. As a good comparison: the picture on Jesus is absolutely not what he actually looked like (the image is too European, and, of course, he didn't actually walk around with a halo shining behind him). Nonetheless, its a very good representative of how Jesus is normally depicted in art. And, again, your PC argument fails miserably, because if we really were being "PC" (which, btw, is considered an offensive term by many) then we wouldn't have any pictures of Muhammad in the article. In any event, this issue has a very strong consensus, so your desire to replace it with a image is about as likely to succeed as the desire of others to remove all of the images in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
"Added to paintings" "is the painting" whatever, it is still just a word in a foreign language and in that case has no artistic element, it's just type not art so your comparisons to the Jesus article are completely irrelevant, no misunderstanding on my part, just a reply that willfully ignores the issue and facts of the matter. and I am afraid my PC arguments do add up as the format of the article would not have been changed if there was a desire to appease and in doing so finding a PC compromise and further just because "In any event, this issue has a very strong consensus, so your desire to replace it with a image is about as likely to succeed as the desire of others to remove all of the images in the article." does not meed I should be dissuaded from raising an issue your post does attempt to do this and is not really in the spirit of a reasonable discussion. If you must reply please address the isues raised rather than willfuly ignore the issue posted about just to get the last word — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.169.30 (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
And I have to say comments like "wrong again" in the page history section are immature and not constructive is there not a basic civility code in force in this place to stop posts like that? can I respond by saying grow up? or does that make me ass bad as the poster of the imature comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.169.30 (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The issue is that you're wrong. And, no, saying that is in no way a violation of WP:CIVIL. It's pointing out that you are still misunderstanding the image. It's not just a word in another language. It is a very ornate and specialized calligraphic representation of that word (that is, if you simply looked in a normal copy of the Qu'ran, that is not how it would look). My point on the consensus issue was perhaps a bit strong, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that you're going to need an extraordinarily strong argument to reverse a very well held consensus than just saying that we're "PC". In any event, I don't think I have anything else to add unless you have some new evidence or line of argument. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually I am not wrong and the manner in which you put "wrong again" (hidden in the page history) was very much uncivil and immature, if you have a point here is the place to put it. I as I have said above "all the current image does is prove you can write Mohamed in calligraphy and make it look stylized" can you not see this? it is still not artwork just text again no mistake of the nature of the image (why is there a need to claim I misunderstand the image?) (please can you let that sink in your brain before further comment), and again and again you ignore the issue being raised use logical fallacies like straw man and contribute nothing to the argument except show a need to get the last word, I'll say again to try and communicate to you If you must reply please address the issues raised rather than willfully ignore the issue posted about just to get the last word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.9.235 (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
the latest coment inj the page history is "sigh" how is that a constructive comment? that is clearly uncivil and immature, i'll say again is there not a basic civility code in force in this place to stop posts like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.9.235 (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The arguments concerning popularity of usage are specious. Otherwise, for example, Jesus would be represented with the ☧ symbol, rather than a picture. Artistic representations of Jesus are certainly common, but the ☧ (chi rho) symbol is far more common, considering its usage on coins, etc. ðarkuncoll16:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
When most Christian artists go about making a painting of Jesus, they paint the current European, haloed image. They do not paint the chi-rho symbol. When most Budhist artists go about making a painting of Buddah, they usually paint the sitting cross-legged, meditating image. They do not paint a version of the name "Buddah". When most Muslim artists go about making a painting of Muhammad, they usually paint an artistic, caligriphay version of his name. It is the most common image that representes the subject. Singularity42 (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid you're wrong. The ☧ symbol has been used far more often to represent Jesus than any picture of him. It has been used on untold thousands, perhaps millions, of coins, for example. You are making artificial distinctions in order to justify the current position, rather than looking at all the evidence. ðarkuncoll23:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Where do you get that info, exactly? Where is that evidence of the symbol being used more than the image? You kind of have to back statements like that up on Wikipedia. —Digital Jedi Master (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
That is just stylized writing not art, therefore the creators are not artists just people writing, my doctors handwriting would not normally be considered art a new definition of art applicable to only Muslims has been created here in order to appease in this special case . furtherer the current image does not even show a painting, no artist is listed in the image file, no original work seems to exist in a gallery or collection. it is not a reproduced work of art.
To TharkunColl: Interestingly, ten years ago, I would have recognized Jesus by one of the stylized images long before I recognized him by the symbol. I suspect for those who would recognize Muhammad by either, the symbol would be recognized more than largely varying artists interpretations. Just my opinion though. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN23:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe a little history might help here. People who joined up in the last couple years might not realize this, but a lot of us had to fight for years to get any pictures of Muhammad displayed. It was a long, hard argument, but we did finally win. Before that, the consensus was to not display pictures, and anyone adding them would be reverted as quickly as people removing them now.
So when the consensus was finally changed, it ended up being something of a compromise that the images would be added, but kept "below the fold", so to speak. It may well have been an unspoken compromise, but I think everyone was basically tired of fighting at that point. So none of us pro-image folks really kept fighting to have the images higher up, because we'd won on the main issue.
It's not ideal, and I agree with the original poster that an image should be at the top of the page, just like for anyone else. But if one side got everything they wanted, it wouldn't be a compromise; it's only a compromise once everyone's unhappy.—Chowbok☠18:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I definitely agree it is not ideal. We should never be compromising core principles/tenets of Wikipedia. Either they get changed, or they get unilaterally and indisciminately applied. At least that's my opinion. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN20:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Chowbok that's not a history I have witnessed, the image of Mohammed was in that infobox for years and the core principle of no censorship was observed. the religionists were correctly ignored. It does not make sense to change wikipedia's core principles to appease religionists just because it's perceived as easier. All the current situation shows is that a special case has been made, it looks wrong, is inconsistent and no amount of false reasoning (as witnessed above) will change this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.160.10 (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
We're not say "how is Muhammad represented". The question is, as an image, as art, as a visual medium, how is Muhammad represented, and the answer is, "As a special form of calligraphy". If you went looking for actual images of Muhammad, you'd find, as far as I can tell based on having looked at this and related pages, less than 100 in the world. Total. However, you would find hundreds of thousands, if not more, of stylized, specially formatted, calligraphic representations of Muhammad. Let me draw an analogy: the company IBM, for its trademark/logo, uses a special calligraphic representation of the letters IBM (see File:IBM logo.svg). That's the image we use in the infobox of IBM, because that's the image that the company uses to represent themselves. We don't pick out a picture of their corporate headquarters, or use the original logo (see File:Original IBM Logo.png) just because it's more of a "picture", or anything else. Of course, there is no such thing as an "official" picture of Muhammad (or, really, most people except for maybe some politicians). But there is an image that represents, by a majorityby a super-majority almost 100% of the time. I also argue that this is exactly like the fact that we use a European-looking Jesus in Jesus, rather than one that is "historically accurate". Now, I could be wrong, so go ahead and start up an RfC or some other similar form of dispute resolution. And I apologize if my words have been blunt, but to me changing the infobox image to a non-calligraphic painting of Muhammad would actually be a violation of Wikipedia core policies, not the other way areound as IP has presented it; this just seems blindingly obvious to me, which is why my words have been strong. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
That figure of 100 is complete nonsense - there are many more than that, old and modern, and thousands if you include images that have a veiled face, some probably added to an originally depicted face. Johnbod (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Now, THAT makes perfect sense. As indicated above, I can buy into it wholeheartedly. And in following the examples we used, I betcha that if I lined up 100 images of Jesus, they'd all look relatively the same (minus some small amount of artistic license) - but if I lined up 100 images of Muhammad, they'd all look very different (as this very article demonstrates). Also, as Muhammad is, to a larger extent, a topic that is discussed (etc) largely by those of the Islamic faith (which is quite large in numbers), I could easily see a calligraphic representation as being the most prevalent. In such case, I think Qwyrxian has hit the head right on the nail - using something other than such a representation would be against policies and guidelines. So, if that is the reasoning applied to choosing the infobox image, I'm all for leaving it. If that isn't the reason, but is still a valid reason, then I am still all for leaving it. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN02:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Moore false reasoning the IBM logo is made to be EXACTLY the same and reproduceable many times it's not intended that people construct the IBM Logo by hand, writing isn't like that, more false reasoning to justify the special treatment given to this case, again Qwyrxian words have not been blunt but childish and immature a big difference that most people could see and no matter how much Qwyrxian ignores that fact and calls his behavior something else it still remains uncivil. and unjustifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.107.64 (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how you can construct that comment from what has been posted above, it's just that certain people with an agenda do not like being presented with the facts. It wasn't me who posted "sigh" but you choose not to see that because you do not like the facts I state — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.224.56 (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Enough of the uncivil remarks. Your original topic has been answered to, you have no reason to comment further, you just seem to be attacking people now. --Nutthida (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I actually agree with you and not Qwyrxian on the main issue. That doesn't change the fact that Qwyrxian has been exceedingly patient and courteous, and you have frequently been rude and accusing him of bad faith.—Chowbok☠03:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
There was no uncivil remarks coming from me I did not put "Sigh" If I have been blunt well I guess i thought that it was normal around here or is it that there one rule for people who agree with you and another for those that do not? Guess so given that post. you actually do not comment on the issues and you just seem to be attacking people now and your post is hyporcritical. The actual fact is that the origional topic has not been answered far from it infact. there is no credible reason other than apeasement of religionists that a proper image should be shown in the infobox. as for "Qwyrxian has been exceedingly patient and courteous" how does that square with the "sigh" post selective reading does seem to be at play here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.64.122 (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you felt that my "sigh" was uncivil. In my past experience, I've never had anyone take a term of that nature as uncivil. I don't understand why it bothers you. It certainly wasn't attacking you in any way. If you want to pursue my remarks further, you should probably do so at WP:WQA, which is our usual forum for discussing issues of incivility; in fairness, you should know that if you do so, your own behavior can come under scrutiny. If you want to pursue the actual issue of the image further, since there seems to be a general consensus supporting the current image, you'll need to pursue dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I really don't see how "sigh" could be interpreted any other way but an uncivil remark, I can not see another point to be made from this remark and I have to say that after the amounts of posts on this page it's a bit late to show a redirect to another page. there may be a general consensus supporting the current image amongst religionists and those guided by appeasement rather than wikipedia's core values but that isn't actually a genuine consensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.89.148 (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
What is "genuine" consensus, in your opinion? One that agrees with your viewpoint? This issue has been discussed to death repeatedly. I appreciate that you may be new to the conversation, but this is not a new or novel question. If I may be very frank, I do not anticipate that you or anyone else commenting here has anything new to add to the discussion -- thus, the "sigh". – Luna Santin (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, characterizing those to disagree with you as "religionists" or "guided by appeasement" is not only false, but insulting and offensive; and a gross violation of Wikipedia's core Wikipedia:Civility policy as well as the guideline Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I have rarely seen a clearer case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Contrary to your assertion without an accompanying rationale, the presentation of the lead image in this article does represent Wikipedia's core values, as others have repeatedly explained above and in the talk page archives. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually the only reason to have no real image is either a religionist reason or to appease religionists stating that fact is not a violation it's just stating a fact weather you like it or not, most likely you are only getting wound up because I state the truth and you don't like it so are now thyrowing toys out of pram and accusing me of "pot calling kettle black" in page history, thats extremely childish immature and unquestionably uncivil, no matter how upset you get with me stating the facts it happens to be the truth nether the less. So one side of the argument is allowed to be "blunt" as they put it but the other isn't even allowed to state their view by your childish rules, if I may be frank even thank (although only people of other opinion are allowed to do this by your terms) if you think the issue has been discussed and resolved why are you not just ignoring my posts? and It was not you who put the "sigh" remark so why try and justify it? it remains unconstructive. your post does nothing but attack me and even if i'm pott calling kettle black (as you so childishly put it) this is only as a response to posts like yours. The stupid thing is I had exepted User:Qwyrxian's explanation that if I wanted to discuss it further I should work out how to use dispute resolution, that is a reasonable comment. you post is just inflamatory, you have no constructive comment to make so why do you bother? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.169.96 (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I (and I am sure others) are of the camp/opinion of "I don't care what your or anyone elses or even my personal beliefs are - this is policy. We follow policy or... we follow policy. Period." Thus, personally, if I thought there was any validity to your claim, I'd be screaming bloody hell in this discussion (or more likely, politely point it out). But I do not believe that to be the case, as has been discussed ad-infinitum above and in archived discussions. After reviewing the numerous discussions on this matter, I believe, whether people against having an image of Muhammed think it was done to appease them or not, that in reality, policy is simply being followed (which may just happen to coincide with their desires). ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN15:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
No policy is not being followed people are avoiding raising the issue as they will just be attacked (like you post), people are ignoring the fact special treatment is being applied here because it's easier to appease then anything else, look how much the bad guy I have become! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.6.130 (talk • contribs)
Please try reading this thread from the beginning. If you can find a common visual depiction of Muhammad, feel free to add it. Those of us who would like to see such an image have tried valiantly, and failed to find one. So go ahead, nobody is stopping you. You have yet to suggest anything specific. Find an image and present it. Otherwise your complaints aren't relevant, and starting to border on WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Anon: Be careful who you accuse of attacking you (I don't particularly care, but others might). I suspect I did no such thing. Like Amatulic, I'm all for an image if a common visual depiction can be found. I too couldn't find any. Help us out in this matter and find one, and you've got my !vote. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN22:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, all. This article isn't part of my field of expertise, but I just read it for the first time and want to chip in my short opinion. I must say, the usage of images in this article is quite strange. I understand the reasoning "his calligraphic name is the most common representation of him" - that seems reasonable for the infobox. However, to not have any artistic depictions of Muhammad until halfway down his main article is very odd, particularly when no other similar articles does so (this has been noted already). A few images, like the image of the Quran in the first section, seem unnecessary, as well. I think everyone knows images of Muhammad are offensive to some, but that's never been an issue on Wikipedia. There are a number of other places where images considered offensive by certain groups are used prominently in articles. Thanks, and happy editing. White Whirlwind 咨 00:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, though Wikipedia is supposed to be, this article is not treated secularly, and has a number of exceptions to minimize or decrease religious offense. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN23:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
What appears in other reference works?
There is some mention of this above but it seems important enough to deserve its own section. In this case, what types of images (if any) are used in modern biographical works or articles on the prophet, or similar individuals? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks; I'd really welcome further source-based research here. (FWIW, I was unable to find any images of Muhammad in Encyclopaedia Britannica.) --JN46610:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd love to see such a section, and I think Jayen and I discussed this briefly earlier. I think the issue we may run into is figuring out why they have tons of images/no images/some images. Inotherwords, I think we'd need to find some relevance factor such as that. That being the case, my opinion is leaning towards the "Depictions..." article being a more appropriate place (with perhaps mention in the subsection of the same name that is no longer here). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN20:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Other reference works have to pay for images, and the paper they are printed on, and almost all use far fewer in all articles. The most relevant comparison is other wikis, and none of the opposers of all images have yet expained why that hotbed of anti-Muslim sentiment, the Farsi wiki, has 5 images to our 6. In a featured article too. By removing the images would we be abandoning Sunni/Shia neutrality? Very possibly. Anti-Shia POV is very evident among some complainers, as long-term followers of the page will know. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Other reference works would also have to worry about lost revenue: including images might mean lost sales (while including images likely wouldn't increase sales among other market segments). Thankfully this is not something we have to worry about. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
As I stated above, these are wholly unfounded speculations without any evidence of being accurate. IMO they are not just groundless, they are wrong. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Your reasoning is not actually sound, if you think about it. A Wikipedia without readers would be as unsatisfactory as a book without buyers. Whether there is an exchange of money is irrelevant; the common factor is product quality, i.e. meeting the target group's needs. --JN46619:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
My position is the defacto position of Wikipedia based on its policies around WP:RS and WP:V. We trust mainstream sources to be mainstream, unless there is a well documented reason not to. We don't dismiss them based on idle speculation. Griswaldo (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I have academic access to the Cambridge book online and have looked at all the images. There are two figurative images from the world of Islamic art. One is from a Persian manuscript and in it Muhammad (and only Muhammad) is fully veiled. The other is 20th century Senegalese and Muhammad is virtually formless but for his outline (it looks like a white ghost with a halo basically). There are two other figurative images and both are in a specific section of the book titled "European Accounts of Muhammad's Life." Both of these show his face - one is from an early illuminated French translation of the Quran and the other is a photo of part of a frieze from the U.S. Supreme Court building that includes a number of historical lawgivers. The final chapter of the book, before the epilogue, is titled "Images of Muḥammad in literature, art, and music," and I haven't had time to read it, but it contains two images. The first is an example of hilye at the very beginning and the second, towards the end is a photo of the cover of the film The Message starring Anthony Quinn (as Muhammad's uncle). Quinn's photo, in costume, appears on the cover but like I said he isn't Muhammad. Indeed Muhammad isn't depicted in the film at all, and the text discussing it describes the clever techniques used by the film makers to pull that off. As a whole I think the Cambridge book reinforces the educational value of figurative images in context, but surprisingly not the context one might have imagined. It would be interesting to look at the text surrounding the two faceless images when time allows, but I think it is quite notable that they are faceless/formless. I might personally be willing to soften my opinion a bit towards inclusion of one or two images that are veiled or formless, because those images are quite educational when it comes to issue of aniconism ... much more so than the fringe traditions of flouting aniconism altogether. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
But that brings us back to the same problem. Nothing disparaging meant in this - simply pointing out the problem. (1) some people are looking at this article as a biography, albeit of someone who is a religious figure. (2a) some people are treating this as an article on religion. (2b) some people are treating handling images in this article as if the article were about depictions of Muhammad.
Using Point 1, what is relevant is
portraying the person through (in order of importance/relevance) (a) photographs, (b) portraits, (c) depictions
portraying relevant historical events through (in order of importance/relevance) (a) photographs, (b) portraits, (c) depictions
Using Point 2 (a or b), what is relevant is
selecting depictions as represented/applicable to the religion or those who venerate Muhammad - or both (with suitable text to indicate which types of images are preferred by which sect of Islam (veiled, unveiled or none)).
That leaves the big stopping point we keep running into. Do we treat this as a biography, or a religious article?
IMO, Point 2 is a discussion for the "Depictions..." article and any such subsection that we are (above) considering placing back in this article - and this article should be treated as a biography. I'm beginning to suspect that the problem isn't interpretation of policy. The problem is differing camps on what this article is - a biography or a religious article. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN21:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect Robert you keep on bringing up this artificial distinction between biography and religion. This is a religious biography. Please have a look at the sources of this entry - the are scholars of the history Islam. "Biographical" information about virtually ancient religious figures is within the domain of the history of religion. It's a simple fact. The distinction is artificial. We do not treat all biographies the same either, based on some magical formula. We treat each subject matter as the mainstream reliable sources do. I've already given you the answer to the false dilemma you pose. Look at the sources we use for this entry and see what type of depictions they use, when they do use depictions, and start from there.Griswaldo (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstood my post? The whole first section isn't an argument with you, it is simply fact. Various editors (not just me) think this article should be treated as a biography; that happens to be about a religious figure. Others (including you) do not. Thus, the point is, what you think isn't (yet) relevant to how we treat the images issue in the article. What consensus we come to or what policies we find that will make such a distinction is what ends up being relevant. Perhaps it's your POV on this - perhaps it is not. The point is, as long as there are two decent sized camps who wish to treat the images in the article differently, then solving the "images issue" isn't going to be possible - until concessions or a consensus or some showing of applicable policy takes place.
The last paragraph, starting with "IMO" is simply that - my opinion on the matter - just as you gave yours. I was not trying to start a debate. It was given as additional proof (in addition to others' postings on this and other pages) that your POV on this matter is not absolute or unchallenged. Nothing more or less. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN21:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Robert my point is that you are neglecting how we should be dealing with this issue based on our policies and conventions. We should follow the mainstream sources. Is there a policy on how to write a biography? Once again, I am also treating this as a biography, but just like with all entries, biographies or not, I also recognize that we should follow reliable sources. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, (among others) IUP, which states "In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article." - thus, I would posit, for historical events, images (photographs, depictions, etc) of those events should be used. I would further posit an image or three of the article's subject would be applicable as well. There are sections on historical events in the article. There are images related to those historical events currently in use. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN22:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, MOS/Images is a guideline that covers such... which ironically is written with a blurb that (for this article, since it is not about depictions) seems to be against using images of "flame and veil" as I am pretty sure no one would reasonably assert that Muhammad's head was both veiled and enshrouded in flame. It also covers the "false" depictions vs "we have no photos" issue. "Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images." All we have are depictions. Muhammad's head did not look like a veiled flame. The article is not about "Depictions of Muhammad" (there is an article on that topic already). There are other sections in policies and guidelines that touch on this topic too - which is why I keep reiterating that all such need to be applied. Far better than to keep picking and choosing one policy or another. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN22:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
You are surely aware that many of our images of Jesus feature a halo, a very similar artistic device. That's entirely traditional, and arguably representative of something that can be seen. --JN46603:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, while (a) many don't have such, and (b) you can still see his face. The halo has no more of an effect than a hat, and even such images as those portray a depiction of what he looked like. OTOH, a "no face, just a flame and a white spot" or "just a flame head" or "veil and flame" are arguably not what he looked like. But that aside, I am not arguing for not using such pictures. I'm arguing that they all (including Jesus and other articles) should be balanced by policies and guidelines - including images of him in historical settings, a couple showing how he (not how a flame) was perceived by others, a couple of how through religion, he was perceived. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN06:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the discussion of the sources. Someone did make the argument that other biographies might not be perfect comparisons for some reason or another. That is true, but it is still something to compre to. I would also compare it to biographies of other persons from the period. I think it quite likely that anyone from that period who is portaryed in any medium, would likely have those depictions in any modern biography. Most cultures, east and west, don't seem to have anything against figurative portrayals of persons and certainly wikipedia does not. Almost any picture does convey information and it does seem to me encyclopedic to include it for that reason (there is little need to so vastly value written information over pictoral). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course there is if that's traditional, and I mean traditional in scholarly accounts of Muhammad not religious ones. If we included written information that is fringe in terms of how mainstream scholarship and mainstream reference sources deal with a specific subject that information would be removed. Why is visual information any different? If certain subjects are not known through visual information for whatever reason, then it is not up to us to unduely weight our entries on those subjects with visual information. This is why we need to look at other reference sources. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I am the one who asked for the discussion of other sources but I see no reason to limit it to Mohmmedan biographies, to analogies the types of images used. It is true that pictures have not "traditionally" appeared in scholarly writing, in general, but that was often for technical and economic reasons (and perhaps to bias against pictures), which do not apply to us. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, here are lists of illustrations from other books on Muhammad, searched for using "Muhammad in the title" and "List of illustrations/List of figures" as search arguments [47]:
[48] No images of Muhammad (Oxford University Press)
[50] 21 images, none of Muhammad as far as I can see (images of the Quran and various mosques)
The Britannica online article on Muhammad has an image of the Kaaba, two images of mosques, and one of calligraphy. (Incidentally, the vast majority of secondary literature on Muhammad is written by Muslims, who would typically refrain from including images.) --JN46603:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
A book by Carl W. Ernst, "Following Muhammad – rethinking Islam in the contemporary world", is here; no images of Muhammad, but includes a discussion of such images (and their tolerance in Iran) on pages 184–186. Lots of calligraphy. --JN46604:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstood, but your second, third, and fifth source don't appear to be biographies of the Prophet, and your second has a figurative human illustration of Muhammad on the cover of the book. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
You're correct, and I overlooked the (veiled) cover image on the second. It's tedious to do in Google Books; getting an overview is probably easier in a book shop or library. Looking at title pages itself is not without interest [51][52], though it's a bit inconclusive as it doesn't tell us what's in the books. --JN46614:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Pictures of Muhammad p.b.u.h should be removed
all the pictures protayed Muhammad p.b.u.h should be removed because Muhammad cannot be illustrated. It had been stated in al - Quran. Wikipedia should have sensitivity regarding religion and accept others people opinion. Those pictures are too offensive to all MUSLIM,, there are no such things in Islam that Muhammad p.b.uh can be ilustrated. Please remove the picture as soon as possible. 175.144.81.9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC).
(also posted on User talk:Jimbo Wales) Several of the images under discussion here appear in the 2009 book on Muhammad by the Islamic scholar Omid Safi, "Memories of Muhammad: Why the Prophet Matters".[53] The book has received positive reviews in various academic journals. The illustrations used in the book are listed at the end under "art credits": the cover image of Muhammad with the angel Gabriel from the Topkapi Palace Museum; 3 illustrations from the Qisas al-Anbiya; 3 images of the Night Journey from the BNF in Paris, the Metropolitan Museum in New York. and the British Library in London. In the owrds of one reviewer [54] (Mary Hossain of Queens Universi[ty, Belfast): "This book provides a new approach, or a new combination of approaches, to the familiar story of the life of the Prophet. It combines the historical and the spiritual, giving, for example, the pre-Islamic background and relating several crucial episodes of the Prophet's life, but also showing how these are interpreted in a spiritual way by Muslims, showing both the ‘historical Muhammad’ and the ‘Muhammad of grace’. In this way Omid Safi communicates to the reader the Muslims’ love for the Prophet as well as addressing and assessing the historical evidence for certain events." This is a source by an academic Islamist which uses the same type of historical image currently in the wikipedia article. Mathsci (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
He is from Iran, where images of the Prophet are tolerated. Safi also reports in his book that he is wary of telling some of his Muslim friends that the image in his home is of Muhammad, because they react badly to it. Cf. pages 184–186 in the book by Carl W. Ernst ("While Muslims in other countries might find this objectionable, it seems to cause no comment in Iran."). It is a question of proportion. Safi takes the view, as an Iranian muslim, that images of Muhammad are okay. It's a significant minority view in Islam, but far from a majority view, nor representative of how Muhammad is most commonly portrayed. --JN46606:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but this part "where images of the Prophet are tolerated" isn't relevant to anything. OTOH, I contend my post on Jimbo's page is relevant to this matter - here it is with a little more clarification: no one has proposed another depiction of Muhammad that is more common. Therein lies the problem. Calligraphy is not Muhammad or a depiction of how he was perceived to look. No one would look at calligraphy and say "yeah, that's what he looked like!" Nor is "flame and veil" - that is simply a depiction of specifically how he does not look in order to have something that does not violate religious rules or create religious offense. A biography has pictures of (a) how someone looked, or (b) failing the availability of such, how others perceived him to look.
I'll be honest about something else. The other thing that has hurt the response to the opinions of some editors here is that pictures of a veiled/flamed Muhammad are ok and more suitable - but if it comes to unveiled pics, they're "false depictions". Obviously, there are two reasons such hurts their stance - the first is (a) that, correctly or not, it implies that the editor is applying a religious bias of some sort, and (b) a head of fire is far less likely to resemble what he looked like than a depiction of an actual head - which may possibly even be drawn from what descriptions are available on how he looked. Thus, the "false depictions" argument doesnt hold out well when those editors trot out support for one and wish to remove the others. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN02:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose (05:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC))Withholding !vote: until someone can translate the specific text. If the text creates a relevance point to Muhammad or the section of the article, then, with appropriate caption indicating such relevance in English, I'd be against deletion. If no relevance, I'd be for deletion. This is not an article on the Qur'an, and only needs representations of such as relevant. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN23:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose removal The image is in the section on the Quran, and it shows a page from the Quran. The Quran is what Muhammad is famous for – to muslims, it's the word of God, as reported by Muhammad, his messenger. Muhammad is omnipresent in Islamic culture through Quranic quotations. --JN46605:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Mm. :) If we want a more meaningful caption, we could add that An-Najm marks the first time Muhammad asked his followers to perform a prostration (prayer is mentioned in the text). The last line on the page means, "So prostrate to God and worship him." Best, --JN46605:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I note that the "aniconic" argument of "it does nothing to enhance the readers knowledge of the subject" applies just as stongly, or just as weakly, to images of the Quran or calligraphy as to figurative images of the Prophet. I don't buy this argument, & I think we should have at least one image of a Quran, though I don't think the current ones are the best choice. Commons has a huge Category:Qur'an from which better images can be chosen. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't follow that. Showing a page of the Quran shows words Muhammad actually spoke. That in itself is a pretty immediate connection to Muhammad as the subject of the article. The loving way they are reproduced indicates in what esteem they are held, and the significance attributed to them, which is part of his reception, as well as communicating cultural flair. --JN46615:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, I think you just won Johnbod's "argument" for him - let me work from your statement: "I don't follow that. Showing a depiction of Muhammad shows how many people have perceived Muhammad through the ages. That in itself is a pretty immediate connection to Muhammad as the subject of the article. The loving way they are created and reproduced - much less commissioned by noble families, indicates in what esteem they are held, and the significance attributed to them, which is part of his reception, as well as communicating cultural flair."
See my point? Side note, we do not know that the Qur'an page in the image is an exact faithful replica of his original words or of earlier printings, do we? I mean, I am sure we can assume such (as people do with the Bible). But I am wondering if (just like the Bible) we'd be wrong. Either way, it's not something we can definitively say. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN16:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The Quran and the Bible are quite different in that respect: while the Quran is Muhammad's work (and scholarship generally doesn't doubt that), none of the New Testament was written by Jesus. So there is an immediacy here that does not apply in the case of the Bible. The Quran continues to be studied, memorised, quoted, inscribed and recited to a degree the Bible is not. The problem with applying the "how many people have perceived Muhammad through the ages" argument to figurative images is the "many". By all accounts (see comments on Jimbo's talk), figurative images were rare to begin with, were used in non-public contexts only, and most Muslims refrained from making such images. So while they are part of Muhammad's reception, they are a very small and generally unrepresentative part of it. The reproduction of Muhammad's names and words in the Quran in contrast is central to Muhammad's artistic reception. --JN46600:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Rarity is irrelevant to "is this a picture/photo/sitting-portrait/depiction of the article subject?" Nothing suffices as a substitute for such except more of the same. ;-) Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN01:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, If you can read Arabic your knowledge may be directly enhanced (by images where the text is actually legible) but if not not. Logically the "enhance the readers knowledge" argument would dictate images of an English translation in the English article. But I think there is much more to illustration of articles than this somewhat fundamentalist approach. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually I would like to point out the koran was written after muhammads death so no it isn't his work. It is written by his companions before his death as the word of god passed through muhammad. So it is almost exactly like the bible in that aspect since neither were written by the person in question. The reason I added in the question is to show that an image may be informative without necessarily having any supporting text. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
My apologies i think faster than I write it is suppose to say it was partially written after his death. Also for the biblical references I doubt they started writing after death so we can summarize they are similar in creation. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Irrelevant comment. This isn't a censorship issue. Nobody is offended by this image, nobody is proposing censoring anything. Have you looked at the image at all? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Amatulic I think you've missed the point entirely. More of a statement than an earnest argument if I'm not mistaken. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know it's a statement. I got that point. However, it appears to be irrelevant to this discussion, as far as I can tell.
For my part, I have no opinion yet. The article would not be worse off without the image, but it certainly isn't harmed by it, either. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
FWIW I think this image is probably a copyright violation. The uploader also uploaded a bunch of copyvio calligraphy, participated in the deletion discussions, and then when they were deleted as copyvios at commons, immediately uploaded them to ar.wiki. Same with another photo he uploaded to commons. Given the border/vignetting and that he is not a trustworthy user, I bet this is something just snagged from the web. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Mediation
As suggested at WT:NOT I have proposed taking this images case forward to formal mediation. About 600,000 words have been spent discussing this matter over a period of 4 years on this page alone, and the matter has spilt out into other pages as well - leading to a 100,000 word discussion at WT:NOT which is even by itself extremely long.
The primary advantage of this escalation is that it should allow some sort of decision to be made which doesn't involve continued discussion about this topic forever, and it certainly seems like its well worth a try. Mediation currently seems like the best bet as this is a content dispute and not a conduct dispute - but if conduct is made apparent to be an issue then the case can be escalated to the arbitration committee. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any need for this initiative, since there seems to be a consensus on this page for the use of a limited number of images for this article (as described by Jayen466 for example). Nobody has so far objected to that proposal on this talk page. It is true that various other users have been arguing in very general terms about wikipedia policy elsewhere, but that does not affect this particular discussion. Please look at the discussions on this page about the Prophet Muhammad's Night Journey before making proposals of this kind, which do not seem helpful. As the saying goes, if it's not broke, why fix it? Mathsci (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree, especially as in the case of one editor involved this would seem to amount to feeding the troll. Nor would mediation prevent continued discussion, one can be sure of that. The "not censored" aspect of the matter can really be discussed in the abstract, but there are many other sides to it. Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually it would stop further discussion. Once mediation has got a result you can point out to the new person that the discussion had gone to mediation and that the result was a compromise. If you say that you don't have to engage in any other discussion with the person for at least a few years.
If we pretend that the only discussion on WP:NOTCENSORED has been at WT:NOT then that topic (with regards to this article) is definitely ready to go to some level of mediation as well.
If you guys ultimately refuse to engage in mediation I'll be disappointed as that will change the matter into a conduct issue, also involving you guys. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Consensus is already abundantly clear on the matter, there is nothing to actually mediate on the issue of Muhammad and images. Tarc (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this comment of yours at WT:NOT is a very good basis to bring anything to mediation (beside the fact that you have not stated what proposition you want to mediate):Mediation will make it blindly obvious who those editors are though, and then Arbcom can sanction them. --Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Eraser, I suspect you do not understand want mediation is for or how it works. Also in agreement with Johnbod and Mathsci's statements above. I've taken on mediation cases, and I can assure you, it works differently and is for different purposes than what you and some at NOT seem to think. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN23:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
As with others, I do not think mediation is a valid next step. It does not exist as a forum to try and overturn a consensus that is against you. Resolute01:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Look guys we've written six hundred thousand words on this talk page. This doesn't look like a matter that is getting resolved by this discussion by any stretch of the imagination.
Lets not forget that only a few weeks ago when this issue was taken to the arbitration committee that this was a content issue. I highly doubt that that has changed, and if its a content issue mediation is definitely the right approach.
That said the discussion above (which I hadn't seen) looks like it might have got results, so we can definitely see if that is enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
There was an agreement about the use of a limited (probably reduced) number of images between Jayen466, Anthonyhcole and me, amongst others. There has been compromise and flexibility; and in this case criteria have emerged, depending on secondary sources, for deciding when images are appropriate and where they should be placed. That is the normal process by which consensus is formed. Those discussions have not ended. On Meta Jayen466 is also discussing aspects of the proposed image filter (in both English and German). I don't see an impasse here at all, so please allow time for the Night Journey discussions to continue. There is no rush. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I came at this from the discussion on WT:NOT which appeared to be about the same topic and which has become significantly less productive and there has been a lot of refusal to compromise there.
It looks like the discussions here are progressing surprisingly well, that wasn't made clear enough to me at WT:NOT - if I misread the discussion there I apologise.
If the discussion above doesn't resolve itself reasonably quickly (say ~3 months) then I'll come back and we can discuss escalating it later. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
There's a difference between a situation being resolved and a situation being resolved to your satisfaction. Something to keep in mind for when you consider the situation three months from now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Eraserhead1: I dont think that matters. Numerous secondary sources have been brought up that use the images we use. NUMEROUS times. When that happens a handful of ones that dont are brought up as reasons to remove the images. That battle was already won in favor of leaving the images - but those who are using that argument to remove it still won't let that argument drop, as if a handful of sources outweighs dozens more. In addition, some have even went so far as to imply that "this sect of Islam should be ignored - and this other sect doesnt do this, so let's follow their lead" - which obviously we can't do. That'd be like picking one sect of Christianity as "the true Christianity". Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN20:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Consensus can change. And while it is one "sect" who are mainly offended it does cover 90% of muslims, its not the same as christian sects, which are generally more numerous. If we need to do a serious source count and we can come up with a good way to count them - then so be it, I think that's a different but still good way of solving this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Why would we have mediation? We have a good compromise proposal above, the one by Resolute, that most of us can sign up to. I believe Ludwigs2 would be fine with that too. --JN46621:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
While I might be able to sign on to that proposal as well, I am leaning to believe it is a stopgap measure when efforts to continue this beyond said proposal are well underway.[55] To be 100% honest, that makes it seem like the compromise is nothing more than a distraction until the efforts to remove all "offensive" images continues. Now, while no one may have that exact intent in mind, you and I can probably agree that such will be the exact results of such. Kinda makes it all seem pointless. Honestly, if an outsider looked at this, don't you think the first thing they'd see was "Look a truce (compromise)!!! Oh, wait... the next attack is already being planned by this side." - again, whether that's the intended reasoning or not; we know that will be the end result. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN21:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I herewith put it in writing, linkable to for all the time Wikipedia continues to exist, that I will defend this compromise as a reasonable one, and will not take any active part in overturning it. ;) --JN46623:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Same here - and I'll put the page indefinitely on watch. I don't believe mediation would produce a significantly different result from the one suggested above by Resolute. Even though I was extremely keen to have mediation in this discussion given Resolutes proposal is basically what they will produce, ±1 image or so and its a lot of hassle too what's the value?
If you can get the established editors to accept it, coupled with the extremely strongly worded templates I think that will stop or highly limit discussion. It would be good to tone those templates down a bit if there isn't a flood of discussion, but that's a trivial issue in comparison. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Additionally - even though it isn't his reasoning - I'm perfectly happy that the images suggested by Resolute, ±1 image or so, fits the balance reasonably well between avoiding offending people for no reason, and the value that images bring to the article even given a future rule change to WP:NOTCENSORED that has a plausible chance of passing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
SCOTUS Muhammad - Muhammad depicted among history's great lawbringers on the frieze surrounding Washington DC's Supreme Court building
For the record, in response to Resolute's comments in the above thread, regarding the section on Western reception, I said, I favour replacing the present "Muhammad preaches" with a good picture of the SCOTUS Muhammad, as the latter's physical place says a lot about Western reception. I agree there is room for another image in that section and would favour a contemporary (medieval) illustration of the medieval European view. Perhaps "Wife scolding the drunken Muhammad" or "Faith stepping on Muhammad." [56] They show the disrespectful tone without the ghastliness of the Dante illustrations. (Dante illustrations = illustrations of Muhammad being tortured in hell.)
I still hold this view. Such images would be highly relevant examples of what's being discussed in the section (the shift from demonisation and contempt in the Middle Ages to tolerance and respect in the Modern period).
This gives me an opportunity to clarify my position vis a vis some others in this discussion. I argue that, where a controversial image has little or no relevant didactic value, its lack of real educational value should be taken into account and it should be removed, replaced by something uncontroversial that has the same didactic value or replaced by an image that has real relevant educational use. This, I believe, applies to most of the present figurative portrayals of Muhammad in this article. Where an image is controversial but has significant real relevant educational value, it should be used. This, I believe, applies to the SCOTUS Muhammad and medieval depictions in the section on Western reception.
My position seems to diametrically oppose Johnbod's: include figurative portrayals that have no direct educational use relevant to the sections that contain them (anachronistic artists' impressions add nothing to the readers' understanding of the section topic); and exclude images that are highly pertinent examples (not just illustrations, but examples - understanding this distinction is essential to understanding my position) of Western reception from that section because they are controversial.
As I explained in my discussion with Resolute referred to above, following my preference would result in just as many figurative portrayals of Muhammad in this article. They wouldn't be mostly the pretty Persian and Turkish ones presently favoured by John and Mathsci, and one or two would be decidedly more offensive than those presently illustrating the article, but unlike most of the current image use, all would be solidly justified on the basis of relevance and real educational value. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
2 questions
Just a couple of quick questions for me. Is there a reason to have 2 separate timelines for the important events in the life of muhammad? We have one as mecca one as medina (I am aware there is a large difference in attitude and what happened.) I was wondering if there was any solid reason as to why they aren't combined instead of devoted to two separate places.
Also while it is an important event do we need this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mount_Uhud.jpg? If we do decide to keep it is there any artist renderings more in line with the time period that might serve as a better one? (i.e. like the picture of muhammad not looking like him I very much doubt the town looked like this in the 6th century.
I was about to revert you for the unexplained blanking (lack of edit summary) until I saw this section. What is your objection to that picture? It isn't in the way of anything, it isn't crowding anything, it isn't competing for space. I don't have a problem with its removal, but if you'd rather have a picture to replace it, why not keep the old one there as a placeholder? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
That is a good option to. I have no issues with a revert I just haven't had time to dig up any portraits of what it historically looked like. I am fine with it either way, just hadn't received any info one way or the other so I figured I would give it a shot and see if anyone wanted to keep it for now. Tivanir2 (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
There was a better alternative at one time. It's unfortunate that the Commons File:Gabal Uhud.jpg was changed by the uploader from a beautiful picture of the mountain with no modern foreground artifacts to a nondescript close-up of that mountain. You can still see the old version on that page in the upload history, but since it exists only in the archives I don't think it's available for using in articles. There's another good picture here: http://www.2mfm.org/pictures/img26.htm but unfortunately not available for free use. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why the other can't be put under another name. It was the same user that uploaded both - his own work he says - & it was probably a mistake that he overwrote the old name with the new pic. Johnbod (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
And nothing personal, but I will have to remove it. Please read the image use policy.[57] You cannot utilize such an image with a website or other such markings on it, unless specifically warranted by the content in the image (for instance it is a logo where such is part of the logo). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN07:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Done so with regret. :-( I like the image. Do you think perhaps you can ask the image creator to upload one without the watermarked logo? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN08:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Flowing from a discussion I began at Anthonyhcole's talk page, and moving onto Jayen's, I propose several ideas that should, in my view, represent a reasonable solution to the ongoing debates as well as present an opportunity for a better balance of images throughout the article. The proposal is based on two opinions that I hold: 1. We will not remove all - or even most - depictions, full stop. 2. There are too many images overall (26 at this time), which are crushing the text in places.
Without veil (1494–5)
With veil (1539–1543)
First and foremost: the depictions. Presently, there are five Muslim and one western depiction in the article. I propose to change this to three Muslim and two western, net reduction of one. The three Muslim images would represent the three ways in which Muhammad has been depicted at some point in history: fully rendered, defaced, and as a flame. The full render and the defaced image (example to right) would be placed in the Islamic depictions section where they can be used to show not only that such images exist - which I hold to be valuable educationally - but with solid captions can be used to show the progression from full rendering to none throughout history. File:Muhammad destroying idols - L'Histoire Merveilleuse en Vers de Mahomet BNF.jpg, the image of Muhammad as a Flame, would remain in an appropriate position of his historical biography. This should be acceptable to all sides, as it is still a depiction, but does not actually render Muhammad. This allows us to display the three ways in which Muhammad was depicted, once each in the article.
Western tradition obviously has no such restrictions on imagery, and we have space in the section, so I suggest to add File:Scotusnfrieze.jpeg, which shows one western view of Muhammad as a bringer of laws. In our discussion, Anthony suggested replacing the existing Russian image with one showing Muhammad in hell, but not nearly as "ghastly" as the one that was removed, showing historical Western perspective.
The reduction of one depiction would be, in my mind, part of a greater redressing of the balance. Between the 26 images and several templates, the text gets crushed in several locations. My view is an overall reduction of at least three images. For instance, do we need 6-8 calligraphic renderings? We could eliminate one by removing or completely collapsing {{Islam}}, especially since it is redundant to the {{Islam topics}} navbox. It is a nice looking template, but why have two that points to the same links? Especially when removing the side bar will open space up to move images around. Additionally, it is currently oddly placed in the western views section. I would also favour collapsing the other two templates in some fashion, as they take up a remarkable amount of real estate that could be better used in organizing the images we have.
I would oppose replacing Islamic images with Western ones. What is the point of that supposed to be? Especially the two specifically mentioned, which I have commented on above. Apart from other considerations this will clearly increase the "offensiveness" of the page to those who find it so. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I doubt it would change the offensiveness of the article at all. The people complaining of "offensiveness" will not be satisfied until depictions = 0. Given that will never gain consensus and therefore such individuals will never be satisfied, I do not see any point in worrying about that viewpoint. My goal is to address arguments related to value and placement of the images used. Resolute01:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
That's naive frankly. There are a lot of Muslims who don't complain now, but would complain about an image in Muhammad in hell. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I brought that up as Anthony's suggestion, and there is a point to be made that it is a legitimate historical viewpoint. That said, I have no issue with using another image (such as retaining the Russian one) if that is preferred. Resolute01:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
That was never an image up for consideration. In fact, I specifically stated the discussion was about a less-provocative image. Either way, I have struck that part, as people are getting caught up on one little piece, and ignoring the overall suggestion. Resolute02:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Semi-related question. Is the picture with veil actually a picture that was without veil and painted over? Has that happened in the past? I note that the outline seems to be of facial features and not of a veil. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN01:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
It might be. I know in Commons, there is an unveiled image that was altered to be shown defaced - with Muhammad's face painted over. Resolute01:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
That has happened to some images, but they can't usually tell unless the paints starts peeling or turns transparent, or you can see under light from behind etc. At this date veils were probably standard anyway - Gruber gives the Safavid takeover in 1502 as the rough date of the change. Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
That brings up an interesting point (I'll leave the relevance of it up to others to decide). Muhammad was probably never perceived, portrayed or viewed by his peers with a veil. Of course, the guidelines in MOS\Images does not favor either, regardless of that. Interesting... ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN00:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Resolute. I support this as a compromise proposal, and one that better reflects Islamic ways of portraying Muhammad. I agree with Johnbod about a picture of Muhammad in hell being needlessly provocative here. Incidentally, about the veil, there were also pictures where the artist painted a calligraphic symbol of Muhammad instead of a face, and then covered the symbol with a veil, as a mark of respect. --JN46616:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Agree with collapsing the box. I don't think I agree that the flame image is better for his historical biography section. Not to be funny, but the sources agree that he had a human face when he was alive. So, editorially, I would prefer image(s) with his face in his biography section. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Images showing a face were in a minority compared to veil/flame images, and images were rare overall, compared to calligraphy; we should reflect proportions accurately (roughly at least). --JN46618:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Where is this? Commons is not a meaningful sample of anything much. It is simply a matter of dating. Before about 1500, mainly face shown. After then mainly veiled, until recent times when images are rather more mixed. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I've looked at Gruber, but is it your impression that she is contradicting Safi on what's the most common type of illustration? I've seen nothing in her work to suggest that. And there are other sources saying much the same as Safi, e.g. [58]. I'm not against showing one unveiled Islamic image, as per Resolute's proposal above. --JN46622:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
When the difference is one of dating, as she demonstrates pretty clearly, it is unhelpfully vague to talk of what is most "common" without specifying a period. Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I thought it didn't matter in this context. Due weight is a question of absolute numbers rather than particular time periods. But you are of course correct on the facts of the matter. --JN46620:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I would have hoped so too. Hopefully a few more people opine in this section, as I think we would all like to move forward with this article. Resolute23:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the preceding discussion as responsive to my point. Obviously, people round the world have illustrated the human Mohammed. I still view this as a biography, generally in biography we (and most sources in biography) illustrate the person. I can see no reason not too (other than religious scruple). You say they are "rare"? In every other biography such claim would ensure that the image is included.Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
This proposal still includes some images of Muhammad in the article. The point is that in this case lots of biographies apparently don't include images of Muhammad where you'd expect them to for other figures. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Alan, the compromise Resolute, Anthonyhcole and I worked out is that one image would remain in the biography section. It would look like this, perhaps with a second image subsequently added in the European reception section. The change is not actually motivated by religious scruples, but by a desire to reflect Islamic representations of Muhammad in something approaching correct proportions. If this lessens offence to muslims, that is a welcome side effect, but it isn't actually the rationale for what's proposed. Cheers, --JN46617:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Given we currently have three actual images of Muhammad in the "life" section which show his face, wouldn't it be reasonable to still include one there. Alan makes a reasonable point and there is value in showing his face in the biography section - and I think that wouldn't be gratuitous and that most reasonable people (including hopefully most muslims) would be OK with that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
We wanted to have three images showing the main types of depiction in Persian book miniatures – flame, veiled, face. The two mi'raj images work best side by side to illustrate how conventions changed around 1500, from facial depictions to veiled depictions. --JN46618:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
And I presume the flame/veiled ones significantly outweigh the others. Damn :(. We could add another image to the European and Western reactions section - the US supreme court one could work well there. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Jayen: I am aware that it would eliminate Mohammed Kaaba (at right), (which consensus above recently confirmed should be here) in favor of NO image illustrating his early life. Since this is the only image we have illustrating his early life, the correct proportion would be to have it. We should stick with the prior consensus, above. I am also aware that it would eliminate The Revelation (at left), illustrating the very text which makes him MOST notable, again in favor of NO image. I see no pedagogical reason for that. There is one other, which no one has made a claim does not belong.
IMO The pictures you wish to remove should be individually put up for review (except for Mohammed Kabba, which recently successfully went through such review) and the basis for removal should NOT be based on some claim of "Islamic representation" - that IS an explicit religious motivation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The goal of my proposal was to organize a layout that would be acceptable to a majority of the involved editors. I think that if we can agree on this being a viable framework, we can then discuss which specific images work best, if the ones contained in this proposal are not found to be the best choices. Resolute19:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Is the basis for your framework "Islamic representation," and if so, why do we need to eliminate illustrations of his early life and his revelation? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Then, I amend my opinion, we should put them up for review in one section all at the same time, with separate support or oppose rationales requested for each. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Given we need to balance the overall article I don't think that's a good idea. The refutation of my suggestion above is overall balance and not whether individual images are acceptable. This has been a contentious issue for a long time and we are all going to need to be prepared to compromise on it if we want to get a resolution to this matter. It has been an issue for far too long already.
Resolute's excellent proposal above is the sort of thing I would expect to come out of mediation - why force us through that process, including topic bans for anyone who is uncooperative and all sorts of other nastiness if we don't have to? I was premature about suggesting mediation given this discussion, and I also probably haven't explained my position as clearly as I could have done (part of that is that I am internally torn as to exactly what my view is) but resolving this is not something that can be allowed to slide indefinitely. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Potentially, but I think what counts to the people who want a reduction in the number of images is a reduction in the total number of images, not which particular images (within reason - so the hell ones aren't included) are included in the article.
If the consensus is wide and it is based on policy and reason, it has a better chance of sticking (provisionally) on a wiki than if it is based on a narrow group of people (one who claims their proposal is based on "Islamic representation" and one who claims it is not). We can't hope to solve the dilemma for all time of correct representation of the Prophet for the outside world, we can only do what we do based on our core policy and mission, using the processes we have to gage consensus and reason. As long as we have this article, and whether it has 0 or more than X number of representations, this page will be subject to this controversy (unless the world changes), we can only hope to put it to bed for a reasonable time, if we find a way to gage the most agreement, grounded in policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Alan, we are using both Islamic and non-Islamic images. To the extent that we are using Islamic images, it doesn't make sense to focus on a rare type of image, to the detriment of showing mainstream imagery and art associated with Muhammad (for example, we still don't have a single image illustrating a Quranic inscription on a mosque, despite the fact that these are ubiquitous throughout the Islamic world, and we have hundreds of beautiful examples in Commons). Jimbo summed this up quite well, after voluminous discussions on his talk page, drawing on many sources putting these images in their wider context. Please let's just implement the consensus and get on with other things. --JN46612:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't object based on whether any image is Islamic or not. I have stated my objection based on the fact that this is his biography; I also have no objection to telling the reader that any particular image is rare, if RS says it is so (and if someone thinks that is important for the reader to know). I have also suggested a way to gage wide consensus (if you want to show there is a consensus that is different than the one already evident in the article), based on policy, in the appropriate forum, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
As a further observation, objection, or point of discussion depending on how you wish to take it. The images in the Muslim depiction section don't actually have the room to fit there (which makes sense as that section is a squib for another article) and it seems to me they are not needed here, in this article, at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want to know what the wider audience who reads Muhammad thinks to gather a consensus take down the discussion suppressing headers and start an RFC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Note: I intend to implement the above compromise proposal shortly. So far I've seen nods from 7 editors – Resolute, Anthonyhcole, Mathsci, myself, Eraserhead, Jarkeld, and RobertMfromLi, and I see only two editors (Johnbod and Alanscottwalker) opposed. --JN46601:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't do that. Most of the editors you mention are very recent arrivals here, and most of the many longstanding editors have been taking a break since the torrent of words got too much to read a few weeks ago (which with threads like today's below remains the case). I see there are 13 editors with over 100 contributions to this page, of whom only I think 5 have so far commented, with 2 against. And there's a bundle more with 50 plus. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Resolute posted the proposal, based on discussions he initiated on Anthonyhcole's and my talk page, with participation from Mathsci. Statements on this page:
"There was an agreement about the use of a limited (probably reduced) number of images between Jayen466, Anthonyhcole and me, amongst others. There has been compromise and flexibility; and in this case criteria have emerged, depending on secondary sources, for deciding when images are appropriate and where they should be placed." Mathsci (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC) (below)
"Sounds good." Jarkeld (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)"
"While I might be able to sign on to that proposal as well, I am leaning to believe it is a stopgap measure ..." ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 21:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
"I'm happy with this - if we do this we can avoid any escalation from me." -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Ludwigs2 is in support as well (I've asked him).
From Jimbo on his talk page: "To be very very specific rather than abstract, we should be careful not to allow political views held by almost all Wikipedians (in a particular language) to distract us from the demands of NPOV. So as an example, if reliable sources suggest that depictions of Muhammad are rare, we shouldn't as a "political act" shove a bunch of them in just to prove some kind of case against censorship - if we do so, then we misrepresent history. True NPOV in this area would involve finding a consensus about what reliable sources do. Depictions of Muhammad needs to have some historically relevant and important ones because that's what the article is about. Muhammad though, should not mislead the reader into thinking such images are common if they are not. This doesn't mean that the number should be zero, necessarily, just that it should reflect what is found in reliable sources." --Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC) [61]
After all the electrons that editors have fired around the world over this I don't think it's acceptable to retire into a corner and claim a consensus that seems so inconsistent with the consensus of the community. It seems clear to me that are many editors who have been participating in discussions elsewhere but who may not know that this discussion is going on. I only became aware of it a few moments ago.
For what it's worth, I think a compromise proposal is the right way to go. But it mustn't look like censorship, which I think this one does, by removing images of Mohammed where the face can be made out in thumbnail and by taking the first occurance of images even further down the page.
I think any proposal that is to be put ought to be put by way of an RfC, since there is clearly wide community interest. --FormerIP (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
If you want to do that then the discussion suppressing headers on this talk page and the Muhammad main talk page and the FAQ have to go for at least the length of the RFC. Any attempt at gaining a wider consensus without doing that is invalid as you are making it significantly harder for one side of the discussion to contribute equally.
Additionally the discussion should be listed with the appropriate WikiProjects.
If you guys want to go to that effort I don't have an issue, but I don't think its going to make a significant difference to the outcome. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with much of what Former IP wrote; I also find it untoward, Jayen, that you are claiming !votes for this proposal based on cryptic statements of what others have said elsewhere. I think there has been consensus for compromise (including from me), but several of the comments above don't clearly state support for this particular proposal, and one (Robert) is against. As for Jimbo's comment, it's not supporting this compromise, at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I think my view on this proposal can be inferred from what I've said above but
Support. This elegant solution respects the relevance provision of WP:IUP. By using figurative images as examples of Islamic depictions or Western reception (highly relevant and edifying), and not using them to "illustrate" the action of the story, comic book style, (didactically virtually valueless), we demonstrate that we are not censored while avoiding giving the impression of being pointydicks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I think trying to work through it in a more structured, policy-guided way may be less tedious. I have to say though, that I don't have a detailed plan for doing that to present. I do think that this is a significant discussion which affects Wikipedia as well as the article. I would compare it to the current discussion on the intro to WP:V, which have gone on for a long time and may go on for a while longer. Seven questionable supports for this type of decision is not a consensus.
It would be good to work towards an RfC in which mention of either religious sensitivities or WP:NOTCENSORED could be banished. I'm not sure whether than is realistic, but my sense is we will not get anywhere otherwise. Thoughts anyone? --FormerIP (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, that has been the argument all along. This is not about religious sensitivities, or censorship. What it is about is representing Islamic art—given that many of our illustrations are Islamic art—appropriately, and proportionately. Figurative images of Muhammad are rare in Islam. Those that existed, were mainly of three types: early Persian art showed Muhammad's face, while later on, Muhammad was shown as a flame, or with his face veiled. The main representations of Muhammad are through calligraphy of his words, included in practically every mosque in existence, and through calligraphic art, either of his name, or of quite detailed descriptions of his physical appearance (as in the hilye example), based on recorded accounts of his contemporaries. This also reflects the illustration style of reliable English-language sources on Muhammad. Standard images include calligraphy, mosques, muslims in prayer, etc., and then there is a division between books that feature some figurative images, and others that don't. (This is about English-language sources; mainstream Arabic sources for example would never feature [figurative] images.) Now, we can't be neutral in the sense that we both feature images of Muhammad and don't feature images of Muhammad. The best compromise we can arrive at is that we feature some images—because there is interest in them—but do not overwhelm the article with them and give due prominence to mainstream Islamic art (which is mainstream throughout the Islamic world, whether Shi'a or Sunni). Anything I just said only applies to the Islamic images we use; Western images are a different kettle of fish. That, FormerIP, was what this compromise proposal was designed to achieve, and there have been voluminous discussions, here and on Jimbo's talk page, for the past few weeks. Every one of the images that this proposal retains has an encyclopedic justification. In particular, by featuring two images of the mi'raj—one of the most popular subjects depicted by artists—side by side, we can illustrate to the reader how representations of Muhammad changed around 1500, moving from depictions of his face to veiled images. It's a good compromise, don't you think? --JN46600:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No, let's not be naive. It's about religious sensitivities (or, more correctly, editors' assumptions about what those might be) vs NOTCENSORED. Even if a claim to the contrary were justified, no other perspective has had room to breathe. What I'm suggesting is that it would be a useful exercise to put that entirely to one side and see where the rest of it takes us. --FormerIP (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I can't force you to actually research this topic area, but it might help if you read the sources I added earlier today to the Islamic depictions section. Figurative images are rare, and offensiveness should not play any role either way in how many we feature. We shouldn't feature more of them than is justified, nor less. --JN46601:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
That's one of the arguments that hasn't had room to breathe. I happen to disagree with the argument. But what I'm saying is give it some space, unencumbered, and see where it may lead and what consensus or compromise might emerge. --FormerIP (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
We've been discussing it for weeks, to death. Have you read the discussions on Jimbo's talk? Have you read the sources? --JN46601:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
You don't need to force me. What's taken place on Jimbo's talkpage and elsewhere is an argument about censorship. Even if it editors have tried to make it otherwise, it has been about nothing more than that. --FormerIP (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
So, if I understand this correctly, you have never edited this article, have never contributed to its talk page, have never contributed to this sub-talk page, have not followed any of the week-long discussions that led up to this proposal, have not read any of the sources, don't understand the subject matter, but make two reverts of a compromise proposal interested editors worked hard to arrive at here, based on some general idea of censorship? --JN46602:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I am sorry, at this point it is about you, because you have never edited this article, have never contributed to its talk pages, and are clearly not au fait with the status of discussion, yet choose to make two reverts of a compromise proposal supported and accepted by a majority of editors, without having read the talk page. --JN46602:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm totally on top of the status of the discussion, Jayen. You should respond to the points I have made, rather than coming up with reasons why I may not be entitled to make them. --FormerIP (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, then you also know that your reverts were against majority opinion here on this talk page. The only point you have made is that what we do should not "look like censorship". I am sure you are not the only editor capable of assessing that. We have three Islamic images of Muhammad, representing the three main types of images there have been. One of them clearly shows a figure with an unveiled face, and is located in the appropriate section, Islamic depictions of Muhammad. In addition we have a European image, also unveiled, and are contemplating adding another such image (probably SCOTUS, below). --JN46602:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
As I've explained above, I do not think a community-wide discussion involving countless editors overall which, though not perfectly coherent, came down with a clear consensus against removing images, can be overridden with a dubious self-declared 5-2 majority here. That's the crux of what I'm saying and it seems that other editors agree. You can ignore my suggestions for moving forward if you like. I was only trying to be helpful. --FormerIP (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate that, but you weren't. :) And I do not know which discussions you are referring to, unless you are referring to generic discussions about censorship at WT:NOT. This is not about censoring this article. The discussions on Jimbo's talk page, summarised by Jimbo himself, did look at a slew of sources specifically about this topic, and did lead to the suggestion to use mi'raj images, and the formulation of this compromise. --JN46602:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there's much of a connection between the discussion at Jimbo's and this proposal show very much relation. The overwhleming consensus there was that censoring is not a basis for changing the article. There may be other bases, which have not yet had proper discussion. My view is that the proposal, admitting defeat in the objective of removing all the images, selects the most censor-friendly, relatively speaking, for inclusion. That's not a correct reading of community consensus, which I think is to reject censorship entirely. --FormerIP (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Mathsci made the suggestion of using a night journey image at 18:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC) on Jimbo's talk. That's why we have night journey images here. The outcome of the discussion was, in Jimbo's words, and based on numerous sources looked at in the course of that discussion, "we should be careful not to allow political views held by almost all Wikipedians (in a particular language) to distract us from the demands of NPOV. So as an example, if reliable sources suggest that depictions of Muhammad are rare, we shouldn't as a "political act" shove a bunch of them in just to prove some kind of case against censorship - if we do so, then we misrepresent history. True NPOV in this area would involve finding a consensus about what reliable sources do. Depictions of Muhammad needs to have some historically relevant and important ones because that's what the article is about. Muhammad though, should not mislead the reader into thinking such images are common if they are not. This doesn't mean that the number should be zero, necessarily, just that it should reflect what is found in reliable sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)" --JN46603:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I find these claims about implied messages in the article concerning religious art to be fanciful constructs. Anyone can find implications about anything they choose to concerning hidden messages, if they ignore what is explicitly claimed: this is a man's life; these are the important things about him; these are illustrations of that life; end of article. The reader need not even concern herself with who painted what or why (and many will not). If she is curious, she can link through page after page, explaining almost everything about the art, the religion, the controversies, etc. etc. Even if enough editors agree that an unwanted implication is so apparent it should be preemptively warded oeff (a rare occurence), it is simple to do so, with a brief annotation, or a few words. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
We're not talking about implied messages. At present, we're simply overrepresenting a rare and specialist type of imagery, and underrepresenting common, mainstream types of imagery associated with Muhammad. --JN46602:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
It is clearly true that these images are rare. Sources to that effect have been provided. It is also true that Muhammad has had a tremendous influence on Islamic art and architecture, and that that has primarily been through the medium of his words, which are unquestionably the most significant and enduring aspect of his life. Again, sources to that effect have been provided. --JN46603:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Rare images of the man's life belong in his biography. As for the other things concerning writings they are represented primarily and best in writing, and architecture, to squibs on other articles about architecture. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
See Jimbo's argument above; he said it better than I could have. We have a Depictions of Muhammad article where these images are treated in full detail. The images that belong in the biography of a person are the types of imagery most commonly associated with that person in reliable sources. --JN46603:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Alan, there are many, many images of Muhammad depicted abstractly (veiled, as a flame, through calligraphic representations of his name). I don't understand why you're suggesting these full-faced images are better, given that they are a distinctly minor form. How could that position possibly conform to NPOV? --Ludwigs205:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Because we are illustrating an article about a man's life, not about art, and not about theology. Besides, the point of abstraction is not to inform about a person (unlike a biography), it is to abstract them (generally as a means to some claimed higher, or at least different, philosophical truth -- thus, by means of losing their individuality, they become a Form). As to the mechanics of the present proposal, it is not presently to replace the images in the biography sections (with the "many, many" others you claim), it is to delete them in favor of nothing in those biography sections. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
In favour of one, actually, not none. The rationale was that we have too many of them, considering their marginal status. Do you accept that these images (1) were rare, and not representative of Muhammad's artistic reception, and that (2) they were not public art, but occurred as book illustrations privately commissioned by weathy patrons, who wanted to have their manuscripts illustrated? Or would you like me to show you sources? Just so we know what's understood and what isn't. --JN46614:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
This article is not about artistic reception. The article is not about not about the economics or the publishing of manuscripts. It's not about public or private things (except to the extent that the images are in the public domain). The subjects you mention are very widely tangential, at best. It's enough to know that people wrote about Muhammad's life, and they illustrated it -- we are, too. But the case for removing these images on the basis that some are offended, or speculation that some may be misled about thing we don't say, or the arguments advanced so far that they are uninformative or irrelevant, I am unpersuaded by. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Alan, while I may have said I'd prefer to reduce the number of images to reduce offence Jayen466 has not. He is just following sources, as we do everyday elsewhere on the project. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
No, we don't "follow sources" in that way. We follow sources to get information, not to make the information more abstract and tangential, and not to editorialize that pictures don't exist, when they do. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
That isn't true. We use sources to find out what title to use for example. Other than following our sources how do we make sure we are following the non-negotiable policy WP:NPOV. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
By taking what reliable sources publish "appropriate for the content in question" and putting it in the article. These images are published in reliable sources and appropriate for the content in question. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Alan, I'm sorry, but that makes no sense on at least two dimensions:
The full-faced images are abstractions just as much as the veiled, flame-headed, and calligraphic images; remember, no one knows what Muhammad actually looked like. All the images suggest (really) is that Muhammad was a more or less 'human-shaped' human being, which isn't really something that needs to be pointed out. In fact, the full-faced images actively misinform the reader:
They lead the reader to think that these images depict what Muhammad looked like (they don't)
They lead the reader to think that images of this sort are common in Islam (they aren't)
Why should we misinform readers that way?
Granting that the Islamic philosophical reason for abstraction is that they don't want people to worship the form of Muhammad (the way that Christians are often encouraged to worship the form of Christ), your comments sound more like you are opposing Islam's philosophical position rather than trying to write an encyclopedia. You seem to be arguing that not adding a lifelike image of Muhammad reduces him to a de-individualized form, which is hardly true in the first place (I've never seen an image of you but I clearly recognize your individuality), and seems to be a philosophical attack on Islamic tenets rather than anything pertinent to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not the correct place for you to engage in philosophical combat with a major world religion.
I do see what you're getting at. You choose to criticize me, based on nothing but your unsupported guess work about implications for readers and for me, as well as factual error. None of which are true. You are wrong about me and wrong about facts. 1) I do not oppose Islamic art in any sense. 2) People physically described the living Muhammed. 3) People drew those descriptions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, he did a terrible job of it. Next time someone tells you, you're attacking religious tradition based on their misinformation and ill-consideration, over an editorial disagreement, I doubt you'll not take it as personally as it's meant. I wouldn't choose abstract art of any tradition, to primarily illustrate any biography, as I find it ill suited to the task. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
What you're getting at is misdirection. This entire shitstorm was began by you yelling about offense of Muslims, and when that didn't stick it has now morphed into "that's not how Muslims view Muhammad". We're not engaging in "philosophical combat" here; what we are doing is ensuring that "Islam's philosophical position" as you put it is not a possible or potential consideration when making editorial decision here. Their views are irrelevant. Tarc (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Per NPOV, their views count just as much as anyone else's. No more, no less. Or are you saying you want to specifically exclude Muslims and Muslim sources from Wikipedia, but are fine with Jews, Chrstians and Buddhists? If so, I'd be very interested in your reasoning, and how you square it with project principles. --JN46620:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The part beginning with "Or are you..." is simplistic baiting, and will not be responded to. As to the first, no, they do not count. This is a peculiar twisting of NPOV that you two have begun to twist, once the "they're offended!" shtick didn't win anyone over, that a neutral presentation of Muhammad in the Wikipedia somehow must acknowledge Muslim sensitivities regarding his face and overall appearance. We are free to address the fact that some Muslims do take offense to images of Muhammad; that is a recognizable and identifiable fact of history. But we (the Wikipedia) do not need to adhere to that religious belief in order to talk about it. Do you understand the difference? TALK about the concept of depictions being offensive, you don't have to actually BE deferential in order to discuss the deference in Islam. You position is utterly indefensible, it'd be like demanding we write out "G-d" instead of "God" in an article on Judaism. Tarc (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The fundamental difference is that there is no on-wiki controversy about that - there is only a single discussion I can find talking about it at Talk:Judaism and there is no FAQ on it or anything else. We are currently taking the views of Jews into account of the use of the word god and they don't appear to care, so there is literally zero reason to change it - even on grounds of offensiveness. There certainly isn't even enough controversy to even look and see what our sources do. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, you either misread or did not understand Jayen's argument. We're not talking about offense or outside protests at the moment, we're discussing NPOV. There is a contention amongst the image-deleters that since Muslims do not typically show images, or at least the face, of Muhammad that to adhere to NPOV we must follow this view when writing this article. I am trying to untangle the notion that to discuss the deference/offense, one does not actually have to be deferential. If you have a comment on that, feel free. Otherwise, what you posted above is a bit of a strawman. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
On wiki there is clearly no controversy about whether we should use g-d rather than god. If no-one has an issue with it, then there isn't a issue for any reason, whether we are considering offensiveness or NPOV or whatever. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The tangle, Tarc, stems from the fact that you're trying to advocate for an inflexible black-and-white perspective. You've been arguing that any consideration of Muslim worldview - no matter how minor or common-sensical - is tantamount to deference to Islam. This is a similar argument to that used by those radical Atheists who pop up every Christmas to say that town councils can't set up Nativity scenes, grade schools can't do Christmas plays, TV networks shouldn't spend so much time on Christmas programming, and etc. What Jayen and I have been trying to point out is that there is a line where concern about censorship stops being a positive defense of the project and starts becoming mere intolerance of difference.
You can see that difference, right? that it's a good thing to keep the Islamic worldview from dominating the project, but a bad thing to be intolerant of Muslim beliefs?--Ludwigs214:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
My argument is quite different. It's always been about sources, not Muslim sources, but the entire pool of sources. Muslim art has developed in a different direction. Its most prominent imagery associated with Muhammad is aniconic. That prominence of aniconic art quite naturally filters down to Western sources writing about Muhammad, simply because writers and researchers tend to show prominent, representative images from a culture – images that are invested with cultural meaning – when writing about a key figure of that culture. My argument has always been based on what sources – not Muslim sources, but sources of any provenance – show. It has nothing to do with deference, except deference to sources in general. --JN46615:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I certainly would accept that approach as a workable compromise. I mean, I still think we should hold out for common sense and common courtesy, but I recognize that there's more than a bit of idealism in my attitude. matching our visual tone to that of reliable sources will go a long way in that direction, and is far easier to apply. --Ludwigs216:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Common sense while sounding nice is generally unworkable as its very difficult to get people to agree what it means - especially on Wikipedia, where we have a multi-cultural project with people from different backgrounds. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, it's not primarily about multi-culturalism - I suspect there's far less cultural diversity amongst the editors participating here than we would like to think. mostly this is philosophical/emotional conflicts over where Wikipedia stands with respect to the ever-present tensions that exist between the individual and the collectivity. Wikipedia editors tend to be stark liberal-individualists who object to anything they perceive as an undesirable social constraint on their behavior, and take desperately strong stances against positions construed as repressively conservative. However, we forget that the vast majority of our readers are social moderates who have a healthy respect for a broad range of conventional mores and standards. As the foundation resolution suggests, the average reader doesn't want to be nonplussed by a wikipedia article: They want to get whatever information they after and not have their senses assaulted by things that anyone with common sense would recognize as unnecessary.
Common sense usually asserts itself naturally. However, on topics like this where bunches of people get their goats up, well… As they say, common sense is often the first thing sacrificed on the alters of the gods of certitude. --Ludwigs217:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I think an approach which says "lets follow the sources" is only going to lead to interminable discussions about which sources we should follow and why sources that depict Mohammed don't count, for whatever reason. --FormerIP (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
It's a prophecy rather than an observation. Flicking through Google books, there are sources that refer to M but don't contain a lot of images of any kind. So the first argument is about whether these tell us very much. Then there are some that do seem to have taken an editorial decision no to show pictures of M. So the second argument is about whether or not it is a breach of NOTCENSORED to take sources that censor themselves as a guide. Then there are sources which do feature images of Mohammaed. I don't yet know what the argument against relying on these is. --FormerIP (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I would have thought that books would be likely to include some images or calligraphy even if only on the front cover. If they don't include any imagery or calligraphy or anything then it may well be legitimate to exclude them.
If they are clearly censoring themselves there seems no particularly good reason to exclude them - they are one part of the source makeup along with all the others.
If the percentage not using any imagery or calligraphy at all is high you could compare and contrast the number of books without any images to books about Jesus or the Buddha without any images - as there is no stigma there.
Additionally - while it is less serious - a comparison of which sources covered the danish cartoon controversy with images of them, and which didn't is also useful - that shows how our news sources cover Muhammad. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it would be practical to go as far as counting the number of books that depict various religious figures. Imagine how many books you would have to survey.
I'm also not aware that anyone has an issue with including caligraphy or abstract representations in the article. If a lot of sources use them, that doesn't really lead anywhere except to confirm that it's appropriate for us to do that surely?
All the suggestion of surveying sources will give us is examples of one kind vs examples of another. Which should we then prefer? --FormerIP (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I would have thought we could balance the amount of calligraphy against the number of real images, and how those images are presented based on the sources. If (say) 10% of our sources use images of muhammad's face, 20% use flame images, 20% use veiled images and 50% use calligraphy then we can go with 5 pieces of calligraphy, 2 veiled images, 2 flame images and an unveiled image, or something else that's roughly in proportion.
Obviously we won't find all the sources, and its likely to some extent that our sample will be bias one way or another, but it should be a reasonable sample. Jayen466, who looks to have found a lot of sources already looks to have presented evidence pointing in both directions.
I would say that we should try and have at least one image in each of the categories, unless the percentage using such imagery is extremely low. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
It's a meaningless exercise. You get the ratio you're looking for according to the methodological choices you make (primarily what types of source you choose to survey and in what relative proportions). --FormerIP (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Not really, even if I was obsessed with pushing a POV there would be nothing stopping you finding reliable sources to add to the list which backup your ideological viewpoint. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, which is why I referred above to "interminable discussions". It would just degenerate into each of us arguing that the other was taking into account the wrong sources, which is something that would have no objective answer.--FormerIP (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
FormerIP, NOTCENSORED does not override NPOV. That is even stated in NOTCENSORED itself. If we have sources that do contain material other sources do not, we try to balance the overall pool of sources, presenting material in due proportion to its prominence. --JN46621:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
NPOV doesn't extend to giving satisfaction to religious viewpoints. But that aside, I see no problem in principle with discussing the inclusion and exclusion of different images. I just don't think this method of doing it promises any sort of solution, because it is question-begging and open to enormous variance depending on exactly how you choose to carry it out. It can give you any answer you want it to. --FormerIP (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Why on earth would that be? NPOV means we have to be neutral and its non-negotiable. It doesn't say that any particular viewpoint can be ignored. NPOV can be frustrating, but it is non-negotiable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, NPOV says we should balance all viewpoints in their proper proportion, and has no provision for excluding viewpoints of a particular type (there's nothing there that says we ignore religious viewpoints). Plus, we assume that editors are going to try to discuss things fairly; an editor can reason his way to any answer he wants in amny kind of discussion if s/he tries hard enough. We can't start from the perspective that editors are going to lie and cheat to get what they want, otherwise we'll never get anywhere. --Ludwigs223:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
FormerIP, you seem to have noticed yourself, from your comments above, that images of Muhammad are not terribly common in RS, and that many sources do without such images altogether. We needn't worry whether that is because these images are marginal phenomena of no cultural significance in Islam, whether it is to avoid offence, whether it is a combination of the two, or whether some other reason is involved. We simply note that this is so, and do not give them more prominence here than they have in sources – just like we don't make most of an article's text about something that is not a main concern of reliable sources. That's what NPOV means. --JN46601:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Jayen, we have a difference of opinion here. From my flick through Google books, I think images of Muhammad are fairly common in RS, although some RS also decline to use them. Perhaps we have not looked at the same sources.
Wikipedia routinely excludes or marginalises religious viewpoints per WP:FRINGE and WP:PRIMARY. I would think that this is uncontroversial.
I call the proposed method "question-begging" because it seems to be presented as an alternative approach to censorship. But I doubt that it can be whilst at the same time delivering the result you are after.
Wikipedia is not censored, and can be distinguished in this respect from many of the sources it is based on. There is clear consensus, with regard to this specific issue, that Wikipedia should not practice censorship. To my mind, that isn't an invitation for us to moderate our censorship, but to practice none whatsoever.
So, there is no validity to an approach that attempts to ascertain the average level of censorship in sources and then try to force that on Wikipedia as a standard to be followed. It would be a terrible mistake to think of this as an application of NPOV. NPOV attempts to ensure that our content is unbiased, not that our behaviour as editors should conform to an average standard.
It follows from this that any attempt to base the image content of an article on the image content of sources which are routinely censored goes against WP policy unless those sources which are censored are excluded from the survey. I appreciate that you guys would not be interested in such a survey. So I would suggest that the best thing would be not to carry out any survey.--FormerIP (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, how would you suggest we differentiate between due weight and censorship? Because anyone can come with any idea that has taken their fancy and claim that the only reason that idea is not as prominent in sources as it is in his own mind is due to censorship, and therefore his valuation of the idea's importance should take precedence over the weight it has in reliable sources. That way lies madness, and it's simply not how we work. When we do encounter such arguments, we call them what they are: POV pushing. --JN46602:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
No, because in this case it is completely uncontroversial to state that some sources are censored (i.e. it is nothing to do with "in his own mind"). These sources are of no relevance in determining how information in Wikipedia should be presented.--FormerIP (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Citation needed. What you don't seem to understand is that images were rare in the first place, and those that existed were made for a fairly small number of individuals, and viewed in non-public settings. They lacked wider cultural significance even in their own time. I'll leave you with what Jimbo said: "To be very very specific rather than abstract, we should be careful not to allow political views held by almost all Wikipedians (in a particular language) to distract us from the demands of NPOV. So as an example, if reliable sources suggest that depictions of Muhammad are rare, we shouldn't as a "political act" shove a bunch of them in just to prove some kind of case against censorship - if we do so, then we misrepresent history." You don't seem to have any qualms about the latter, just a lot of misplaced enthusiasm for the former, and a fatal lack of the requisite basic knowledge to tell the difference. ;) Cheers, --JN466 03:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC
Jayen466, my understanding is that a limited number of images would appear in the "Depictions of Muhammad" section, possibly from the Night Journey or the Ship of Faith. Since this is currently an active international area of scholarship, well represented in WP:RS, the issue of rarity is not applicable (any such claims make no direct reference to secondary sources and could in principle be applied to all art produced under patronage). I hope that the decision on the limited use of images, within an appropriate context, to which Resolute, Anthonyhcole, you, myself and others agreed has not been abandoned. Mathsci (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I would hope that if we have to go for the source finding approach that the data would allow that, and if we include news sources I think its extremely unlikely that such imagery will be used so infrequently that we using that imagery can't be justified, however if we do go for the source finding approach and the percentage that use such images is so small that it can't be justified (say ~1% of sources use unveiled imagery, and we want to include 20 images) then we'd unfortunately have to skip them. Explicitly looking up the sources and following the results advantage and disadvantage is that we have to follow the result. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Mathsci, I stand by that compromise proposal, for precisely the reasons you outline. I tried to implement it twice [62][63], based on majority support here on this talk page. On each occasion I was reverted by FormerIP, who had never before made a single edit to this article, or any of its talk pages. [64][65] --JN46613:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that reassurance, Jayen466. As for Eraserhead1's comments, unless a secondary source has made those statistical estimates about historical images or even phrased issues in such anachronistic terms, it is pure WP:OR for wikipedians to attempt to do so. Mathsci (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
If we're going to list a whole bunch of sources and see what they do we will be making a statistical analysis of their result - one way or another. That's not OR, far from it. If only a tiny percentage of the time they use such imagery then it would be WP:UNDUE weight to include them. If its something that is being covered by a lot of researchers I highly doubt that would be an issue. I am happy to accept that my use of '1%' wasn't necessarily sensible, but I'm not sure how else to express my point. -- Eraserhead1<talk> 18:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
If you're referring to Islamic scholarship, a statistical survey of that kind would indeed be original research. No wikipedian is in a position to make any judgements or weightings for such sources. There are many academic books and journal articles, possibly in Arabic, Farsi, French, German, Italian, Turkish, etc, which are inaccessible and impossible to evaluate. Similarly the Shahmanah project[66] cannot be assessed by wikipedians, statistically or otherwise. Content is never based on statistical surveys of this kind: one good source can be enough. Mathsci (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
How else can we look at our sources overall and see how they show images of Muhammad? Because looking at our sources overall to see what they do is exactly what we're trying to achieve here and what I'm saying. Unless you look at multiple sources and see what they do (and therefore make some level of statistical inference) I don't see how you can ever argue WP:DUE unless its blindly obvious. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
That is a flawed argument and has always been a flawed argument though. We don't need to follow "what reliable sources do" in order to use images in this article. That is not how image usage has EVER worked on this project and it is not something that is going to be blindly adopted now just because you and Ludwigs are STILL harping about "offense to Muslim". And speaking of you two, I find it rather deplorable that there is edit-warring and badgering of other users going on on their talk page. Your comments on Alanscottwalker's talk page are without merit. Tarc (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not what Ludwigs, myself, Jimbo Wales, or Jayen466 thinks with regards to this case. And going through the sources to find out what they say is exactly how the Arbitration committee intends to solve the pro-life/pro-choice naming dispute, and it has been used to great effect in other perennial naming disputes such as China/People's Republic of China and Burma/Myanmar.
Following sources may not produce the answer you most desire, but it produces a solution that everyone can accept. If you don't like the solution of going through sources, or Resolute's compromise bring something else to the table. Obviously its a bit more complex with images as we have to see how our sources balance their image use, but I fail to see how it won't produce a workable compromise in fairly short order - and hopefully without having to take the case to mediation/arbitration.
I would obviously prefer Resolute's compromise as its less work, but if that isn't acceptable this seems like the next best option. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
PS following WP:DUE and WP:NPOV which I am arguing here has nothing to do with offensiveness beyond what our sources consider, which is ultimately up to them, as it is on all matters for which we rely on sources - i.e. basically everything in the whole project. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
well, even though it's not my ideal, I think there's more than enough consensus for this compromise position that you all worked out. I'm going to edit it back in. --Ludwigs216:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
And I will revert. There is also much support for retaining at least one of the "History of the World" images and perhaps one of the Ottoman. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
That is of course your choice. but you'd best provide a good rationale for reverting a consensus decision here on this talk page, and it would probably be a good idea for you to re-read wp:tendentious editing first. --Ludwigs216:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
You don't get to declare a consensus, when things are under discussion. The proposal by Resolute was in particular prosed as open ended in several respects, asking for further discussion in several particulars, so there is no final work done here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
If you want to avoid being disruptive you either need to walk away or propose an alternative serious step forward. Given 500,000 words have been written about this its clear the status quo isn't going to be enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I am sure I did the right thing there and in the interests of the project but I did not enjoy doing it, or the controversy. What I am sure of is it's not me or the editors who have spoken that will have to be satisfied with what comes on this page, it will be the wider project. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
We certainly shouldn't be shoving images into the article to prove any point. Or removing them. But we shouldn't be looking at censored sources as a model. --FormerIP (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
FormerIP: I see no evidence that we are dealing with any 'censored' sources here. I'm afraid you're going to have to demonstrate that a source is censored rather than merely opine about it. And please keep in mind that the current system for deciding these things is broken - I mean, a four-year long dispute over these Muhammad images, with no resolution in sight? That is not an effective system. Jayen's approach may require some discussion to hash out details, but at least it's likely to have reach some sort of conclusion in short order. It's senseless to complain about the potential difficulties of a new approach when the other approach is a complete and utter mess. --Ludwigs207:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The censorship discussions have not personally interested me, mainly because I view this as whether the images produced serve our purposes in illustrating a biography, which obviously books with no pictures don't. But although it was not a biography and not I guess directly on point, I did dimly recall an episode which suggests that censorship (or extraneous concerns) plays a role in scholarly publications of images of Muhammad. The decision was by Yale University to remove all images, from a scholarly study, after expert consultation: "The book, “The Cartoons That Shook the World,” should not include the 12 Danish drawings that originally appeared in September 2005. What’s more, they [experts consulted by Yale] suggested that the Yale press also refrain from publishing any other illustrations of the prophet that were to be included, specifically, a drawing for a children’s book; an Ottoman print; and a sketch by the 19th-century artist Gustave Doré of Muhammad being tormented in Hell, an episode from Dante’s “Inferno” that has been depicted by Botticelli, Blake, Rodin and Dalí." Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New BookAlanscottwalker (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Alan: academic presses are incredibly rigid about the issue of intellectual freedom; an academic press which gets a reputation for excluding pertinent information (much less indulging in active censorship) will not be an academic press for long, and will damage the reputation for scholarship of the university that it is associated with. It doesn't happen, period. If a Tier 1 like Yale chooses not to show such images you can rest assured that there is a solid academic reason for the exclusion that has nothing to do with censorship.
Besides, if you start asserting that our most reputable scholarly sources are untrustworthy, then you might as well dispose of wp:V, wp:RS, and wp:NPOV. At that point you are basically giving up on the notion of Wikipedia as a tertiary source and turning it into a primary source based on your own understanding of 'truth'. Is that where the project is headed?
It was a huge controversy when Yale did that and they were called out for impinging upon academic freedom by the Professor's Association. They said they removed the images based on fear of violence. So, it was a problem in this particular area: images of Muhammad, not all areas. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
[citation needed] If in fact this is the case, then Yale Press stops being a reliable source for this article. so we ignore them and look at others. You cannot use one case of censorship (assuming this actually is the case) to question the reliability of all academic sources, not withiout destroying the very fabric of Wikipedai in the process. --Ludwigs217:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I severely doubt, without extraordinary levels of evidence that Yale would engage in censorship. One reliable source isn't enough - even if it is the New York Times - and that article doesn't make it clear that censorship was the reasoning for it.
If it can be shown that Yale engaged in censorship here then I agree that we shouldn't treat them as a reliable source for this article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Exercises for the interested reader: (a) Find the wikipedia article about this book and the controversy, with a whole series of sources and commentaries by Islamic experts. (b) Find other places where this particular point has been discussed on wikipedia. (c) Explain why this is now being discussed for an nth time, where n is a large and tiring number. Mathsci (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Mathsci, I am sure it has been talked about on those pages because it was a pretty (in)famous case. Since it deals with images of Muhammad it seems pertinent, here in this discussion, too.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
This doesn't help in any way. Almost all these arguments are outside wikipedia policy. Eraserhead1's claim to be representing the views of Jayen466 and other editors is incorrect. I confirmed this by asking a direct question of Jayen466 above. If Eraserhead1 can produce books which discuss the "depiction of Muhammad" (the section under discussion) without accompanying images, that might be significant. As for Yale University Press, what relevance do side issues with The Cartoons that Shook the World have here? (See also exercises (b) and (c).) Mathsci (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
In reply to "And these would be that, since these are the images that have been produced about his life in reliable sources."
There is no a-priori requirement that these be artists' imaginations of scenes of his life, or that we should not show anything else (cf. William Shakespeare, Goethe). If sources frequently show something else, so should we. Many English-language books on Muhammad (not to speak of Arabic or Indonesian ones ...) do not show any such scenes at all, preferring different imagery representative of mainstream Islamic art and architecture. Muslims have different sorts of monuments – where Westerners might build a statue, they produce representations of Muhammad's words. That's the format monuments to Muhammad take in Islamic art. --JN46605:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
(1) Well, appropriately so. Muhammad is famous for founding a word-based religion, much more profoundly word-based than any other of the major religions. Do you understand what that means, or would you like me to explain it to you? (2) Of course the article is not about monuments, but our biographies of people for whom monuments exist regularly show them. There are probably more monuments to Muhammad (word-based, not figurative ones) than any other historical person. No other person's words have been reproduced in so many public places. --JN46614:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
"more profoundly word-based than any other of the major religions"...isn't this an argument for removing all images from the article? --FormerIP (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is an argument for removing or replacing some images. The fact that Islam is a word-based religion has led to copious amounts of word-based art taking the place fulfilled by figurative art in other religions. Quranic inscriptions in and on mosques e.g. are the direct functional equivalent to Christian iconography in churches. Mosques are not decorated with images of Muhammad as churches are decorated with images of Jesus, but are decorated with Muhammad's quotes—the word of God according to Islamic belief—executed as calligraphic art. Reliable sources naturally reflect the prevailing aesthetic. They include examples of the available wealth of such art on their covers and pages. Figurative Islamic depictions of Muhammad have always been rare, and rejected by many Muslims. Many English-language sources on Muhammad don't use figurative depictions of Muhammad at all. That may be by conscious design (because they're written by Muslims and/or are at least partly targeted at a mainstream Muslim audience), or because figurative art is simply too marginal in present-day Islam to merit their attention. Instead, they show calligraphy, including masonry work or hilyeler, architectural images, or pictures of muslims at prayer, because those are the iconic images conveying what the religion Muhammad founded looks and feels like. On the other hand, a significant proportion of (mostly Western) sources do feature at least some figurative images, sometimes because they're pretty and make an appealing cover image for Western readers, and sometimes because they are discussed in the text as being of interest to art historians, or in the context of modern controversies about images. What this means is that there is clearly no NPOV mandate to exclude figurative images. They occur, for one reason or another, in a large enough number of sources. However, there is equally clearly no mandate for them to be the dominant type of Islamic illustration we should use. The role they have to play within our set of Islamic images is a secondary one. As it is at present, they are too dominant relative to mainstream Islamic images; hence the proposal. --JN46622:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
