Talk:Muhammad/Archive 13

message: I have moved this here from Talk:Muhammad/Mediation because it was not about mediation but more of a helpful hint. gren グレン 06:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad blockers 

message: What I think we should do about this is provide a link to the picture, but not a direct image of the prophet Muhammed on the article itself. Preferably, this image would have a warning before it since it is a touchy subject. That way we can finally settle this dispute as it is upsetting Muslims and is fueling controversy. Jerse 03:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it won't be on directly on the page--because sentiment seems to to be generally for an image--but there is precedent for warnings on Bahá'u'lláh. I would be content with have an image in the depictions of Muhammad section and doing that link... but, then again, I'd be happy for a reasonable solution of any sort. gren グレン 03:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's upsetting me too and I'm not Muslim. I think your link idea is a good one. futurebird 04:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The minor problem with Bahá'u'lláh is that it is the real photo not a depiction but the way that it is managed is very good (the image is in the article and even has a navigation link at the top to attracts hits so it is definitely not hidden away). I do not think that this would be an accepted compromise by the no-picture editors but we shall see. To quote the Bahá'ís article though, "There is no objection that the believers look at the picture of Bahá'u'lláh, but they should do so with the utmost reverence, and should also not allow that it be exposed openly to the public, even in their private homes.". Technically with PHP session IDs I would argue that images on Wikipedia are not exposed to the public compared with say an advertising billboard, or TV. Someone has to specifically seek the  article and image and it is private to your PHP session. The only way for it to not be private was if you then streamed that display in some way to many other viewers (an unlikely scenario). IMHO Wikipedia is as private as a copy of a book in a library. The ruling also only seems to apply to Bahá'ís if you read between the lines. As an atheist I have an empathy with the Bahá'ís especially given how they are persecuted by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Arab Republic of Egypt; I equally would be afforded little consideration in those countries so personally I like to follow how they are managed as I use them as proxies for my own belief system. Ttiotsw 19:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Idea

message: I am not talking about the actual depictions, but the section named Depictions of Muhammad. This has been here for a long time, without citation. The section tag shows from January, but I know this has been unsourced for much longer and that previous tags have been placed on this section.
So, I propose this section is removed per our verifiability policy, or that it get a citation, and fast. I would have done this already, but the page is protected, so I decided to get community input. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think what it says is controversial enough to remove the text but you do have a point that there are many editors posting to the talk pages here who seem adamant that there should be no depictions and yet these editors have failed to provide reliable sources to back their claims in the article itself. Usually we call that Original Research but I feel that the section should still stay and stay tagged as it is as unsourced and we should leave it as an exercise for others to find cites. Ttiotsw 19:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter what the Muslim rules are in the slightest. I think it has been established that a picture will probably be included in the article, because to Wikipedia, Muhammad is purely a historical figure. The main argument brought up now is whether or not the image used to depict him is "accurate". Using the logic of critics of image inclusion, all non-photographic images of human beings are invalid. Does this make sense at all? --Hojimachongtalkcon 21:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: All non-photographic images of human beings represent a POV and attempt to portray a person in a particular way. This is called art, which is meant to draw upon cultural understanding. Ususally, there is good resons to put this in an encyclopedia, becuae it gives us a cultural POV of the person in question. However, the understanding of Muslim culture is that Muhammad is best (visually) depicted through calligraphy of his 99 (or more) names, and not through physical depicitions.Bless sins 00:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We really shouldn't be citing SF Gate or the BBC about this.  We/I need to find at least a source from within the field. gren グレン 21:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I was just trying to help... futurebird 21:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no... something is better than nothing... I think... but, in the long term we definitely need something from academi press. gren グレン 22:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In response to your comments, Bless sins, I totally agree with your statement that art is POV. However, photographs are still inherently POV. Pictures are usually taken in a certain way to portray the subject in a certain way. For example, a picture of a celebrity on the cover of a tabloid is going to try to portray the subject in a negative light, while the same celebrity will have a professional headshot made solely to exhibit the celebrity in the most positive way possible. Most images used in Wikipedia articles to depict a person, whether paintings, lithographs, or photography, are "famous" pictures (, , and ), and are usually associated with the person by most people with any familiarity with the subject. I am open to this calligraphy idea, however; could you direct me to any verses of the Qu'ran which would shed light upon this subject for me? I am curious as to where this is coming from. --Hojimachongtalkcon 00:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the Qur'an... it's just tradition.  Over time in Islamic lands a general (not definite or all encompassing) turn towards aniconism occurred.  With that was a generally more severe aniconism towards drawing Muhammad because it could constitute shirk.  They didn't want Muslims to turn Muhammad into something like the Christians had Jesus--was the argument.  The fear of shirk and not representing God started very early... Ummayyad caliphs often got rid of public Christian symbols since most fervently the crucifix and to only a mildly lesser extent the cross in general. Yazid II, apparently started rampant aniconism not just of symbols of obvious shirk (like a cross or drawing God) but of any depicted figure.  Islam, Iconoclasm, and the Declaration of Doctrine was an interesting article about it but no specific mention of images of Muhammad. In any case, because of these trends alternate forms of representation became dominant.  It was a trend through everything.  You rarely see stand alone images they're either parts of texts or glazed onto pottery, or done in metal working, tiles, etc.  Calligraphy was important in many ways... but especially with important figures where you get stylized ways of writing their names often inside geometric designs.  The Turks have something (I've forgotten the name) where they have a highly stylized and organized representation of Muhammad and his attributes in words.  Of course, there were still groups that did have representations of him... Persians being the most notable.  But, I'm not an expert on this and am still searching to find out more. gren グレン 01:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: User:futurebird, thank you for the citations. I have placed them in the article and removed the unreferenced tags. That takes care of that. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was asking for materials discussing the use of calligraphy instead of an human depiction. I didn't word it too well. --Hojimachongtalkcon 02:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This section was to talk about the sourcing of a section of text, I am not sure why discussion of images is going on here. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with Hojimachong that even photos are POV. But there's no way we are getting a photot of the Prophet Muhammad, so that's not a potential problem. About the Quran see below.Bless sins 17:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depictions of Muhammad(the section) 

message: This article, as it stands, almost entirely consists of Muslim views of Muhammad. Yet Muhammad was a historical figure, and as such is not owned by Islam. In medieval Europe, for example, Muhammad was a figure of hate and vilification. In order to achieve balance, we should include this and give it due prominence. At present, there is just a single link right at the bottom of the article leading to Non-Islamic views of Muhammad, and one has to then trawl through that article to find a link to Christian view of Muhammad. Yet the fact is that Muhammad was a very influentual figure, and his influence was perceived by medieval Europeans to be wholly negative and destructive. In some quarters, indeed, he was regarded as a manifestation of Satan. To be fair and unbiased, we should include these facts in the main article. We can only gain the trust of our readers if we are manifestly objective, uninfluenced by any religious sensibilities. TharkunColl 12:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a history book in mind that covers this? Itsmejudith 14:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What about other views of Muhammad?

message: Listed as six, but then 3 boys' names and 4 girls' names are given.
Rimorob 02:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, he's right in that we shouldn't have an contradiction.  4+3=7, not 6... gren グレン 16:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Muhammad's children 

message: I challenge if anybody can give a fair answer to my following comment:
"Can you bring a single credible book about the pictures of Muhamamd? I can bring a couple of dozen books by 'NONMUSLIM' authors which have hundreds of pages describing his life but do NOT have picture of Muhammad. Even if you could consider your argument to be superior to me here on wikipedia, but are you superior to all those nonmuslim athors? In other words you are trying to say that those cridible muslims and nonmuslims who authored books on Muhammad, were fools enough that they forgot to include pictures? and this mumbo jumbo unknown artist is more significant than them?  
Wikipedia works on reliable sources, right? When all those scholastic authors did not give picture of Muhammad in the books while they gave the picture of Jesus in many books, Did'nt those nonmuslim and atheist authors know that there were some paintings about Muhammad available? how can you be more superior to those scholars on which wikipedia relies actually? And how can you say that only Muslims dont want the picture on article, those all scholastic nonmuslim authors also did not give any picture in their books."
Now please give answer to my points instead of looking here and there and shifting to some other post where you can have some margin to blame other person.
VirtualEye 08:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you indeed do have these books, tell us about them here. --Hojimachongtalkcon 04:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenge 

message: This is a mediation issue.  All comments have been moved to Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#My_two_cents_on_images_of_Muhammad.  Please post any further ones there as well. gren グレン 11:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My two cents on images of Muhammad

message: The picture of Muhammad or so-called His picture was painted long time ago, theres no source saying this is the picture and who can verify it wp:v, and all the ppl who paint them are all dead and probably theres no skeleton to proves their existen. I think all the picture of Muhammad s.a.w. should all be deleted because of per wp:v. and I do know that wikipedia has no sense of respect toward muslim.--60.52.87.230 01:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are the kinds of comments that start flame wars. I will take it to this editor's talk page. --Hojimachongtalkcon 01:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, try to take wikipedia policy as guide, its not about to start a tardy war, its about respect toward other.--60.52.87.230 06:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Vandals? Nah. Trolls? Maybe.  We do have ... have any other suggestions? gren グレン 05:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I overreacted. For the most part, it's been perfectly civil. --Hojimachongtalkcon 05:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who can comfirm? 

message: I recommend that we silhouette one of the images of Muhammad and use it as a link to a "real" image in another article concerning the dispute over representing him. Advantage being that disruptions by drive-by editors will be minimized and we can unlock the article. I hardly see it as censorship, inasmuch as anyone who wishes to see the image in question is a click away from doing so. 19:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, we don't vote we discuss and attempt to find consensus, secondly I highly object to a censored version of the image such as a silhouetted version, it is very unencyclopedic to bowdlerize an image. I think a text link to the image is fine. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: who can comfirm such picture is authentic? dont try to create some crap in wikipedia. even the muslim does not recognized that "picture" as authentic? why would wiki take that as His picture? or do you need the vote of 1/3 of human population?--60.52.18.34 15:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote here please on compromise for image dispute 

message: If the images of Muhammad in this article offend you, then here's how to remove them. Go to User:[Your username]/monobook.css and add this line:
body.page-Muhammad/*pbuh*/ img {display: none;}
And clear your browser cache. Voila! You've removed the images. You win the argument. No need to come back here. —Chowbok ☠ 21:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a realist, I acknowledge my sad duty of noting that this advice, well-intentioned though it is, will not keep this dispute from arising over and over again in this article.  Keeping it locked forever solves nothing and is utterly foreign to the goals of WP. BYT 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Nothing is locked forever. When the likelihood of edit warring is over, it can be unlocked. This dispute will not go on forever, it will go to arbitration and a decision will be made which we will be obliged to follow. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't predict the future. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it.--Sefringle 23:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont care, all i know that theres no such thing as the Muhammad s.a.w. picture(s). We are not like christian or jews or watever, We are Muslim.--60.52.18.34 15:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To everybody offended by the images