Talk:Muhammad/Archive 14

message: "Below the fold" is a term used to describe content that appears below the main fold of a newspaper. It's considered to be less prominent. Likewise, with a Web site, "below the fold" refers to screen content that appears below the bottom of the screen, requiring the user to scroll to see the content. I apologize up front for my forthcoming illustration, but I think the point will be taken well....
Consider the Wikipedia article about "penis". At the top of the page is a non-offensive, clinical cross-section drawing of the male anatomy. Scroll down "below the fold", and you see vivid color photos of a flaccid and an erect penis. Though some might find the photos offensive, it requires the visitor to actually scroll to see the content, so they aren't presented with it immediately. Likewise, look at the Wikipedia article "vagina" and again, you see a non-offensive, clinical cross-section drawing of the female anatomy, yet "below the fold" is a full-color photo of a splayed open vagina in all its glory.
OK, again, I'm certainly NOT trying to draw any comparisons between anatomy and Muhammad, but this is intended to illustrate how a than the placement of a potentially offensive image can be handled. My proposal is to leave the stylized calligraphy at the top and move the image lower, "below the fold".194.98.134.18 21:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How about putting the picture "below the fold"?

message: If Al-Biruni was himself Persian does it not seem a bit false to be labeling this image as "Arab"? Also although the image certainly looks as though his is preaching, where's the source for that?  15:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Labeling the Al-Biruni image as "[[Arab]]"

message: This article comes off of protection and immediately returns to edit warring about images. Can we go back to protection or can the edit warring parties be sanctioned to not continue that in some way? Thanks.  16:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please return to protection. The Jyllands-Posten cartoons are not appropriate to represent Muhammad. I think this may be someone trying to make a point. --Hojimachongtalk 17:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to protection please

message: I have just been informed that using the first name is informal and unencyclopedic. For the sake of consistency, Itaqallah and I are requesting that this article should moved to Muhammad ibn Abd-Allah and that he should be referred to as Ibn Abd-Allah. Thanks. Str1977 (smile back) 23:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply "Muhammad" is by and large the most common name for the man discussed in this article. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), I think it is clear the article should stay named "Muhammad". However, it would be best to include the formal name in the opening (in the style of Bill Clinton) Thanks, --Hojimachongtalk 23:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not necessary, because the page already contains Muhammad_%28disambiguation%29. Liberal Classic 23:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and BTW, this was not a serious request. Actually, Itaqallah-who-is-to-be-obeyed doesn't request this (though it would only be logically given what he posts elsewhere). I don't request this either because it would be plain stupid. I hope a few minutes have not caused any disruption. Str1977 (smile back) 00:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, point taken. --Hojimachongtalk 00:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Str does not seem to appreciate that the general convention for formally naming people is by their last name (or, for the Arabs, their kunya and/or locality). the only exception is when the first name has been popularised, such as Muhammad, Ali, Saladin, etc. everybody else, is referred to through other means, as i described here and here. the academic sources refer to Ibn Ubayy quite frequently as "Ibn Ubayy" (and never as only "Abdallah" as far as i know), which Str is fully aware of. though i appreciate the sarcasm of this thread, please do not misrepresent my position in future, Str. thank you. ITAQALLAH 01:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I must agree with Itaqallah, this thread was quite unnecessary. --Hojimachongtalk 05:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The name is informal and unencyclopedic

message: "Though depictions of Muhammad are culturally important, no undisputed record exists of his actual appearance."
Why?  I can't imagine why anyone thought that was a good idea.  This is true for so many historical figures.  Jesus.  Buddha.  Zoroaster.  Etc. You may want to mention "such depictions are rare" or "many Muslims discourage such images", however, saying that it is not indisputably accurate is... obvious and something we would not do to any other page. gren グレン 04:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I copied the text from the Jesus page so we DO use it elsewhere. Ttiotsw 09:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think that caption uses weasel words. Liberal Classic 05:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Weasel words are when you realize something isn't definitively true so you say "some people say"--that kind of thing.  This isn't using any since it is talking in very stark truth terms.  It may be wrong, it is problematic but it's not weasel words. gren グレン 05:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Weasel words, peacock terms, I don't know what you call it, but that statement sounds important but really says nothing. Liberal Classic 05:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important.  If you think any image of Muhammad has the same 'realness' as a photograph of G. W. Bush or a painting of T. Roosevelt then you are misguided.  The point is that we don't need to explicitly state it in most articles because a person can see that an image painted in 1300+ does not have access to a man living in the 600s.  It is merely stating the obvious... not really violating either of those. In case you wanted a reason... gren グレン 05:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually not true: Hadith do describe his physical appearance, and though I suppose there must be someone who disputes them in their entirety, I've never seen it. That's not a photograph or a portrait, but it is a record.Proabivouac 08:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: With Jesus, witness actually don't tell us anything about his appearance, while Hadith, which do, at least are purported to be the faithfully transmitted words of his contemporaries. Of course, you are right that some are forgeries, and his physical beauty was likely exaggerated, but there is no reason (that I can think of) that anyone should have lied about the particular shape of his face, the length of his hair, etc., about which the various sayings are generally in agreement.Proabivouac 09:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those picture are not align with hadith. Have you seen any Islamic scholar wearing blue/red dress. It is common knowledge and many hadith support it that it is not Islamic. --- ALM 09:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "On rare occasions, he would put on costly robes presented to him by foreign emissaries in the later part of his life." The image depicts Muhammad in 631; Muhammad died in June 632.Proabivouac 10:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is original research. You cannot even prove that which one is Muhammad because he used to sit among people. --- ALM 11:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty ironic that you'd accuse me of original research, when all of your objections are exactly that. That this image is meant to depict Muhammad is verifiable fact, as is the date of the event depicted.Proabivouac 11:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to work and do not have time to continue this. However, burder on proof is on you, the one who wish to have picture and think that on rare occasions, he as well as all other people have put on costly robes and the picture present very same special occasion. I go and work. Because I have to be Al-Beruni who was a scientist but draws freaky pictures as religious scholar. You reply whatever you wish to. bye --- ALM 11:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Though depictions of Muhammad... 

message: Just to break off the image discussion, I've made a simple change from "year of sorrows" to "year of sorrow" as it is singular in its original arabic.
:Now that edit actually made sense ! Ttiotsw 18:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  simple grammer fix 

message: The phrase "Though depictions of Muhammad are culturally important, no undisputed record exists of his actual appearance." needs a citation or it is original research. This should not be too hard to find a citation too if it is commonly believed by the academic community. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 13:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: why to find citation when we do not know who had made the picture at all and when it is wrong to have the picture in the article too. Hence we will try not to have picture instead. --- ALM 13:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: See Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Drawn_by_al-Biruni.3F, I think you have missed this one. I can try to find citation but I want to focus on not having image at all. --- ALM 13:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: User:HighInBC your edit,  where you added {fact} to this was reverted but after another round of reverts the statement was removed altogether. As I was originally using the Jesus article for precedence as to what was acceptable for images of this class of poorly documented people (i.e. both Abrahamic prophets) and as the Jesus article has now lost the consensus for inclusion of that statement, I'm more than happy that the statement is removed here. It was only added to appease and the image is better without that statement. Ttiotsw 19:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Though depictions of Muhammad are culturally important... 

message: I am a Christian. Though I am not subject to Islamic law, I must respect Muslims based on what Jesus teaches in Matt 7:12, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them...." If I want a Muslim to respect me and my views, then I must respect his views. We may not agree on issues, but we can respect each others' beliefs. To me, the respectful thing to do be to not show the image on the Mohammed page, but provide a link (which is already there) to the Depictions of Mohammed page. It is then the choice of the site visitor to view or not to view the images.63.111.9.27 14:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you from Canada? 68.160.56.249 08:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I respect many people, I only obey a few. Respect and obedience are not the same thing. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This all misses the point. The image included in the article is a non-realistic non-standard conception of Mohamemd, created 500 years after his death. If it had been standard iconography, or if it had been created reasonably near his lifetime, that would be one thing. But it isn't -- and that makes it inherently unencyclopedic. The fact that in addition it's offensive to most Muslims seems almost besides the point, and ultimately irrelevant to the fact that the image selected is not appropriate for this article from an encyclopedic perspective.--Francisx 16:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why should we not show respect?

message: Please keep this page protected until you finish your discussions. Nobody can solve two issues at once (discussion re depictions and edit warring). One is already too much! -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 15:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has a 2 day protection, if the edit warring continues, it will be protected again, for longer. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please, keep it protected until we have decission regarding the mediation or arbitration etc. There is no need to unlock it. --- ALM 15:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i concur, else needless warring over this particular image will probably and unfortunately continue. ITAQALLAH 16:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: As with Mohammad, no authentic portraits of Christopher Columbus exist. Accordingly, portraits of Columbus presented in his WP bio are universally qualified as "conjectural portraits," with captions generally reading "No authentic contemporary portrait of Columbus has ever been found; this late 19th-century engraving is one of many conjectural images."
I'd hold this level of open skepticism as the bare minimum WP should do to distance itself from promoting an 11th or 15th century (not that it makes much of a difference) image of Mohammad as an actual likeness. 
But I'd go further than that. Unlike images of Mohammad, conjectural images of Columbus are historically important in the standard historiography of Columbus. On the other hand, there is no standard (or historically significant) iconography of Mohammad. Given that discrepancy, I'd argue that iconographic representations of Mohammad flunk WP:notability and should be removed.
Can we get this discussion away from politics and back to the merits of an encyclopedia?--Francisx 17:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets start by backing up our claims with citations. The claim that it is a depiction of Muhammad has a citation. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can I respond to this? As there are no even-remotely contemporaneous portraits of Mohammad, nor any standard iconography, there is no possible way to verify that the image is or is not of Mohammad. Citations should not require suspensions of disbelief.Francisx 18:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I will say it again, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.". It has been verified to be a depiction of Muhammad. Those other things you say are WP:OR unless you get a source. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Verifiability is a threshold for inclusion in WP, it is not THE threshold. Clearly, notability must be established, in addition to verifiability.--Francisx 18:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Nope, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Read WP:V. Notability is a guideline, one in dispute. Notability has been established by it's citation. I see no argument here. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If a citation was found that stated "there is no standard (or historically significant) iconography of Mohammad", then that sources opinion could be noted in the caption of the image. But since other sources do find it historically significant, such Bibliotheque nationale de France, it would not warrant the removal of the image, only the presentation of a contrary point of view. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The burden is on the article to establish notability of the image in a generic biography of Mohammad (as opposed to a survey of artistic representations through history). Accordingly, if you want the image to remain, you need to prove that the image is either accurate (impossible) or part of a historically significant standard iconography (as yet, not done).Francisx 18:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from the fact that this claim is patently false, the demands it makes are already satisfied.  So let it go.  The Is this image accurate? argument is a transparent red herring. An image of Muhammad is notable to an article about Muhammad - if you read  WP:N to mean the specific image must be notable, rather than the thing imaged must be notable to the subject, you're reading it wrong. WilyD 18:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An "image of Mohammed" is not automatically notable. If I doodled a portrait of Queen Victoria, it would not be notable to Queen Victoria, and this article needs to establish the special notability of this image, all the more so because it is anachronistic and non-standard.--Francisx 18:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't need to establish a special notability.  There's absolutely no basis for this claim whatsoever. It needs to be an image of something notable for the subject, which it is.  WilyD 18:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The image is sourced to Bibliotheque nationale de France, it's notability and contents are verified. Verifiability, not truth. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is sourced, on that you are correct. But notability has not been established. I'd argue that the vast majority of contents at the Biblioteque nationale de France are not notable, and I'd think you'd probably agree with me.--Francisx 18:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: To argue that an individual image must be notable to be included is just plain false. Wikipedians are encouraged to submit their own images to Wikipedia, they don't have to be notable first. The OR policy even mentions that images enjoy an exception to OR limitations. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the non-standard nature of the iconography, the image is non-notable to the subject of Mohammad. It is, however, notable to a hypothetical article on historical representations of Mohammad in art, or to other artistic articles. User-created images are encouraged, but that doesn't mean that the notability requirement is waived. On the contrary, images are required to clearly portray their subject, which this clearly fails to do.--Francisx 18:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This claim is patently false and self-contradictory (because it tries to acknowledge the truth while also being false).  An image of Muhammad is notable for the subject of Muhammad.  This invented criterion of "standardness" also fails the sniff test of Is this criterion used anywhere else? to which the answer is an easy no. WilyD 18:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, it is a standard criterion used on WP. A user cannot draw a picture of a historical person and have it accepted as a portrait for purposes of a biography. There is clearly the requirement that a photo must be notable (per WP:Image) to the content of the article, and a user-generated drawing doesn't cut it. This non-standard image of Mohammad flunks the notability test for this article, even as it could conceivably be notable for other articles.--Francisx 18:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason your drawing of someone based on your own guesses is unuseable is, of course, because the appearence used for the image is OR.  Here, it's not, since it's an attributable drawing.  The criticism you're trying to make is based on policies, guidelines and rational arguments that simply don't exist.  The image of Muhammad passes the "notability" test - in fact, a doodle I made of Muhammad would pass the notability test for this article - it would be rejected because it would fail WP:OR.  The image currently in use passes WP:OR, so it's not a problem.  This argument you have advanced has zero merit, you'd be best to find one that has at least half a leg to stand on. WilyD 22:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Francisx, your points have been addressed. Your argument is not in line with Wikipedia practice or policy. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability is not going to be particularly applicable in this case. There are certain concepts where notability just isn't applicable. Certain scientific principles have virtually 0 notability but you can be sure you can find many of them due to their very nature.  18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columbus v. Mohammad