Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 7

message: I have created User:Grenavitar/mimages to catalog some outside opinions on images of Muhammad (no images on the page in case anyone is worried). I think they are relevant to if or how we have a picture but also importantly, what kind of picture we would have (a subject widely ignored on this page).  If you have relevant quotes feel free to add them... not from online sources which you can link to here but from harder to access ones.
Some things I want to note about the type of image: Persian is mentioned multiple times.  First recorded images of prophets 1300s, not veiled... veiling and flames come later 1450s-1500s.  1600s tradition starts to die out in most places other than Iran.  gren グレン 18:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the sources, that is very productive to this mediation. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside Resources 

message: :Caution: the above summary has been substantially qualified/altered since the poll was opened.
* ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 11:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes (agree with above plan)

message: Here is the summary:
:::: I agree that wikipedia articles may have pictures and it is preferable to show them for the convenience of the reader. The pictures of Jesus, Mary etc. are very commonly depicted in the churches and other places, so whenever there is article to explain about Jesus and christianity then it is much preferable to give the abstract idea to the user about 'how Christianity looks like and what is associated with it (including the pictures of Jesus and Mary)'. Now agreeing to the this, the problem is that there are no images associated to Muhammad or other Prophets in Muslims as well as Mosques and any other places. So, when a reader will come to know about Isamic articles then he will be given the idea of 'how Islam looks like and what is associated to Isalm and Muhammad (including Islamic calligraphy)'. Now if there does not exist and prominent association about Muhammad's picture then it is NOT necessary to somehow bring 'Any insignificant' picture no matter it is drawn by some 12 year old kid or some very unpopular artist who is not only unknown in the nonIslamic world but Muslims too.
:::: So, when a Muslim comes to the article about Muhammad, he will just feel strange on the rediculous depiction and might even laugh that "I did'nt know there is such picture used about Islam". 
:::: Imagine the misery of a wikipedia article in where the follower of the religion himself has to laugh at what is being shown as a fact about his religion.  
:::: I hope my comments look valid at the same time when I agree about the value of an image where it is actually represending the article and not contradicting it.
::::VirtualEye 08:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Notice: This image is to give idea of modification to reduce the contrary facts from the painting. My modifiction is NOT ultimate. Anybody can give me suggestion about how to reduce the contradictions and I will try to modify further to achieve a concensus among all the friends and foes. VirtualEye 08:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: bowdlerizing? Completely inappropriate. --Hojimachongtalkcon 08:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This new artwork clearly fails as it is attempt by VirtualEye for some original research based on their POV and more importantly it is done for a point. The editor also categorises other editors who are contributing to identifying a consensus as either "friends" and "foes". Ttiotsw 10:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: POV inspired OR, what's the point if the faces are blurred?? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Altered image from VirtualEye

message: For NPOV why not the standard calligraphy representation (e.g. the one that is similar to that which tripped up NIKE) at the top in the lead-in paragraph and then at the middle/bottom in the section titled "Historical depictions of Muhammad", the other images that are representative i.e. both veiled and unveiled. Ttiotsw 05:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The 4th Option

message: Yes there are still opposing points of view, but there will always be. As it stands, a clear majority support the compromise shown above. I suggest we pick one of those images, implement it and consider this mediation complete. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way the voting description is posed by AindonicO suggests that we should agree on a compromise because some people are "tired of the argument". The talk so far has been about what best represents Muhammad; I would like to see us find out how this should be handled according to Wikipedia Policy. Personally, I would rather see a thousand instances of vandalism to Muhammad every day than see Policy violated because we are all "tired of it". --Hojimachongtalkcon 17:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm concerned that a compromise that is inconsistent with our policy on censorship will not be stable. Tom Harrison Talk 17:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but how long has it been since a new argument, or new information has been presented? Also, it does seem to me to be a consensus above, if people disagreed with this suggestion there would be more people opposing it. Consensus does not mean everyone is satisfied, nor does it mean there can never be another consensus. Regardless, I am willing to carry on if new arguments are provided. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know what new arguments could be produced that would let us over-ride policy and censor the page in deference to religious sentiments. I'm astonished that this is being seriously considered. Maybe I've misunderstood the proposal. Tom Harrison Talk 18:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but in addition to the fact that we cannot override core policy through consensus, anyone who has followed this mediation and knows that there are a number of editors who would not agree with this "compromise," and the straw poll was phrased in such a way as to completely confuse people. For my part, I refuse to sign either, and I cannot see that not signing "no" - which was presented by the moderator in discussion as meaning "no images at all," constitutes acceptance of one depiction near the bottom with his face blanked out. Observing that we cannot override policy by consensus, nevertheless, if we're to conduct a straw poll, it must be a clean one, with clearly defined options which are not misrepresented in discuession and do not change mid-poll, and which includes the option of supporting WP:NOT alongside the others. Then we must give editors time to respond to it.Proabivouac 22:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then go for it, failing that I think this is a fine compromise. You can tell it is a good compromise because nobody is completely satisfied. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We can't compromise away policy. If this is imposed, it will either be unstable, or set a dangerous precedent that we will not want to apply to other articles. I suppose some think it will get things moving again, and we will be able to gin up some pretext to ignore it when people want to do something similar elsewhere, or if more extensive demands are made later. Anyway, it's not a compromise I can support, whatever box I have to tick to indicate that. Tom Harrison Talk 14:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which policy? I see no policy forbidding users to come to a compromise. Also Wikipedia is not run off of precedent so don't worry about that. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *i'm still new to the discussion.. but from what i can see the main argument (as provided by gren) is the issue of neutrality concerns through overstating a minority tradition (i.e. WP:NPOV). of course, we all agree that wikipedia is not censored, meaning that we don't sacrifice encyclopedicity for particular sensibilities. a lot of those who have agreed have done so on the basis of gren's argument, not necessarily as a compromise between encyclopedicity and people's feelings. i agree completely that any decision made must be grounded on policy if the results of the mediation are to be lasting. ITAQALLAH 14:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If we cannot reach a consensus soon, then I think this needs arbitration. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest this is a consensus

message: I respect non-Muslim contributors' views as much as i respect Muslims contributors' views regarding Muhammad's depictions. However, i tend to agree w/ non-muslims views here for simple and rationale reasons:
*First and most important. According to some Hadiths but not the Qur'an, Islam discourages depicting religious figures and the reasons behind that are known to most contributors. However, logically, this discouragement concern solely Muslims. In other words, if you believe in Islam, than you'd be avoiding depicting but if a non-Muslim does depict Muhammad than it is not a Muslim's fault and therefore he would not be committing a sin. 
*I am sure that no single Muslim would put any existing portrait or picture of Muhammad in front of him and pray. A good Muslim would not be influenced by a portrait i believe. Otherwise we'd be talking about weak-faithed Muslims. What would a devout Muslim do if he sees other people eating during Ramadan in a non-Muslim country? Nothing. What would a devout Muslim do if he sees a pretty unveiled girl? If he's really a devout Muslim than obviously he'd not be influenced because i believe a devout Muslim, if he really is, can really master his desires. Otherwise, he'd be a BIG Munafiq. It is about faith and not anything else.  
*In Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Ibn Sa'd describes Muhammad. The description is sourced to Ali ibn Abi Talib. The point here is how come one accepts oral and written descriptions while having a different attitude toward depictions. After all, any person can make/draw a picture on his mind out of oral or written discription. So what's the difference?
*Not all Muslims agree that depictions are forbidden. Ottomans and some Persians did actually had depictions of Muhammad. Actually, it is only idolatry that is condemned.  
*Many Caliphs and Amir al-Muminins were depicted and nobody argued about that. Isn't Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz considered as the fifth rightly guided caliph by some Sunnis? Isn't there a risk of people worshiping him as Caliphs are considered by Muslims the representatives of God on earth? 
*The building of the Congress features a sculpture of Muhammad as well as Moses holding the Commandments. Note that Moses' one got only 6 out of the 10 are visible and all the six got a secular character. I haven't heard of any Jew arguing against the fact that there should be 10 and not 6. I haven't heard of CAIR arguing against the existence of the Moses sculpture on the building. They only argued against Muhammad's sculpture. Isn't Moses a religious figure for Muslims as well? Why did CAIR argued only about Muhammad's one? That i really don't and can't understand. 
*I agree that the 2 pictures posted on the article are encyclopaedic while i agree w/ Netscot about the removal of Mahomet.jpg as being unencyclopaedic. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 17:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reposted by Proabivouac 11:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "Textual descriptions" would be primary sources with respect to Muhammad and really shouldn't be used to set the policy for inclusion (or not) of Wikipedia content. It is only if the picture is notable in some way and cited as an example of "Muhammad". It would obviously have to be titled "Muhammad" (or any other historical name as used by the artist/author) for it to even be considered as "Muhammad". So far, after an incredible amount of talk you have not yet shown that any of the images to date are not valid for inclusion based on consensus for content; in fact you have invented your own mock image which is clearly derivative of an existing image. Ttiotsw 15:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ttistsw! I think you only see what you like to see. I wonder where are you dropping from in this logical discussion. VirtualEye 17:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An essay on Muhammad's pictures

message: Since this discussion has moved here from the Talk page, I'd like to restate my overriding concern that treating this article any differently than any other Wikipedia article about an historical person, because of a particular religious sect's veneration of that person, would be a terrible precedent to set. It would be a significant departure from the concept of Wikipedia as a completely neutral, secular encyclopedia. 
If special editing rules are applied to this article about Mohammed in deference to Islamic views, then the Roman Catholic Church will logically expect (and be similarly entitled to) removal of any portrayals of the Pope they deem offensive. Scientologists will assuredly demand similar deference in the article about L. Ron Hubbard, and so forth. 
Other articles and photos will need to be filtered in the same way. For example, will Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam have to be removed because of its portrayal of God, which is likewise anathema to Moslems? 
 JGHowes 16:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RAmen, my brother. There are many true believers who are undoubtedly "offended" by the information that Wikipedia contains. But thus far, we have stood firmly against catering to these irrational  sensibilities. I am a faithful follower of the prophet Voltaire, and in the holy scripture the lord did sayeth, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.". Therefore, as a practicing Voltairian, I am deeply offended by people who attempt to censor the work of others, no matter what their excuse. So, I humbly ask wikipedia to respect my firmly held beliefs, and not give in to the religious vanities of others. On a side note, I am also deeply offended by those who claim that the great prophet never said those words. But, as a Voltarian, I'm seriously confused about what exactly I should do to correct this travesty...  -- Big Brother 1984 20:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The slippery slope? 

message: First of all let me stress that I oppose any form of censorship on Wikipedia, religious or otherwise. In fact I created the Wikipedians against censorship Wikiproject. For that reason I oppose eliminating depictions of Muhammad from the Muhammad article. However, I do not support having an image of Muhammad in the intro. The reason is that there is no image of Muhammad that is iconic enough or realistic enough to be able to represent Muhammad in the intro. Indeed, all the depictions we have of Muhammad are either cartoonish (such as the one currently in the intro), completely generic, or Muhammad's features are obscured. I have yet to see a depiction of Muhammad that would make a good intro image. Kaldari 16:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Muhammad in the intro 

message: I discovered only recently that Buddhism, in its earliest centuries, discouraged pictures and statues of the Buddha. He was shown as an umbrella, or a footprint. Out of respect. Lest people worship the Buddha instead of trying to follow his path. Interesting. Carry on with the acrimonious discussions now! Zora 08:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I have read (and I make to claims to being a historian or theologian) in Christianity though the sign of the cross came about quite rapidly, the image of the crucifix (a cross with a image of Jesus carved into it) did not come about until five hundred years (or more?) after the formation of the church.  It was considered quite graphic and gruesome by early Christians. Liberal Classic 08:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It still is by Mormons. - Merzbow 08:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pity poor King David and Moses. They have to make due with Rembrandt. :P Liberal Classic 08:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: See-- this proves my point exactly.  Some followers of Buddhism discouraged images of the Buddha--  but Wikipedia doesn't change its editorials policies to comply with those religious beliefs--  and our article on Buddha has statues, not umbrellas. --Alecmconroy 08:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no.  Early Buddhism was that way... there was a large change and iconography became more prominent over time--especially with all of the different forms.  The terms aniconistic was coined by Grabar (I believe?) for early Islam which didn't really use images but wasn't exactly iconoclastic (until Yazid II).  But, it had a period in certain areas of some icons within a limited range (texts) before it died off again. gren グレン 09:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If, for the sake of argument, Buddhism had retained a tradition of discouraging paintings and sculptures of the Buddha, would it be reasonable for users of English Wikipedia to expect to see an image of an umbrella when accessing his encyclopedia entry? Liberal Classic 16:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although I am not taking part in the mediation but cannot stop me here. No one is removing images from Depiction of Muhammad or the cartoon page where they are required. In Muhammad they do not add any information other than to imagine him wrongly with pictures that even do not depict him correctly. --- ALM 17:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Liberal Classic, yes, that seems reasonable (if what Zora says is correct).  I'm not sure of the exactly why you're asking. gren グレン 23:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam isn't the only aniconistic tradition 

message: My question is in the context of current issues about picture in the article.
Wikipedia works on the basis of NPOV while respect for a religion means 'not saying the bad things about the religion which might heart the followers', which itself is a POV. How can you keep wikipedia NPOV and POV at the same time? VirtualEye 08:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is that the _texts_ of our articles is follows a NPOV about their subject matter.  The policies about making Wikipedia are laden with all kinds of points of view.  Why is it good to have a free encyclopedia in the first place?  To even edit it is to take a POV about whether editing a free encyclopedia is a worthwhile thing to do.  We don't have ads on Wikipedia-- that's another decision which could be laden with POVs.   Why are we giving away this encyclopedia for free, when people would pay good money for it?  That's another POV.  And of couse, the afformentioned "Wikipedia does not censor", which is I think a very strong stance in a oft-debated issue. So, in answer to your question, Wikipedia is not an expression of a NPOV-- the contents of its articles are written from a NPOV towards the subject matter. --Alecmconroy 08:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know Wikipedia is so free, you can legally create your own copy, database and software. The rules governing Wikipedia apply only to these servers. I am not sure what the nature of your complaint is, I sort of see how maintaining a NPOV is in itself a POV, however the license allows you to get around this by making your own copy. Everything seems to make sense to me. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 12:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, NPOV is just a guideline.  You can always ignore all rules until an admin bans you for it... but, NPOV isn't some great Truth that gives you the answer of how to write each article.  It's a policy/guideline that is supposed to make for better articles.  To a great extent we have a good sense of neutrality but we will always have debates about what is "most neutral" and in so doing redefine the term. gren グレン 17:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, NPOV is an official policy and a foundation issue. No amount of consensus here or on the policy page can change it, ignore all rules does not apply. This was so from the very beginning, it is one of the guiding principals of Wikipedia. The only way to get around NPOV is forking(copying the database and software and making your own wiki). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is also official policy. Tom Harrison Talk 17:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Policy = No respect for Religion ? 

message: Here's a good example from List of English monarchs, which I know a lot about and helped to edit. Please examine the article, and its pictures, carefully. In line with Wikipedia practice on all historical figures, pictures are provided if any are known to exist, even if those pictures are completely obscure or historically inaccurate. That last point is worth emphasising again - if any picture is known to exist, and Wikipedia has access to it, it is used. Out of all the English monarchs, only one is without a picture (the early and very short-reigned Edgar the Atheling), because no such picture could be found. If a picture of him is found, it will be used. The list starts in the year 871, and many of the earlier images are demonstrably wrong, and date from much, much later. The very first image, a statue of Alfred the Great, is not only inaccurate (he did not wear a beard), but actually dates from the Victorian period, a thousand years after Alfred lived. Many of these early manuscript images date from the 17th century, hundreds of years after the subject lived. And some are so obscure as to be almost unknown. It is only when we get to the 13th century that the images start to become both accurate and contemporary, with the gradual improvement in artistic techniques. The point of all this is that Wikipedia will use an image wherever possible, and if an image exists it will be used. Considerations of accuracy or contemporaneousness are only used to decide between images, not to decide whether to have one at all. TharkunColl 19:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, though it should state in the image caption how realistic the image is known to be. For example "This image was drawn by <artist> in <year> and is an artistic representation of <subject>, it may not be accurate". HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No we cannot say those words "artistic representation" and especially "it may not be accurate" unless someone else notable has said that. If that happens then why not tag such WP:OR against just about every religious artefact as most are of dubious providence (including the Bible and the Qu'ran itself). We don't want to go down that road. Ttiotsw 19:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Surely we can say that the accuracy is uncertain. I think it is safe to say "artistic representation" if it is a painting made by someone not looking at Muhammad. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you find someone notable to say that the accuracy is uncertain. A painting is a painting is a painting; how else we describe it is content that we add thus it must follow that what we add as text is verifiable. Ttiotsw 19:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine, we can agree that a painting can be used, assuming a reliable source claims it is the subject, and if someone thinks it is unrealistic then the burden of proof is on them. When they find that proof, a caption can be added demonstrating this information. How does that sound? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with Ttiotsw.  However, I think we also need to show that the image is relevant within the history of the history of the depictions of Muhammad... otherwise it's OR from another angle. gren グレン 19:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless an image "propose unpublished ideas or arguments" then it is in line with the WP:OR policy. So if a published source says "This is a picture of Muhammad", then it is not OR. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right.  I haven't read NOR in a while and it doesn't mention being representative.  That's NPOV.  Ooops. gren グレン 20:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you be more specific? There are always 4-7 discussions about this issue there at any given time. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-contemporaneous pictures of long-dead people

message: #Suggestion was viewed to be tainted by vagueness / changes in the question.  This is a redo:
Would you agree to the following as a compromise:
:Include one (for the whole article) representative Persian image, near the bottom, showing Muhammad veiled, while the lead image is representative calligraphy.
===Yes (agree to above suggestion)===
* gren グレン 22:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored. Core policy may not be overridden by consensus.Proabivouac 22:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While you interpret this a censorship, it is clearly a group decision being made, whether it succeeds or not. Censorship is applied from an external source. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All decisions on Wikipedia are made that way--  if Wikipedia is not censored doesn't apply to those situation, what meaning could it possibly have?   I mean, I think it's pretty obvious we're being asked to delete images from the article because a religious minority is offended by them-- examples of censorship don't get much clearer than that. ---Alecmconroy
* I don't think it can be made any clearer. But I do think this has to be handed over to arbitration soon, as the arguments may go on for ever. Hoverfish Talk 22:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The arbitration committee generally does not deal with content disputes.Proabivouac 22:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll wait to see it. I would rather choose among two or three alternatives than vote up or down. Tom Harrison Talk 22:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "Censorship was not an inflexible divine law to herd and abuse the people in the name of law.". Censorship is the covering up and/or illegalizing of legitimate information that one may not the general public to know, usually in order to further their own aims. Just a definition for you. --Hojimachongtalkcon 05:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion (untainted) 

message: * gren グレン 22:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes (agree to above suggestion)

message: * Firm no.  Wikipedia is not censored. DavidYork71 02:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No (not agree to above suggestion)

message: * There is no need to continue debate about the ideal way here.  This is meant to be a compromise.  It did rather well above and I want a version that isn't as muddled. If there is any necessary comment please keep it short. Anything else can go in another section. gren グレン 22:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored. Core policy may not be overridden by consensus.Proabivouac 22:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While you interpret this a censorship, it is clearly a group decision being made, whether it succeeds or not. Censorship is applied from an external source. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All decisions on Wikipedia are made that way--  if Wikipedia is not censored doesn't apply to those situation, what meaning could it possibly have?   I mean, I think it's pretty obvious we're being asked to delete images from the article because a religious minority is offended by them-- examples of censorship don't get much clearer than that. ---Alecmconroy
* I don't think it can be made any clearer. But I do think this has to be handed over to arbitration soon, as the arguments may go on for ever. Hoverfish Talk 22:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The arbitration committee generally does not deal with content disputes.Proabivouac 22:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll wait to see it. I would rather choose among two or three alternatives than vote up or down. Tom Harrison Talk 22:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "Censorship was not an inflexible divine law to herd and abuse the people in the name of law.". Censorship is the covering up and/or illegalizing of legitimate information that one may not the general public to know, usually in order to further their own aims. Just a definition for you. --Hojimachongtalkcon 05:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: :split from above since it stopped being about the straw poll
*I might also suggest, while we're talking, that the words "representative" might be a bit vague or value-laden.  I think "representative", to gren, translates to "veiled and very small".  --Alecmconroy 22:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Many of the points Gren has brought quite forth are quite valid, but are things which should be decided in a post-mediation environment free from religiously-motivated censorship, not as a fig leaf for the same.Proabivouac 22:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oy! I more or less copied what the originator said.  Representative within a range of veiled Persian figures (originator's suggestion) is not a big deal.  As for size I am pretty sure we should use |thumb| which allows for user preferences to take affect.  I figured that was the least contentious of issues. But, those weren't meant to be big issues in this decision. gren グレン 22:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sympathetic to your view that depictions should be representative of tradition, although don't believe this can applied absolutely, as for most historical figures there is no particular tradition of representation, yet depictions are still included where they are avaliable - TharkunColl has made an excellent point above. However, I can't see what could defeat the purpose of representation more than having only one depiction, as it would shut every other tradition out completely.Proabivouac 23:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is national leaders and others with their portraits for the most part do not have a significant tradition of representation.  Therefore official photographs are their tradition of representation.  With religious leaders where you have thousand+ years of followers revisiting that person you get varied traditions.  The Templar example above is a good example of a split away group... even if you counted it as an intended  representation of Muhammad it would place it as less important than Persian iconography... maybe it could be counted as prominant as Ahmadiyya... which itself is a rather marginal tradition.  It can't be applied absolutely in the sense that I can't give you a Magic Number of Truth, but it can be applied and it is half-heartedly in the reasons why we choose Muslim images over non-Muslim ones.  I admire Tharkun in the sense that he at least is completely ignoring tradition and in so doing remaining relatively consistent. gren グレン 23:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point TharkunColl made which I thought very worthy was this, not that stuff about Baphomet. Were the view that the Knights Templar worshipped Muhammad and Baphomet notable enough to merit a paragraph or two in the article, then an image would be appropriate. I agree that the "representational" concept is a useful standard to apply. In this light, a single European image of Muhammad may well appropriately accompany the section which discusses European views of Muhammad. I might also agree that fill the article with depictions as are found on Jesus would constitute a sort of undue weight. However, this is a completely seperate issue from whether depictions must be censored in deference to the religious sensibilities of some Wikipedia editors. What is needed is to establish that the article is not censored, and in light of the controversy surrounding this fact, to enact safeguards to ensure that images and their placement are very carefully examined and considered before inclusion, according to strictly encyclopedic criteria.Proabivouac 01:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The point is that there is only one reason these depictions are controversial, which is the religious sensibilities of some editors. Whether you share personally share those sensibilities or merely sympathize with those who do is, in this context, a distinction without a difference.Proabivouac 01:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not entirely true, many other points have been raised such as historical accuracy and undue weight. Not saying I agree with those arguments, but religious taboo is not the only argument on the table. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are the only reason there exists a table upon which subsequent arguments have been placed.Proabivouac 01:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That would assume you can tell people's motives, it may be true, I even believe it is true, but I see no evidence of that. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply look at the request for meditation itself and the earliest arguments, which center around the construal of WP:Profanity; the depictions were said to be "uninformative" in support of this construal.Proabivouac 05:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gren/ness 

message: The following image has just appeared on Talk:Muhammad as a suggested compromise. Whether this suggestion was serious or not I cannot say. But if it was, then in my opinion it indicates the true nature of the vast unbridgeable gulf between Islam and Western traditions of freedom of speech. To those who created it (if it is genuine), it may have seemed like an acceptable compromise. To Westerners it looks like a bunch of terrorists. And when I pointed this out on Talk:Muhammad, my post ws censored (i.e. deleted). TharkunColl 00:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no a thousand times no, that is censorship. We don't want a bowdlerized Wikipedia. I would prefer a text link to that. It is incredibly unencyclopedic to alter historic image in that way. Also, that can be just as offensive to some. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I am compelled to observe that such suggestions, along with VirtualEye's since-deleted blurred image, highlight the parallels (albeit unintended) between removal of depictions and outright vandalism.Proabivouac 01:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image proposal

message: ===Images which tell us about Muhammad NOTHING (by ALM) ===
These images misguide views about Muhammad and against tradtion of not drawing it. They give wrong weight to picture which represent a very small % as compare to calligraphy. They are not align with Hadith that describe Muhammad. Picture might says a 1000 words but those word should not be lie and false. A wrong picture can misguide many. Following are few thing.
Image	How it misguide reader
Maome	
* Muhammad used to wear Blue clothes and his Sahabah used to wear red clothes. These colors are not preferred to wear by Muslim male and Muhammad used to wear white/black clothes mostly.About silk/golden clothes, The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: I do not ride on purple, or wear a garment dyed with saffron*, or wear shirt hemmed with silk, Hadith - Sunan of Abu Dawood #4037, Narrated Imran ibn Husayn About colored clothes, Hadith - Sunan of Abu Dawood #4055, Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-'As, We came down with the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) from a turning of a valley. He turned his attention to me and I was wearing a garment dyed with a reddish yellow dye. He asked: What is this garment over you? I recognised what he disliked. I then came to my family who were burning their oven. I threw it (the garment) in it and came to him the next day. He asked: Abdullah, what have you done with the garment? I informed him about it. He said: Why did you not give it to one of your family to wear, for there is no harm in it for women.Hadith - Sunan of Abu Dawood, #4041, Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin, r.a. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) once prayed wearing a garment having marks. He looked at its marks. When he saluted, he said: Take this garment of mine to AbuJahm, for it turned my attention just now in my prayer, and bring a simple garment without marks.  Wearing white clothes: Hadith - Al-Tirmidhi 4623, Narrated 'Aisha, r.a., Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) was questioned about Waraqah and Khadijah said to him, "He believed in you, but died before you appeared as a prophet." Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) then said, "I was shown him in a dream, wearing white clothes, and if he had been one of the inhabitants of Hell he would have been wearing different clothing."[Ahmad and Tirmidhi transmitted it]   RED and silk Clothes are forbidden, From al-Baraa’ ibn ‘Aazib (may Allah be pleased with him): "The Prophet (saaws) forbade us to use soft red mattresses and qasiy – garments with woven stripes of silk." (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 5390)"
* Women used to sit in the crowd of Muslims. 
* Muhammad was male. (Obviously it is a useful information and one has to see picture for it)
* Muhammad used to have Mustaches. One thing that differentiate Jews from Muslim is that Muslim unlike Jews have no or very small Mustaches. There is a Hadith about it. About Moustaches, Hadith - Bukhari 7:781, Narrated Ibn 'Umar, Allah's Apostle said, "Cut the moustaches short and leave the beard (as it is). "  About Moustaches Narrated Nafi' (Radhiallaahu Án) "Ibn Umar (Radhiallaahu Án) said, The Prophet (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) said, "Do the opposite of what the pagans do. Keep the beards and cut the moustaches short." Whenever Ibn 'Umar performed the Hajj or 'Umra, he used to hold his beard with his hand and cut whatever moustaches. Ibn Umar used to cut his moustache so short that the whiteness of his skin (above the upper lip) was visible, and he used to cut (the hair) between his moustaches and his beard 
* Muhammad used to sit above people. Wrong, instead he stopped people standing up for him and He used to sit wherever there was a place available in an assembly and never sought a prominent or elevated place. 
* We know not enough about the picture. For example:
** Which one is Muhammad. Why it is not one sitting down?
** Who are the people in the picture. They look notable enough people.
** Who is the women in the picture?
** What time it represent? One year after Hijra or before Hijra. After conqest of Mecca may be?
Kaba 	
* Muhammad was viewed as someone who communed with the supernatural or the divine.  (Wrong). He was just a Human being.
* Muhammad used to be in some kind of fire.
Stone	
* Muhammad as a Prophet putting back stone in Kaaba. Wrong. Early chroniclers say that the Kaaba was rebuilt during Muhammad's youth, and that there was some contention among the Quraysh, Mecca's ruling clan, as to who should have the honor of raising the Black Stone to its place in the new structure. Muhammad is said to have suggested that the Stone be placed on a cloak and that the various clan heads jointly lift the cloak and put the Stone into place. 
* Black stone is fixed near the door of Kaaba. Look like people are picking the door cloth so that it can be fix right there next ot it. Wrong.  See the door of Kaab, Can you see black stone there?
* They all used to wear golden dresses. Mostly Muhammad can be imagine as wearing white/black dress (according to Hadith and traditions). Against Silk (Golden) clothes, Hadith - Sahih Al-Bukhari 7.693, Narrated Uqba bin Amir
A silken Farruj was presented to Allah's Apostle and he put it on and offered the prayer in it. When he finished the prayer, he took it off violently as if he disliked it and said, "This (garment) does not befit those who fear Allah!"  'No red and Gold, From Ibn ‘Abbaas, who said: “I was forbidden (to wear) red garments and gold rings, and to recite Qur’aan in rukoo’.” (Narrated by al-Nasaa’i, no. 5171. Imam Albaani said: its isnaad is sahih. Saheeh Sunan al-Nasaa’i, 1068). 
* Once again moustaches not allowed to be big. .
* Muhammad had women-like long hair. Wrong.
=== Alternative choice ===
Image     	Why it is true representation
Caligraphy	
* It tells that Muhammad disallowed to picture himself
* It tells that he was majority of times only represented in calligraphy.
* There are different kinds of calligraphies and it may tell reader about artist and time.
* It represent the tradition truly because no mosque has picture of him but only caligraphy.
* It represent the tradition rightly because mosque, Muslim houses, majority of books have only caligraphies in them. 
* It let people think about Muhammad rightly based on the reading they have. Instead of imagine him wrongly by the mistakes artist have while drawing him.
--- ALM 10:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ALM, this image was created by an editor to Wikipedia. Wouldn't you agree that included images should be notable?Proabivouac 11:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: complete agreement. gren グレン 11:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree but we can find notable images of calligraphy. If I find one then will you support it in place of picture and should I try to find one? Otherwise you above argument has no value. --- ALM 11:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for me, I'm okay with letting the notability of the caligraphy slide, provided there's universal agreement that it's a good example of being "in the style of" artwork we see.  Obviously, a specific example which was particularly famous would be better, but this gets the job done of conveying the non-iconic depiction of Muhammad.  --Alecmconroy 11:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Just some food for thought is here. ] --- ALM 11:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: See also :Image:Opened Qur'an.jpg - again created by an editor to Wikipedia (at best) - for the leeway which is granted to images which, while violating WP:IMAGE, do not violate religious taboos. No one except Gren seems to care about the "informativeness" or "representativeness" of these.Proabivouac 11:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, there's nothing wrong with including a small (ideally notable) sample of Muhammad's name in caligraphy when we talk about the whole "depictions of Muhamad" issue.  But there's no call to delete all the other good images either.  --Alecmconroy 11:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you have 1 million calligraphies and 100 fake-freaky pictures. The group who cares about you most do not like picture too. And someone write an article about you with one calligraphy and many pictures. Do you think it will be fair to do so? Btw can you imagine me without picture? How? --- ALM 11:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your analogy is poor; the current article has a minority of images of the person. If the article to date had a larger percentage of images of this person then you would have a case. The images are also not fake and unclear (other than you) who calls them "freaky".Ttiotsw 12:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tried never to abuse anyone and find anywhere in wikipedia where I have abuse anyone. However, I will abuse those images as much as I can. Because they WRONGLY reprenting a man I love more than my parents, myself and anyone in the WHOLE world. If I say that he is 99% represented in calligraphy then can you have 99 calligraphies to represent him once in picture. Can you? If you think that he is not 99% represented in calligraphy then we start putting calligraphies on one hand and picture on the other. Because I have visited many many mosque each have only calligraphy and also my very large extended family/friends homes. --- ALM 13:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re the black stone depiction, where does it indicate he is a prophet? I don't believe it does. He has a beard, but there's no other indication of age that I can see. Does it show them placing it in the Kaaba by the door? No, it doesn't.Proabivouac 05:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading and Wrong information presented by images 

message: Image     	Why it is true representation
Caligraphy	
* It tells that Muhammad disallowed to picture himself
* It tells that he was majority of times only represented in calligraphy.
* There are different kinds of calligraphies and it may tell reader about artist and time.
* It represent the tradition truly because no mosque has picture of him but only caligraphy.
* It represent the tradition rightly because mosque, Muslim houses, majority of books have only caligraphies in them. 
* It let people think about Muhammad rightly based on the reading they have. Instead of imagine him wrongly by the mistakes artist have while drawing him.
--- ALM 10:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ALM, this image was created by an editor to Wikipedia. Wouldn't you agree that included images should be notable?Proabivouac 11:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: complete agreement. gren グレン 11:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree but we can find notable images of calligraphy. If I find one then will you support it in place of picture and should I try to find one? Otherwise you above argument has no value. --- ALM 11:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for me, I'm okay with letting the notability of the caligraphy slide, provided there's universal agreement that it's a good example of being "in the style of" artwork we see.  Obviously, a specific example which was particularly famous would be better, but this gets the job done of conveying the non-iconic depiction of Muhammad.  --Alecmconroy 11:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Just some food for thought is here. ] --- ALM 11:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: See also :Image:Opened Qur'an.jpg - again created by an editor to Wikipedia (at best) - for the leeway which is granted to images which, while violating WP:IMAGE, do not violate religious taboos. No one except Gren seems to care about the "informativeness" or "representativeness" of these.Proabivouac 11:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, there's nothing wrong with including a small (ideally notable) sample of Muhammad's name in caligraphy when we talk about the whole "depictions of Muhamad" issue.  But there's no call to delete all the other good images either.  --Alecmconroy 11:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you have 1 million calligraphies and 100 fake-freaky pictures. The group who cares about you most do not like picture too. And someone write an article about you with one calligraphy and many pictures. Do you think it will be fair to do so? Btw can you imagine me without picture? How? --- ALM 11:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your analogy is poor; the current article has a minority of images of the person. If the article to date had a larger percentage of images of this person then you would have a case. The images are also not fake and unclear (other than you) who calls them "freaky".Ttiotsw 12:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tried never to abuse anyone and find anywhere in wikipedia where I have abuse anyone. However, I will abuse those images as much as I can. Because they WRONGLY reprenting a man I love more than my parents, myself and anyone in the WHOLE world. If I say that he is 99% represented in calligraphy then can you have 99 calligraphies to represent him once in picture. Can you? If you think that he is not 99% represented in calligraphy then we start putting calligraphies on one hand and picture on the other. Because I have visited many many mosque each have only calligraphy and also my very large extended family/friends homes. --- ALM 13:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re the black stone depiction, where does it indicate he is a prophet? I don't believe it does. He has a beard, but there's no other indication of age that I can see. Does it show them placing it in the Kaaba by the door? No, it doesn't.Proabivouac 05:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative choice 

message: I refer you once again to Alfred the Great. In real life Alfred did not have a beard, but the Victorian statue shows him with one. Does this mean that we cannot use it as an image in Wikipedia? No, of course not. TharkunColl 12:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References Related to Misleading and Wrong information presented by images (see section above) 

message: Just out of curiosity... suppose archaelogists unearthed tomorrow an indisputibly accurate picture of Muhammad (say, from a 630 copy of the Mecca Gazette). Would you be in favor of adding that image to the top of the article, even though it still violates Islamic laws? —Chowbok ☠ 16:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I will support it even if I do not like it. Do you have any? How will they get it because the coins never used to have his pictures on it. --- ALM 16:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With modern technology we could reconstruct his facial features from the shape of his skull, which is presumably still in his tomb. Do you think the Saudis would agree to allow his exhumation? TharkunColl 16:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go and ask then, may be they will. In that case obviosly you can place it here. --- ALM 16:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And in the meantime we'll just have to make do with a picture. TharkunColl 16:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the picture will tell lies about the person I love more than my life then no. Simply no.  --- ALM 18:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you opposed to the inclusion of black and white photographs of people? Tom Harrison Talk 18:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It is lying! That person has pink skin, not gray! HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which picture? dear HighInBC I have provided all the references you wish for (by wasting my work time) even then above post ... -:( ? Not fair! -:( --- ALM 18:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the references. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And we can be sure that Muhammad was not two inches tall, like he is in the picture. TharkunColl 18:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes please have your fun. Enjoy. --- ALM 19:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called reductio ad absurdam, and is a perfectly valid form of philosophical argument. TharkunColl 19:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Neat article. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Not trying to pick on you, just adding a bit of humor along with a good point. We often use picture on Wikipedia that are not absolutely accurate. We have false colors, artistic representations, and all sorts of stuff. It is only important that the image is presented as what is it(like in the caption). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Why would we want Muslim editors to leave? I think you are not being entirely sincere with that last posting. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If everyone is the world know that wikipedia is a bad source regarding Islam and no one look at it if he wish to learn Islam. Then I have no problem. I (and many other Muslims) only edit here because I think that if someone want to know about Islam then he does not end up getting wrong information. There are two solution to this problem. Either we improve wikipedia to give right contents. Like if Muslim do not have picture mostly then we follow the tradition rightly. Otherwise, we make it really bad by putting cartoon picture on top of every article. In both case I will be happy that now chances of someone getting misguide is small. So either make it perfect or worse. Hence I will support only putting Baphomet and cartoon picture on the top. --- ALM 19:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you would prefer to put nonsense which the consensus is to not place in the article (the consensus is that the Baphomet and the recent cartoons wouldn't be appropriate) rather than the consensus view ? That the Wikipedia consensus view is to include verifiable and reliably sourced content on Islam that has not been edited away by well-meaning but pro-Islam editors would make Wikipedia a more reliable source at least as a reference from which you can springboard to other sources. One of those other sources should be any critiques from notable sources on the images. So far we have simply had lots and lots of talk about fake, misleading, hadiths and the like but no one else has said this; it is plain and simple original research. Find those notable sources that agree with you. According to Islamic traditions, Muhammad began receiving revelations from God. As an atheist, to me this is utter nonsense but I'm happy to allow this both in this article and across the many other articles which present foundation myths as we have primary sources which others use to present this is as it is. I do not say that it must be proven true first before inclusion but that it is said by someone notable in the field of endeavour that we are describing. Ttiotsw 20:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes I am a vandal as your edit summary says. The most athentic books of Sunni Sahahi-Bukari and others have fake hadith. Thank you. Continue your abuse please. I am not Christian but should I turn my other cheek for you to slap? --- ALM 20:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point, which I guess got lost in more of the Baphomet nonsense, is that a black-and-white picture is not representative (or only partially representative) of real people. No picture is fully representative. Any yet, most biographies have pictures and nobody has a problem with it. This criterion of 'not representative' is only applied to this page. It makes people think the real reason is that devout Muslims oppose having a picture of Muhammad for religious reason, but want to present a plausible non-religious reason for not including pictures. But since such a standard is not applied anywhere else, that argument is not persuasive. It's like this idea that to have pictures in a biography is to somehow non-neutrally privilege graphic representations over calligraphic representations, and presumably over auditory representations, animated representations, gray-scales and who knows what others. It's as if someone would suddenly say that vertical scrolling pages were non-neutral, and some sections should side-scroll to make it fair. At least, that's how it seems to me. And I would like to add that I am certain ALM is working in good faith to improve the article, and it would be great if we could hear no more of Baphomet. Tom Harrison Talk 21:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for ALM, VirtualEye, et al