Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 1

message: Please show me which part of the NPOV policy justifies removing this image? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I think we should keep the discussion about this centralized. The mediation area seems as good as any, no?  00:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: see my/Merzbow's/gren's/Zora's (and whoever else's) comments on mediation. ITAQALLAH 00:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The mediation hasn't reached consensus yet.--Sefringle 00:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "To act upon what is still contested in mediation is pointless" - so why do it?.Proabivouac 00:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the previous consensus demonstrates the lack of a lead image. as the current dispute involves debate over the lead itself, it is prudent to save everyone the hassle by insisting on its immediate insertion, despite being fully aware that its insertion is controversial, and despite being fully aware that policy violations are being argued by the opposition, irrespective of whether you think it possesses validity. in instances like this, it is inclusion which requires consensus. in the absense of it, we refer back to the previous consensus version. and that was sans lead image. ITAQALLAH 18:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding NPOV concerns, don't worry, neither the image, nor the caption, makes any claims that showing a depiction is mainstream. It simply says it is a depiction, a fact which is supported by citation. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NPOV]]

message: It is good that editors are focusing the image editing here.  00:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like this is going to be a revert war for a while.--Sefringle 00:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good

message: Rather than blanking this transclusion would folks kindly replace it with an alternate image? Everyone agrees that the article needs a lead image.  00:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or how about justifying the removal of the image using arguments based on policy, that would be nice too. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give you that. Hehe.   00:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Having done such numerous times already High, despite your constant claims to the contrary, what's the point? Why should I present arguments to somebody who will willfully continue to claim that I'm not doing so? I hope you'll excuse for me being testy, but I've lost count how many time you have claimed we (as in me, gren, Zora, and others) have not presented a policy-based argument. If I do so yet again, will you promise to stop making that claim? - Merzbow 01:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I certainly think you have an interesting interpretation of policy, but not one that consensus seems to hold. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding your undue weight concerns. If the caption said "Showing depictions is normal, and mainstream" then I would agree. But it does not say that, it simply says it is a depiction, which it's citation supports. What is more, below in the article it says that many hold a prohibition on such images. I don't see the undue weight issue. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)I responded to your query, and you responded by removing the image again. Please explain how this image is unacceptable with policy based arguments. Wikipedia is not censored for your religious tastes. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rather than blanking

message: ::From WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, a policy: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". The emphasis is mine; notice there is no qualifier that states this applies to text only. - Merzbow 01:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the point of view that images should not be made or view is discussed in the article. The image does not make the claim it is mainstream. The only claim is that it is a depiction, something that is covered by a reliable source. So what exactly is being claimed with undue weight to it's citation? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, Merzbow's not editing the way he is due to his religious tastes.  01:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, fine, accepted, I cannot know the motives of another. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a section Muhammad#Depictions_of_Muhammad and a whole article Depictions_of_Muhammad discussing the prohibition and history of depictions. The images caption makes no claim that this prohibition does not exist, or lend any strength towards or against the argument. The only claim being made by the image is that it is a depiction of Muhammad, something that has been verified through citation. I see no undue weight concerns. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HighInBC, can I request that you not classify my edits as reverts when they aren't (see  then )? As Netscott suggested above, that's a new image that I uploaded, NOT a revert. - Merzbow 03:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course the image is representing a viewpoint - the viewpoint that pictorial images of Muhammad are important relative to other pictures that can be chosen. If you have 3 pictorials and 2 calligraphics, the viewpoint being presented is that the pictorials are of greater importance to the subject than the calligraphics, which is historically false. This is clearly seen via a thought experiment - let's say I go to the Bill Clinton article and replace all but one image with images of Bill Clinton during his Monica Lewinsky on-air apology. Do you seriously think I wouldn't be granting undue weight to this aspect of the subject? - Merzbow 03:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You can't just say "the image has a viewpoint" unless you have a citation to a reliable source the interprets it as such. Otherwise it is opinion and OR. What is more, as I already explained, the viewpoint that pictorials are forbidden is already covered in the text, the viewpoint is not being ignored. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're saying I need to provide a citation for the trivially obvious fact that an image of Muhammad gives editorial weight to the tradition of depicting Muhammad with images? Can you address my Bill Clinton thought experiment above, which shows quite clearly that the choice of images in an article expresses an implicit editorial viewpoint about what aspects of the subject are more and less important. In the same way, let's say I merged the entire Criticism of Muhammad article back into Muhammad. Editors will certainly object on the ground that having 75% of the article be about criticism gives that subject undue weight. Can I then demand that they produce a citation for this opinion? No. In the same way, I don't need to provide a citation for the opinion that having more pictorial images than calligraphic images gives undue weight to the pictorial tradition. - Merzbow 07:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As for me calling it a revert, it had the same net effect of removing the image, which is what you are trying to do, so I called it a revert. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, no, it was not a revert, a revert is by definition a reversion back to an earlier version, which this wasn't. It was a compromise attempt at a new image. - Merzbow 07:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Merzbow, if among the available pool of images, we only selected those depicting Isra and Mi'raj (for example), that would be undue weight for the same reasons as your Clinton/Lewinsky example. The same would be true if we deliberately chose only Persian images or only veiled ones where others were available. However, it is unreasonable to suppose that all the times Muhammad could have been depicted but wasn't ought be "represented" by removing other depictions; otherwise most biographies would have no depictions at all. Similarly with text - if most academics say nothing about Muhammad (or any other subject), does presenting only the opinions of those that do likewise give them undue weight? If a common interpretion of Islam forbade mentioning Muhammad, or discussing him in public, would we be obliged to shorten the article to "represent" this? The only logical solution to this dilemma is that characterizations which are never made don't count.Proabivouac 06:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is quite simple; the calligraphic tradition is the tradition that is being under-represented in comparison to the pictorial tradition. - Merzbow 07:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The obvious solution thus would be to include more examples of calligraphy rather than to remove images. Beit Or 10:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The tradition of calligraphy has been covered plenty, you ask "why should we have a depiction?". The answer is because there are historical occurrence of such depictions and they are directly on topic. Many histories covered this man, not just the Muslim. By leaving it out we are leaving out part of history. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the depictions are Muslim.  I don't think anyone is really denying that Muslim imagery of him is the most important.  This is why Baphomet and the Supreme Court statues were rejected.  I am not sure why you agree that it has been covered plenty, or why if it is the most important tradition it should not have the lead.  Unless you want to argue that it's not as real of a depiction as a drawing of the body... in which case I seriously think you'd come into conflict with scholars of Islamic art. Note, this is just an argument about the lead. gren グレン 16:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really doubt that is the main reason why Baphomet was rejected.Proabivouac 17:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I was not arguing that it should be the lead image, only against it's removal. I believe somewhere along the way there was a failure in communications in this matter. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight concerns

message: Le Prophète Mahomet is something easy enough to translate.  It obviously did not come from a 14th century Arabic works.  It is a French label because the Museum is French.  It does not help to add it as a part of sourcing but only adds a phrase of a foreign language needlessly into an English encyclopedia.  The Arabic manuscript is important.  I hope this won't be contentious... gren グレン 16:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not agree more, no point in having French in the caption. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  French 

message: From following the mediation can we agree to have the lead image be :Image:Aziz_efendi-muhammad_alayhi_s-salam.jpg ?  18:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not be removing images based on fashion choices. I agree the lead image can be calligraphy. But the existing picture is valid and does not need to be removed. It can be placed below it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it will be placed just below it then there is no use of anything. There is no use to just move it 500px down. That will change nothing and a big joke with all of us. -- ALM 18:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Your concern was undue weight, you wanted calligraphy at the top. You are getting that. Why are you still upset? Why can't this image be near the top? Why does putting the depiction below the calligraphy make this of no use? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *the focus of this dispute (and indeed the mediation) is regarding the presence of multiple depictions in the whole article and what distribution is appropriate. proposing a solution for the lead provides none for the rest of the article. ITAQALLAH 18:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We already know that none of the images are photo accurate. If you think the image is mis-representative, find a citation, and we can add that information to the caption. The only claim being made is that it is a depiction of Muhammad from a manuscript, all of which has been verified. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm looking at :de:Mohammed and noticing that Muhammad is dressed in green there. Would that be a better image?  18:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally myself I'm fine with just one image of Muhammad. The position is the sticking point. Still my prior question still stands.... is green a better color?  18:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you have such an image. They all seem to have him in a colored robes, blue, green, or brown. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think two images are more than enough. Hence remove the first image and we are fine. Please end it here. I have tried my best to compromise please you compromise a little bit too and end this. Lets work on improving the article and end the hostility. --- ALM 19:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What would we gain by that? I think the image situation is just fine as it is. We have addressed the concerns that are based in policy, what reason is there to remove that image? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ignore the citation, and take your word even though you have no citation? I cannot do that. If the image is faulty then there should be a reliable source saying so. What policy based argument do you have not to have it as a lead image? I know it offends you, but you know that is not a reason. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Just because you choose a position that is hard to back up with a citation, does not excuse you from the requirement of finding a citation. You are taking one source, the image, and another source, books which describe Muhammad, and you are synthesizing them into new information to advance a position. That is a type of original research. Your position that the image is misleading is not verified. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My personal involvement has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I will answer your question though, no, the only experience I have had with Muslim's has been this whole debate. That is not relevant though, my affiliations outside of Wikipedia should not effect the way I act on Wikipedia. I also choose not to let my experience on Wikipedia effect my impression of Muslims. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for answering that personal question. I think I tolerate non-Muslim much better than someone who has  not any non-Muslim friend because I know many of them in my real life. Unlike some Pakistanis who only know them from media. I do not judge them, someway other Muslims do and cannot be against them as a group. Btw I am not saying that you have above wrong things. Not at all but I think it always helps a lot.  --- ALM 20:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It is a difficult issue, and I am going to take a break from it today. Perhaps time to think will refresh my perspective. I will see you tomorrow, peace. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead image

message: It seems to me there ought to be a depiction there. What might be a good choice? Tom Harrison Talk 18:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that that Kabaa image was strategically aligned there, no?  18:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see it. Mine aligns with the section just above depictions. Don't worry about it, I have an odd display size and resolution, so it may render differently for others. Tom Harrison Talk 19:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yacky? What does that even mean? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration for the section ''Depictions of Muhammad'' 

message: Currently the calligraphy is really big. I think making is slightly smaller would be appropiate.--Sefringle 23:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I increased it's size to match the image below it for better visual flow. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's going to be a change of size I would recommend that both images be at least the same width at this point.  23:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem I saw with the origional size is that it just seemed way too big. Is the current version accptable?--Sefringle 23:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image of Muhammad there is already controversial. At this point I'd just as soon not have the lead area showing an image of Muhammad. Based upon a similar logic shared by User:ALM scientist, I explained an equivalent logic thusly: If on the lead of the article about Senegal there was an image of a caucasian person, a reader not familiar with Senegal would have the distinct impression that Senegal was a country likely to have a heavy population of caucasian folks. This is obviously very much not the case. Well this same logic can be applied here. Having an image of Muhammad in the lead can lead a casual reader to have the impression that images of Muhammad are representative of Islam and possibly even common. We know this couldn't be further from the truth... so in that sense it is logical to not have an image of Muhammad in the lead at all.  00:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: e/c, I suppose if Charles Degaulle can kiss Arturo Umberto Illia in a certain fashion I could accept a similiarly natured gesture. :-)  00:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Netscott, that analogy would be perfectly appropriate were the article entitled Islamic representation of Muhammad, Contemporary Muslim views of Muhamamad, or, for that matter, Islam. In a biography of a historical figure, it doesn't have that implication at all.Proabivouac 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Then consider your self an kissed on the cheek. :) --- ALM 00:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)I think that is carrying the undue weight argument a little far. Since the article is not about Islam's view of Muhammad any user would be foolish to assume the layout of the images is representative of Islam. Remember this is about Muhammad the historical figure, not just Muhammad the religious figure. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm not saying have no images... and honestly I personally like lead images... but obviously I am willing to accept this type of logic and based upon it I don't see much harm in the lead not having an image of Muhammad.  00:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I included that stipulation as part of my proposal, but none of the aniconists bothered even to respond to it. Keeping something out of the lead might not be censorship (?), but setting a maximum of three or stipulating that they all be veiled (this from those who also argue after the accuracy of his clothing!) certainly is. I see no reason to compromise on the lead if it is not part of a broader non-censored solution.Proabivouac 00:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proabivouac, forgive me for saying so but when you blankly describe fellow editors as "aniconists" it comes across as a bit uncivil. I wasn't presenting my view as a potential compromise but moreso just what seemed logical. In as much as there is a consensus about such things I agree with you that there should be no limits to the number of images (or really position of them even) but there's that word, consensus. Let us ask ourselves what can we do to get beyond this and have this ongoing disquieting vibe put to rest?  00:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware that aniconist had a pejorative connotation, and apologize if it caused distress; I'd intended it as a neutral and non-loaded description of what I'd understood to be their position.Proabivouac 00:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the term "aniconists" isn't pejorative per-se just the blanket labeling with it. It'd be a bit like calling editors "Muhammad insulters" who are pushing for images of Muhammad to be included in the article. I try to do my best to remember we're all people who are editors in good standing and avoid similarly natured labeling. Again, what can we do to get beyond this disquieting vibe?  01:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Counting books and making a tally is really a form of original research. What is needed is a reliable source saying directly what you are trying to prove. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Most books make no mention of Muhammad at all; therefore the existence of this article constitutes undue weight.Proabivouac 00:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: ALM, HighInBC's right... you're talking about original research. Best to find citeable reliable sources to say what you're saying.  00:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will also try to find reference for this strange thing that Muhammad picture are rare. But now presenting 30 something very first books search on amazon using keyword Muhammad, without changing any reality. --- ALM 00:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Calligraphy size

message: It is a fair Survey from this search. No book name is omitted and all books search are presented in original sequence. You are welcome to verify the results. 
#Karen Armstrong, “Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time”   (not showing Muslims praying).
#Robert Spencer , “The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion”,  .  (Only title on the cover).
#Karen Armstrong, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet,   Calligraphy.
#Martin Lings, “Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources”  Calligraphy
#Muhammad Asad, “The Message of The Qur'an”,  Calligraphy
#I. Ishaq (Author), A. Guillaume (Translator), “The Life of Muhammad”  (Text and sun picture)
#Carl W. Ernst, “Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World (Islamic Civilization and Muslim Networks)”,  (Painting of some old city)
#Mark A., Ph.D. Gabriel, Jesus and Muhammad: Profound Differences and Surprising Similarities, , Picture of a mosque
#W. Montgomery Watt  “Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman”   (picture of old building)
#Daniel Peterson, “Muhammad, Prophet of God” , (Mosque picture)
#Irving Zeitlin , The Historical Muhammad , Potrait with face shown.
#Imam Birgivi (Author), Shaykh Tosun Bayrak (Author), Vincent Cornell, The Path of Muhammad: A Book on Islamic Morals & Ethics by #Imam Birgivi , Potrait with face shown.
#Abbas Sadeghian, Sword and Seizure: Muhammad's Epilepsy & Creation of Islam . (Some Persian or Arabic text).
#Sayyid Muhammad Syeed (Foreword), Joey Green (Editor), Kenneth Atkinson , “Jesus and Muhammad: The Parallel Sayings” .  Star and moon shown.
#Barnaby Rogerson, The Heirs of Muhammad  a portrait is shown
#H. M. Balyuzi, Muhammad and the Course of Islam,  Mosque shown
#Bernard Lewis , Islam: From the Prophet Muhammad to the Capture of Constantinople Volume 2: Religion and Society  Portrait shown 
#Yahiya Emerick (Author), Yahiya J. Emerick (Author) , Muhammad (Critical Lives)  Mosque shown.
#Timothy George, Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad?[ http://www.amazon.com/Father-Jesus-God-Muhammad/dp/0310247489/sr=1-37/qid=1172536391/ref=sr_1_37/103-5928378-4703840?ie=UTF8&s=books] (some calligraphy but not written Muhammad)
#Annemarie Schimmel, Muhammad Is His Messenger: The Veneration of the Prophet in Islamic Piety  Calligraphy shown.
#Barnaby Rogerson , The Prophet Muhammad  Calligraphy
#Adil Salahi , Muhammad: Man and Prophet : A Complete Study of the Life of the Prophet of Islam  Caligraphy
#Hajjah Amina Adil (Author), Shaykh Nazim Adil Al-Haqqani (Author), Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani , Muhammad: The Messenger of Islam,  Quran shown
#Faizul R. Khan, Prophet Muhammad: History and Character of His Life Caligraphy
#Eliot Weinberger, Muhammad, Some text + design
#Martin Forward, “Muhammad : A Short Biography” Temple mount show (mosque)
#Jaroslav Stetkevych, Muhammad and the Golden Bough: Reconstructing Arabian Myth,Camelshown. 
#Maxime Rodinson, Muhammad (Paperback)  Calligraphy
#Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad,image not available at amazon.
#Maulana Muhammad Ali, Muhammad the Prophet, Shahadat Calligraphy.
#Kenneth Cragg, Muhammad and the Christianstart and moon and crescent sign shown.
#Maulana Muhammad Ali, The Living Thoughts of the Prophet Muhammad,BismillAllah in calligraphy.
#Betty Kelen, Muhammad: The Messenger of God,Caligraphy of Sahadah
#A. H Vidyarthi, Muhammad in world scriptures,No image available on amazon.
#Dr. David Bukay , “Muhammad's Monsters: A Comprehensive Guide to Radical Islam for Western Audiences”Monster Muslim shown (not Muhammad).
#Seyyed Hossein Nasr, “Muhammad: Man of God”Calligraphy
#A. Jeffrey , Islam Muhammad and His ReligionNo image available on amazon
#Wilferd Madelung, Succession to Muhammad,Caligraphy.
#Subhash C. Inamdar, Muhammad and the Rise of Islam: The Creation of Group IdentityText and a picture similar to half moon.
#M. Fethullah Gulen, The Messenger of God: MuhammadSome people from distance shown. Muhammad not shown
#Maulana Muhammad Ali, Muhammad and Christ Calligraphy of BismillAllah.
#GlubbfJohn, “The Life and Times of Muhammad”,Portrait shown.
#Leila Azzam , Aisha Gouverneur Mary Hampson Minifie, The Life of the Prophet MuhammadMosque shown
#Abdu I. Ahad Dawud , Muhammad in the Bibleimage not available on Amazon. 
#Harald Motzki, The Biography of Muhammad: The Issue of the Sources,Text shown.
#Frederick S. Colby, The Subtleties of the Ascension: Lata'if al-Miraj: Early Mystical Sayings on Muhammad's Heavenly JourneyA design shown.
#Marmaduke William Pickthall , The Life of the Prophet Muhammad: A Brief Historya Mosque shown
#Bint, Al-Shati  “The Wives of Prophet Muhammad”a design or may be calligraphy shown.
#Mustafa Zayed, “Muhammad Said”hills shown
:ALM, again we're talking original research here. Please bring some citeable sources to the table. Thanks.  01:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already told you this is all original research, it is means nothing. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It shows nothing because the source is you, not a reliable source. You are doing your own research and using it for Wikipedia, that is exactly what WP:NOR forbids. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  HighInBC please read what I have written above. See  the following section. One below it and read above text please. --- ALM 02:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results of a Survey 

message: "Islamic tradition or Hadith, the stories of the words and actions of Muhammad and his Companions, explicitly prohibits images of Allah, Muhammad and all the major prophets of the Christian and Jewish traditions. More widely, Islamic tradition has discouraged the figurative depiction of living creatures, especially human beings. Islamic art has therefore tended to be abstract or decorative. Shia Islamic tradition is far less strict on this ban. Reproductions of images of the Prophet, mainly produced in the 7th Century in Persian, can be found." BBC Q&A: Depicting the Prophet Muhammad
"Muslims respect free speech rights, Syeed said. But "in a democratic environment, living in a pluralistic society, people should know they have to respect the sensitivity of Muslims on this issue. It does not muzzle their freedom of speech in rejecting Muhammad as the prophet." NewsMax.com Wires
:Well the NewsMax quote is taken from the context of a "deliberate attempt to provoke and test", so that seems a bit off topic. The other one seems to dance on both sides of the fence starting with "There is no specific, or explicit ban int he Koran on images of Allah or the Prophet Muhammad - be they carved, painted or drawn." then going on to talk about the bomb in the turban cartoon. These references seem to be about deliberate attempts to provoke, as opposed to a simple historical account. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  First reference is true. It is true that Quran does not permit or disallow it. However, hadiths and traditions are against it. I am going to use it in the depiction of Muhammad introdution too. It is un-source right now. --- ALM 02:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think these citations fall considerably short of your position that visual representation is so uncommon that an upfront presentation of them constitutes undue weight. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Citation cleary says that Muslim tradition are against it and they are mostly allowed in some time period. --- ALM 02:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we aren't discussing Hadith, we are discussing a secular policy. I've read through this stuff for almost an hour, and all I see is you arguing that by showing Mohammed at all, we somehow violate WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to the practice of showing images at all, which is a basic concept of Wikipedia, that of using well sourced and appropraite illustrations. I see nothing here which has yet to state : The use of an image of Muhammed on this page would be bad because :Reason based in Wikipolicy, reason based in WIkipolicy two, and Reason based in WIkipolicy three. Can you provide that? ThuranX 02:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi sir, I wish to have a Jew friend. Firstly please be my friend and then we discuss about it later. Can I be your friend please?     I have many christian friend but no jew friend. :) --- ALM 02:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I"m going to WP:AGF, and politely correct you. We are 'Jews' as a group, but a person is described, the adjective, that is, is 'Jewish'. Roughly, an analogue would be for me to call you an 'Islam', instead of a 'Muslim'.  that said, I'd like for you to elucidate on the wikipolicies you feel an image of Muhammed would violate, and why. Thank you.ThuranX 06:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wish to learn about Jews history and feeling from some Jewish person directly. I feel many Jewish people have hard feeling towards Muslim and Muslim towards them. I wish to know those things directly. I will be thankful if you agree to be an email friend. Please continue excusing me from those mistakes which are really indeed mistakes. :). My email address is aliflammeem786@googlemail.com and I will be very happy if you contact me. --- ALM 06:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It took me awhile to get this point but it is all political, ALM. --Aminz 00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I definitely don't agree on that point, but that doesn't mean we can't cooperate in bringing notable calligraphic representation of his name onto the article.Proabivouac 06:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can compromise on having a pictorial in the lead below a calligraphic, like now, if there are at least as many calligraphics in the article as pictorials, and only if the caption of one of the lead images makes it clear that calligraphy and arabesque were the dominant forms of Islamic art, which is what the Esposito quote I reproduced in Mediation talk says, exactly. - Merzbow 07:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for anyone else, but this is quite acceptable to me in principle. See my proposal. The caption idea sounds reasonable, and can be added to the current proposal. My dilemma was figuring out what  could be offered editors who dislike depictions without acceding to censorship. Like the inclusion of more calligraphic images, such a message is information, not censorship. I only qualify "in principle" because we haven't yet procured many usable, topical and noteworthy images of calligraphy, but I trust that we will solve this problem, and you can be assured of my commitment to this goal.Proabivouac 09:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you would be fine with the lead pictorial being veiled as well? - Merzbow 09:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the lead image is fine, why replace it with a veiled one? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we're compromising and Pro has agreed at least in his earlier proposal linked above. - Merzbow 23:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not certain that I should prefer a veiled image in the lead to none at all. At this point, I am more interested in the gaining acceptance of the general principles that first, a number of depictions will be in the article, probably comparable to the number found on German and Spanish articles (which is indeed moderate in number relative to articles for religious figures of comparable significance), and that religious beliefs do not constitute a valid reason to remove them (or anything else on Wikipedia,) or to prefer "veiled" depictions, and second that the way to solve whatever undue dearth there may be of images of calligraphy should be solved by sourcing and adding them,not by removing depictions. The debate over which of many worthy images should be in the lead I find relatively unimportant, though again I only speak for myself.Proabivouac 23:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have read the mediation, and have not seem any consensus to this sort of compromise. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now Research with referernces 

message: Rather than crossposting, I direct you to Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#The calligraphy myth?Proabivouac 02:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The calligraphy myth?

message: With the lead images, instead of having three image boxes, can we put them into a single template, maybe with just one caption?--Sefringle 01:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sefringle, perhaps you could formulate what you are thinking of in your userspace as a demonstration? Say something like: User:Sefringle/Muhammad lead?  02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: intro section

message: Tucking this here for now due to the work that has gone into this caption, etc.  16:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in the lead. Hence no need to have it here again. Furthermore same caption can be used for any other image. --- ALM 16:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine.  16:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maome image

message: Please reply at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#May_be_the_last_voting so that we can move forward from this step. Thanks. --- ALM 20:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation failed? 

message: The syntax governing this is arcane and un-wikilike. There are currently four calligraphic images and only three depictions, :Image:Maome.jpg has been censored from the article on religious grounds contra policy, and we should be able to correct this without having to navigate this arbitrary minefield.Proabivouac 10:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV#Undue_weight is also a policy but Alas!. Netscott and Merzbow have remove it and Tom harrison has reverted to their change. This is a News that they are now Muslims. --- ALM 10:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must agree with Pro. ALM, I don't understand what you are saying. Str1977 (smile back) 10:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evreything little thing I try to do causes some bizarre display problem. The only well-supported move is blanking, which as we've seen is a simple matter.Proabivouac 10:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transclusion bugs

message: It looks like at the moment, we have two different visual depictions in the lead.  To me, this is sorta going the other direction and over-compensating.  I know that's hard to keep track of what's what, so I keep going back to looking at how we've covered analogous subject: Jesus, Gautama Buddha, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Abraham, Zoroaster-- all have one main visual depiction, not two.
If adding a second is a compromise that makes everybody happier like adding the single caligraphy image, then that's fine then. But if it's just hitting people over the head with the fact that we're not going to censor, I'd say let's move the veiled kabba image down in the article.  --Alecmconroy 12:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is the transclusion. I tried to put Maome in the overview, but it wouldn't display correctly.Proabivouac 13:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Transclusion has no problem and it is very easy to work with. --- ALM 13:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two visual depictions in lead

message: #  20:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Blocked vandal, obvious sockpuppet or meatpuppet of User:130.113.111.214, see,. ,,.Proabivouac 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'd just as soon discount all mysterious IP contributors showing up here now that haven't been a part of this whole discussion.  05:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to say it, but these are probable anonpuppets of Bless sins, for reasons I cannot disclose in wiki space, but which you may easily retrace on your own. I suppose it's no surprise that people behave differently with anon or throwaway accounts, but I'd have expected more, and am disappointed.Proabivouac 10:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "anonpuppets" ? Is that a new word that you just made up.. ? And btw, you are wrong :D216.99.52.133 00:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Answer: This is a slightly different version as spelled out in the heading of this straw poll.  04:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't look "slightly different" to me at all. I suppose it does not, in fact, set an upper limit of three depictions, any more than it sets an upper limit of one calligraphic image. However, it mandates that two of the three images mentioned be placed very near the bottom of the article for no encyclopedic reason at all.Proabivouac 04:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See-- therein lies the issue.  I think it was meant to represent a new proposeal that would impose some additional limitations on how the images could be used, but reading over the wording, it's not clear how it differs from current version which I do support. --Alecmconroy 04:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support this solution

message: #Any amount of images that adds to the readers understanding of the articles subject should be included. What conservative Islam believes is acceptable and not acceptable to include in our encyclopedia is entirely irrelevant. -- Karl Meier 20:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: See, the whole concern about undue weight is a concern to prevent readers from becoming misinformed about a subject.  If we eliminated the possibility of reader being misinformed about islamic artistic tradition, but you still object to the images on top of that, then obviously, there's more going on than just undue weight.  I feel like the dialogue that's happened through this mediation is sorta like this.  Incidentally, Itaqallah, I'm not singly you out here-- i'm just sort of clobbering together all the conversation into one meta-character.  Without further ado, I present my subjective experience.  I image Abbott and Costello playing the two roles, with roars of cannned laughter at all the appropriate points:
:Deletionist: Hi.  Um, these images really offend me.  You should delete the images.
:Inclusionist: I'm sorry.  I'm not trying to offend you, I just wanted to write a good article, and your personal religious beliefs aren't justification for deleting images.  
:
:Deletionist: Well, these images really offend Muslims everywhere, and they'd be illegal in lots of countries. You should delete the images.
:Inclusionist: I'm sorry.  I'm not trying to offend Muslims, but Wikipedia is not censored.  It's a policy-- I can't delete them.
:
:Deletionist: Alright, fine. But I'm concerned people aren't going to know about the caligraphy which is more traditional. You should delete the images.
:Inclusionist:I'm sorry.  I wasn't trying to not let people know about caligraphy-- I want people to know about islamic art.  Let's add a bunch of caligraphy so people will learn about that part of tradition.
:
:Deletionist:Alright, fine.  But I'm concerned people are still going think that Muhammad is usually shown unveiled in islamic art. So, you should delete the images.  
:Inclusionist: I'm sorry.  I wasn't trying to not tell people about the use of the veil-- I really do want people to know about islamic art.  Let's add a veiled image and talk about how islamic art used veils sometimes.    
: 
:Deletionist: Alright, fine. But I'm concerned people are still going get the wrong idea about islamic art. You should delete the images.  
:Inclusionist: <frustrated sigh> I'm sorry. Let's make a whole section about islamic depictions of Muhammad and have a whole separate page just to talk about it.  
:
:Deletionist: Alright fine.  But I'm concerned that people might see the images without reading that section, so you should delete the images.
:Inclusionist: <aggrevated>  Okay!  How about THIS.  What if we put a GIANT sign next to EVERY single image with flashing neon letters that say 'Warning:  Islamic Art doesn't usually use images of Muhammad, they usually use caligraphy'.  And every time we show you an image, we show you that GIANT sign, so that there is absolutely NO way, whatsoever, that anyone could POSSIBLY get the wrong idea about islamic art.
:
:Deletionist: No.  I'm concerned people might find that confusing.  You should just delete the images.
:Inclusionist: Look, I can't delete the images.  They're useful and helpful to the readers and Wikipedia isn't censored.   I'm truly not trying to misrepresent islamic art, I'll do anything you want to help people get the right idea about islamic art.  Now is there anything you can think of that would resolve your concerns?
:Deletionist:  Yes.
:Inclusionist: <hopeful> Good!  I really, truly, sincerely don't want anyone to be misinformed about islamic art. Now what can we do to teach people about Islamic art?
:Deletionist:  You can delete the images.
:Inclusionist: <comical dispair> Oh, good grief! 
You get the idea.  At some point, I get the suspicion that we could play whack-a-mole with potential 'misunderstandings about art' all day, and people will keep coming up with new reasons why including images, under any circumstances, is a bad idea.  --Alecmconroy 02:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but look how much the article improved in the process. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True that.  It's definitely a worthwhile use of time-- that sort of debate makes for better articles.  And I should say-- for me it hasn't actually been an exasperating or upsetting experience in any way--  you just have to make your straight man get exasperated, it's a comedy rule. :)  --Alecmconroy 02:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I actually find it rather calming if I take it in small doses. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the humour is very much appreciated. i would want to reiterate, however, is that readers getting the wrong impression is not the main concern. it is the undue weight clause which is the main concern, and how the current article presentation is at odds with what UW mandates. misleading signals given to the reader is merely one of the possible inferences from this dichotomy. ITAQALLAH 03:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's the heart of our divergence then.  To me, if an image can simultaneously help people understand all aspects of a subject without in any way introducing misconceptions, it's in no way "undue"-- it's  ideal. --Alecmconroy 04:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The mediation-- in comical screenplay form

message: There is clearly never going to be acceptance of a picture at the top by a small minority of religiously motivated editors. What I suggest, therefore, is that as large a body as possible of editors who care about freedom of expression take it upon themselves to restore this article whenever it is compromised in the future. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. TharkunColl 18:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe TharkunColl is referring to the very substantial majority who, in mediation, endorsed the presentation of an un-"veiled" image of Muhammad in the lead. Though I don't personally care much about this particular point, he is quite correct.Proabivouac 19:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't like what somebody has to say, your first thought is to ban him? Yes, I understand all too well what is going on here. TharkunColl 19:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best response to an unhelpful suggestion is none at all. WilyD 19:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with 130.113.111.214. In TharkunColl's case, they are only trying to worsen the situation by introducing irrevelant and false information. As a result, a ban would be ideal for them. And yes, by what you have demonstrated above, you clearly do lack an understanding of circumstances here.206.126.80.107 02:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny how the two of you agree like that. Funny, too, how you've vandalized User:Zazaban's page again; see User:216.99.56.235Proabivouac 04:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing is funny here [personal attack removed].206.126.80.68 23:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's look at it another way

message: An overwhelming majority of editors voted to treat this article the same as any other. Why then this repeated vandalism? Because that is precisely what it is.TharkunColl 15:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, Wikipedia is NOT A DEMOCRACY and it is NOT A FORUM FOR UNREGULATED FREE SPEECH. Capiche?  16:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is also uncensored, and should not be hijacked by any special interest group. What you're saying, in effect, is that even though an overwhelming majority of editors want no censorship, you don't care about that and will impose it anyway. And you even seem to be gloating about this fact. TharkunColl 16:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm responding to your incivility at referring to other editor's good faith edits as "vandalism". TharkunColl I believe most everyone is aware that given such ("sbuh" - shit be upon him) commentary as you've previously left in Muhammad discussions your objective is to pointedly anger and antagonize Muslims. This is unacceptable.  16:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you slag off Joseph Smith, or Jesus, or any founder of any other religion you don't get treated like this. And how, in any case, do you know what the "S" stood for? You are just assuming. As a matter of fact, I don't give a shit about Muhammad (and my personal views about his character - slaughtering Jews and marrying six-year-olds for example - are less than positive) - but I do give a shit about such old-fashioned concepts as historical accuracy, truth, freedom of expression, and democracy. I am here to uphold those things against those who would abandon them in a headlong, lemming-like rush into appeasement and abasement. TharkunColl 16:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would caution you to refrain from further demonstration of incility as you've left here as it will likely lead to you being prevented from editing on the project.  16:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: TharkunColl, you only hurt your position by resorting to incivility. You do have a point about an existing consensus, you do have a point about censorship, but when you mix these points with incivility then you become uncompelling and put yourself in a position where you could be seen as disruptive. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Threats are unlikely to do any good. Beit Or 16:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It is standard practice to warn users about incivility before taking any action. And yes, sometimes is does do good, in that the warnings often prevent the need for a block. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: An overwhelming majority of editors voted to treat this page just like any other. As for the deaths last year caused by pictures of Muhammad, are you suggesting that we should give in to terrorism? TharkunColl 17:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was just about to predict someone would say what Thark just did.  In my mind, it's best to forget the cartoon controversy ever happened and just go about our business writing the best article we can.  I think in general, violence rarely makes people say "Oh---  wow, they're so upset that they've become violent-- well I guess we should reconcile before things get worse."  Invariably, it triggers major mastadonage-- "Oh-- so they think they can use violence against us, huh? Well we'll show them!".  --Alecmconroy 18:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To respond to Tharkun - it's more than a little bit inaccurate to conflate riot deaths with terrorism. Looks like some bias lurks beneath that answer. And if I do take that question at face value, the obvious answer is to point to User:Durova/Recusal. I make no secret of the fact that I became a United States veteran of the War on Terrorism because my nearest relative was one of the last people to escape from the World Trade Center. So no, I suggest that we treat this issue with dignity and respect because current events demonstrate that it remains vitally important to a large number of people. That's quite different from bending to intimidation. DurovaCharge! 18:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Treating this issue with dignity and respect" is simply a face-saving way of phrasing "to bend to intimidation". Either we ignore the embassy-burning mobs and edit in accordance with Wikipedia policies or we take the mobs into account. Whether we submit to their demands fully or partially is a matter of degree rather than principle. Beit Or 19:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must take issue with that interpretation and contend that it represents a straw man argument. DurovaCharge! 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the dramatic flair is unhelpful.  We are not the Moorish hordes and I haven't burned down an embassy lately.  We are just other editors.  We don't have outside forces that we are bending to.  We have editors discussing an issue and sometimes anonymous trolling editors whom we do ignore dropping in.  It's probably a little impolite to equate my view with embassy burning mobs.  The closest I've been to a mob is hiding in a dorm after a UMD football game.  So, while a battle for civilization may be going on outside the gated community of Wikipedia--it would be better if we dealt with other editors as humans rather than representatives of civilizational constructs. gren グレン 02:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To those who are against democracy and freedom of speech

message: Doesn't it seem like that is a just a tad excessive?  Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, etc don't have two in lead.  I understand that we should be able to have whatever images make the article better, but having two prominently in lead seems like it breaks with tradition, giving Muhammad more images than it would normally have.   Just a thought.  --Alecmconroy 16:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe so, but the more images, the easier it is to agree on them. I suggest three images, for example, so as to satisfy those who demand unveiled images, veiled images, and calligraphy. Beit Or 16:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Two images is a bit unwieldy - three just makes the layout look like a pile of barf.  Seriously, I can't believe anyone would support three images in the lead given how terribly it disrupts the layout. WilyD 16:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No more than two, or it looks terrible. The unveiled and the calligraphy seem to be the going consensus. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is this consensus? The most stable organization so far as been the calligraphy at the top followed by a veiled image.  16:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This consensus seems have been forgotten. It is the closest thing we have to a consensus, the only time we have all agreed as a majority on anything in the issue other than the poll that we should treat this like any other article. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think this current state (calligraphy + veiled image) leans too much unto one side of the conflict. Since the unveiled image alone will not be accepted (though it's most in line with common practice on WP), I suggest "countering" it with the calligraphy. We could also use the "veiled at Kaaba" image on the top, put the calligraphy at the etymology of the name and the "unveiled Biruni pic" next to a section covering his ministry. Str1977 (smile back) 18:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not oppose an unveiled image, but I think there is something to be said for a veiled image at the top. As a distinctive feature of some depictions of Muhammad it may draw the the reader into the article, and it connects a historical biography with contemporary issues in another way. I do think the calligraphy goes most naturally with Etymology, but I do not have a strong preference. Just as we should not remove a good image out of deference to religious sentiments, neither should we impose a minimally-informative and unaesthetic image just because we can. Tom Harrison Talk 18:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The more I look at the images, the more I personally am drawn to the image of veiled Muhammad next to the Kaaba.  But that's completely subjective--  it just seems the most "Muhammady" of the images to me.  I look at it and instantly think "Oh, an image of Muhammad". Just a very subtle preference.  --Alecmconroy 19:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the veiled image would be better suited in the section that speak of the aniconistic traditions, and the image that shows the face should be at the top where people expect to see an image of the subject. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A veiled image will certainly suit the lead better than a piece of calligraphy. Beit Or 18:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If an unveiled image is to be in the lead, I wonder if we could consider using the one from the German Wikipedia article, :de:Bild:Mohammed.jpg. Tom Harrison Talk 18:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It looks nice, does it have a source? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The caption says, "Der Prophet Mohammed - aus der Apokalypse des Mohammed, 1436, Herat, Afghanistan. Das Werk befindet sich in der Sammlung der Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris" - ideally someone with better German than mine would be involved. Tom Harrison Talk 19:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Translation: "The Prophet Muhammad - from the Apocalypse of Muhammad, 1436, Herat, Afghanistan. The work is found in the collection of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris". Beit Or 19:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I think that one would be better for the lead than Muhammad re-dedicating the Black Stone at the Kaaba. Again, I think a veiled image in the lead would add interest to the page. Tom Harrison Talk 19:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is becoming a bit of an unfortunate cabal I fear. What has happened to Talk:Muhammad/Mediation? Don't forget folks there is zero consensus about this.  18:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, If I can't say what I think and discuss improvements to the article, what do you suggest? A running vote with a weekly update and reformating? A request for comment? I think as this drags on, the people with the middle-of-the-road positions will get tired of it and go do something more productive. That might make progress here more difficult, but it would make things easier for those of us who left. Tom Harrison Talk 19:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know the most stable version (as far as I can tell) has been the 1 calligraphic image at the top followed by a veiled image. The rest of it has been a bit more unstable. Let us agree to one calligraphic image at the top and the one veiled image under it. I agree with you about the middle of the road comment. I see this as a middle of the road solution.  19:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that for the lead one calligraphic image with one unveiled beneath it is good. And of course other images in other places. There is a consensus here, I think I may have mentioned that before. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HighInBC, that it is rather disingenous of you when you fail to mention the other five polls: poll 1, poll 2, poll 3, poll 4, poll 5. I'm sorry but there is no consensus for what you are proposing.  19:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Netscott, it is not disingenuous at all. The very strongest uncensored option on offer received by far the most support, with option 2 coming in a distant second. Combining the support for several options changes little: for example, the first three options are signed by 18 distinct editors, 16 of which supported option 2 (in fact there was no one who supported option 3 who didn't also support option 2.) Only by combining all options besides option 6 do we get an equal number, and even so, several supporters of option 5 did so with caveats ("best image" or "no calligraphy"). Of course, decisions should proceed according to policy and principle, not polls, but as polls go, this one was a blowout.Proabivouac 20:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: not really: i would personally discard the "pile-on" !votes of those who have contributed virtually nothing to the mediation discussion(s). it would be inappropriate to declare consensus on the basis of such polls. ITAQALLAH 23:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why one should need to be involved in any particular article to weigh in on a matter of general policy; to the contrary, non-involvement in this particular dispute may impart greater credibility. What I see are many outsiders who are rightly unhappy that this is even being considered. Instead, I would suggest, per HighInBC, ignoring those opinions based upon personal religious sensibility or sympathy with the same, for these, while well-meant, violate core policy: policy which (in theory) may not be overridden by local consensus, even were it to be obtained. To discourage the involvement of the broader community (and how much more to discount it by fiat), or to propose poll after poll in various places with the hope that the community will have lost interest, is simply a predictable attempt to make the most of an unusual concentration in this space of editors with aniconistic beliefs.Proabivouac 00:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: as i mentioned earlier: WP:NOT#CENSORED is not relevant here. if editors have 'voted' under the impression that it is about WP:NOT, then they have been misinformed. i welcome outside involvement from independent editors genuinely uninvolved in this dispute or Islam related articles/disputes at all. that is, quite honestly, not the case with a number involved in this 'blowout' you cite. ITAQALLAH 00:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am quite certain that it is about WP:NOT, and I am hardly misinformed. You have already been shown the complaint of WP:PROFANITY upon which mediation was originally premised. Would it help to convince you if I took the time to gather diffs from various editors expressing the need to censor according to aniconistic beliefs, before it was realized that more sophisticated excuses had become necessary? Surely you will then discount their "votes?"(Note: Gren has been consistent; however this is not the case for many who subsequently seized upon his argument.)Proabivouac 00:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Despite the substantial majority for an un-"veiled" image in the lead, I am not bothered overmuch by the "veiled" image which has been there. Per Alecmconroy, I and at least two others supported the best depiction for the lead, because the demand for a "veiled" image was being put forward for reasons which should play no role in our decisions. Whether the veiled Kaaba image, :Image:Maome.jpg or the one from German article that Tom harrison suggests is "best" is debatable. I am certain, however, that of the "unveiled" images, Maome is more appropriate that the Black Stone image, because showing Muhammad preaching the Qur'an to his followers in conquered Mecca is a far better summary of his accomplishments than is the fable of him as a youth helping to lift the Black Stone, which rightly accompanies the text referring to this story.Proabivouac 19:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of quality the image from the German Wikipedia is by far the best. However, one should note that it's only a detail of a larger painting, showing Muhammad in paradise. Beit Or 20:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On two pics in lead

message: Is there an unaddressed cultural bias?   This is a really interesting question, because obviously, if all our editors were muslim, we probably wouldn't have an images of Muhammad.  So, there's some cultural aspects going on.
I think the answer is that any cultural bias, if it exists, is a product of Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  Our purpose is to neutrally convey as much information as possible about Muhammad.  In contrast, Islamic cultures are not an encyclopedia-- they're not trying to neutrally convey information about Muhammad, they're trying to rever him and follow God's edicts.   Islamic culture, therefore, is free to use images caligraphy that don't tell much about Muhammad, and they're free to forego images that would be useful to an encyclopedia.  I've never thought about it, but I suppose from a certain point of view, even the goal of trying to have an encyclopedia is is a bit of a cultural bias, because some cultures, even within America, think that indiscriminately learning about anything and everything can be spiritually or morally dangerous. --Alecmconroy 22:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV and WP:NOT also clearly evidence cultural biases.Proabivouac 22:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural bias?

message: I appreciate the invitation to this mediation and my reception by the participants at this very divisive issue.  You all have my respect for approaching this tough issue in a thoughtful and almost entirely civil manner.  I'm not certain what compromise you'll eventually reach, but remind me I wrote this when Muhammad becomes a featured article and I'll award everyone who posted to this page while I was active a collective barnstar.
At this point you probably have as many useful ideas as I can offer.  I hope I've helped this group look at the questions from new angles and with the larger goal of WP:FAC in mind.  Some of my suggestions have yet to be pursued.  You can complete that work yourselves.  The most important thing I can stress (and this probably is my parting word - I've delayed other pressing matters for this) is direct your energies into progress on areas of agreement.  Collaborate on the simpler matters that relate to image use: find a map, add a Koran cover, translate some passages and make them into text boxes.  Correlate the main article text to each image and do your best to keep open minds about the destination.  Then go over the other featured biographies in detail and do a complete survey of the different Wikipedia language versions of Muhammad biographies.  After you've made as much collaborative progress as possible, compromise on the rest.  Try a new survey if necessary.  Put your best effort into it and accept that the outcome might not be your personal ideal.
Warmest regards, DurovaCharge! 03:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much thanks for your helpful participation Durova. I suspect we'll be seeing you around. :-)  04:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you for inviting me to this mediation 

message: There is an overwhelming majority of editors who want this article to be treated like any other, so why is this still not the case? Why is the calligraphy picture not in the etymology section, its obvious place? I was informed that the calligraphy at the top was simply the result of a "cease-fire" in the editing, but as I strongly suspected at the time, that "cease-fire" is now being touted as the "stable" version. This is not only dishonourable, it is incorrect. A small number of editors keep hijacking this article and turning it into something less than objective. This degrades Wikpedia, and our readers will no longer trust us to be neutral. TharkunColl 16:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm - the "stable" version has an image of Muhammad at the top.  A lot of the top layout is dictated by style and flow needs, rather than "political considerations". WilyD 16:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: TharkunColl, there's really only one editor who has been trollishly pushing for this and it is yourself. Most everyone else has been willing to let a general consensus be established but in the meantime allow a stable version remain in place. Have you improved the Muhammad article at all? All I see is headache from you and your insistence on needlessly angering people over this.  16:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thark-- the answer I would give you is that the caligraphy is at the top to eliminate any possibility that readers won't see how aniconistic cultures have used imagery to honor Muhammad.  So, it does serve SOME encyclopedic purpose, and since everyone should be able to see both the caligraphy and the lead image of Muhammad, it doesn't seem like it does any harm.  --Alecmconroy 18:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is the picture of Muhammad ''still'' not at the top?

message: Would everyone please say whether they support or oppose the current version/compromise?--Sefringle 21:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.--Sefringle 21:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And for history sake, we should note that this version goes along with this usage in the main article page. --Alecmconroy 22:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Without disputing what has been said above, I support :Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg at the top as the earliest surviving image of Muhammad. In addition, as a work of art, it is of higher quality than the cartoonish :Image:Muhammad at Kaba c.png. Beit Or 00:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That is an excellent idea.Proabivouac 01:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok this whole "(just vote- No comments please)" is not helpful, I don't even know why people are opposing, I suggest we remove that unhelpful comment. It is essential that people explain their position with an argument. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that in hopes that both sides could argue their point in a central area, and because it can be difficult to determine where the majority of the people stand if the comments get in the way (it could be difficult to determine if it is just one person going against consensus and thus making it seem like consensus hasn't been reached). Secondly, I think it is better if everyone discusses the issue in a central area, rather than responding to comments on the vote, because that way the discussion doesn't get in the way of the vote and because that way everyone who has a view or reason can make share and discuss it easier. I think responidng to vote comments puts some limitations on the discussion which may hinder the process of determining concensus. I've also noticed that at times that regular voting can discourage people from offering their opinion/vote. But that is just my opinion.--Sefringle 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say we have achieved a consensus here. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with User:HighInBC. I'm not sure how long we should be letting this discussion here go on. If it is agreed that in terms of image placement this will be the recognized version then let's end the transclusion of these images on the main article.  15:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I am all for subst the images back where they belong, this temporary measure of a sub page is no longer needed. It is better that this sort of discussion happen on the main talk page now that there is a consensus. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Version

message: (Comment in Discussion section)
# Alecmconroy 21:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: (Comment in Discussion section)
# Beit Or 00:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: (Comment in Discussion section)
# ProtectWomen 23:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Abstain

message: The current selection and arrangement rests upon acceptable principles: the use of depictions is reasonable and encyclopedic, and the article is not censored. I believe it's important that we be able to make modifications, with, given the history of the issue, an extra measure of thoughtfulness, diligence and discussion, and so long as they're not reasonably construed as censorship or anti-censorship point violations, which by now I think all of us can agree is disruptive.
One obvious thing to remedy is the pile-up of calligraphic images at the bottom of the article - at least one should be moved up to an appropriate place.Proabivouac 23:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without disputing what has been said above, I support :Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg at the top as the earliest surviving image of Muhammad. In addition, as a work of art, it is of higher quality than the cartoonish :Image:Muhammad at Kaba c.png. Beit Or 00:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That is an excellent idea.Proabivouac 01:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok this whole "(just vote- No comments please)" is not helpful, I don't even know why people are opposing, I suggest we remove that unhelpful comment. It is essential that people explain their position with an argument. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that in hopes that both sides could argue their point in a central area, and because it can be difficult to determine where the majority of the people stand if the comments get in the way (it could be difficult to determine if it is just one person going against consensus and thus making it seem like consensus hasn't been reached). Secondly, I think it is better if everyone discusses the issue in a central area, rather than responding to comments on the vote, because that way the discussion doesn't get in the way of the vote and because that way everyone who has a view or reason can make share and discuss it easier. I think responidng to vote comments puts some limitations on the discussion which may hinder the process of determining concensus. I've also noticed that at times that regular voting can discourage people from offering their opinion/vote. But that is just my opinion.--Sefringle 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say we have achieved a consensus here. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with User:HighInBC. I'm not sure how long we should be letting this discussion here go on. If it is agreed that in terms of image placement this will be the recognized version then let's end the transclusion of these images on the main article.  15:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I am all for subst the images back where they belong, this temporary measure of a sub page is no longer needed. It is better that this sort of discussion happen on the main talk page now that there is a consensus. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: This is not democracy, and nor is it honourable. We should have a picture of Muhammad at the top, because every other historical figure of any note has one too. The issue really is that simple. Religious taboos are anathema to Wikipedia. TharkunColl 00:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The result we are looking for is consensus. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 00:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that the following is determinative, but there is more than one article on Wikipedia related to historical figures associated with the founding of various religions who do not have their picture at the top:  Lao Tsu (Taoism), Mahavira (Jainism), Baha'ullah (Bahai), Mani (Manichaeism), the Bab (Bahai), and Mary, mother of Jesus (Christianity).  There may be others.  Some of the other religious leaders (Zoroaster, Buddha, Nanak Guru Dev) are represented by highly iconic pictures (or a statue in the case of Buddha) representing images or traditions well known to and accepted by adherents of those religions.  This proposal also contains several significant unveiled images of Muhammed, and doesn't bury all the images at the bottom of the article.  Overall I think the proposal is supportable and defensible.Corlyon 05:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth-- both Lao Tzu and Mary mother of Jesus usually have images in the leads-- only in the last day or so have they been imageless due to error or vandalism.  --Alecmconroy 06:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK? What is your point? Stop adding irrelevant nonsense .. 206.126.82.92 00:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind WP:NPA--Sefringle 02:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Alecmconroy.  I see Mary's image is back now.Corlyon 03:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep taking votes, until you get the right result