Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 8

message: no human depiction images in the article at all, even at the bottom, even with a veil. Only links to images. (Just sign, no comments please.)
*Itsmejudith 22:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong no images 

message: Calligraphy at the top and at the bottom one image with a veil. (Just sign, no comments please.)
*Itsmejudith 22:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only one image, not at the top 

message: Calligraphy at the top multiple veiled images.
(Just sign, no comments please.)
*Itsmejudith 22:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple veiled images, not at the top 

message: Calligraphy at the top, multiple other images, with and without veils, but not at the top. (Just sign, no comments please.)
*futurebird 21:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple images, some unveiled images, not at the top

message: (Just sign, no comments please.)
*futurebird 21:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Veiled image at the top, multiple other images, some unveiled 

message: Who feels we should have an image right at the top that is a human depiction of some-kind with no veil  
*Sefringle 22:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: human depiction with no veil at the top AND multiple other images

message: My view - most explicit image at top with attribution and references to sections in the biography dealing with:
1. reliability of depictions, history and range of depictions of him
2. references from hadith and biography relating the characteristics of his appearance and dress (these exist)
3. traditions of aniconism (at which place show veiled portayals and calligraphy)
DavidYork71 01:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that I have not done that. futurebird 00:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: yeah. I added it now.--Sefringle 22:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, though I do care if he is vailed. I would prefer not vailed, but I am willing to compromise now that this is taking so long.--Sefringle 22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please put all other comments this poll here

message: I'm inclined to propose, "Multiple images, some unveiled images, not in the lead" with the added provisions that they be 1) carefully selected, 2) moderate in number relative to articles for religious figures of comparable significance 3) accompanied by notable calligraphic representations of the name "Muhammad" to fairly represent the practices of aniconistic Muslims 4) captioned to specify "an artist's depiction" or the equivalent, and 5) a message will be placed atop the talk page acknowledging the sensitivity of the issue and asking that editors verify the notability and topic-appropriateness of depictions on talk before adding them.
If there are any other provisions which can be added to acknowledge and respect strong feelings on this matter without violating WP:NOT, please suggest them.Proabivouac 02:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is fair.futurebird 02:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: One veiled and one unveiled is absolutely as far as I'm willing to go. IIRC this was the status quo for a long time until recently. - Merzbow 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If the page were in that condition, I would not change it. Tom Harrison Talk 05:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The top image was the only one edit warred over anyway. The editors never bothered reading beyond the first page !. Stick a calligraphy image at the top and 99.5% of the vandalism would disappear (using the made-up statistics adopted by some posts to date). The remaining 0.5% who remove all the images before they go back to their sectarian edits on other Islam related pages, can be fixed with reverts and 3RRs. Ttiotsw 05:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. · AndonicO Talk 12:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree futurebird 13:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking back through my posts in this mediation, I believe I mentioned something similar to your suggestion, Proabivouac. I have said before I am willing to compromise on a  portrait of Muhammad veiled as the lead-in image.  I also believe that a calligraphic representation of Muhammad's name should follow in a subsequent section. I am of the opinion that the caption should clearly cite the source of the portrait as being Muslim in origin, and that this was an acceptable representation in certain cultures.  I agree with your suggestion for the talk page, and I also suggest that a comment block of code should be inserted to notify editors to make a comment on the talk page before removing the portrait.Liberal Classic 16:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i intend to look at this proposal more closely in a while. ITAQALLAH 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal proposal

message: Please vote either yes or no (without comments) to the following question: Should we treat the article on Muhammad any differently to that of any other historical figure? TharkunColl 09:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "We should not treat him differently just to satisfy a constituency which does not want images" - this is exactly what this mediation has always been about. Further differences can be solved after the questions which gave rise to this mediation are settled.Proabivouac 10:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But, no.  You feel that such a statement means images will be kept and will not realize that I have no urge to satisfy Muslims but to create an encyclopedic article.  I am unaware of the exact motive (you seem to imply that it is to satisfy Muslims) used in the request for mediation but I do not feel obliged to agree with the motive to discuss the issue.  You make the a priori judgment that excluding images is being done to satisfy Muslims when I believe it is a way to satisfy neutrality instead of delegitimizing a mode of representation that historians of Islamic art find to be immensely important.  If we end this mediation agreeing that "Wikipedia should not attempt to create articles to satisfy constituencies" without agreeing on the state of images we would have another mediation in no time because you believe that not having images is only to satisfy Muslims--I do not. gren 16:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another vote (yawn): Let's keep it simple

message: From WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."
That being said, I would like to say that whether an image really resembles Muhammad is not relevant, as it is not the job of an encyclopedia to determine truth. Rather, and encyclopedia reflects that which has already been said by reliable sources. Thus, if a reliable source says "This is a depiction of Muhammad" then that is all we need.
The current image(:Image:Maome.jpg) at the top of the Muhammad page has such a reference, verifying that it is:
#A depiction of Muhammad
#Drawn by Al-Bîrûnî
#Made in the 15th century
#Is of Arabian origin
All based off of this reference: Le Prophète Mahomet Al-Bîrûnî, al-âthâr al-bâqiya (Vestiges des siècles passé). BNF, Manuscrits (Arabe 1489 fol. 5v)
If another reference is found that provides contrary information, then text can be added to the caption to show that there are differing points of view.
I am not pretending this addresses all of the issues in this debate, but I certainly think it addressed one of the main ones. Verifiability over opinion. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cartoon pictures also have the reference and we know much more about them. Why not to have them on the top because they have more information. -- ALM 17:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not really on topic though are they? They were created as satire or mockery, declared as such by their authors. They are not historical depictions, nor were they meant to be. Also I think you already know all of this. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No I did not know them already and wish this thing to be debated properly by creating a new section. Who thinks that they are created for mockery? Their authors says that they are there for expressing freedom of speech just like you and other here says. Show the reference where there authors says that they are created for mockery. If they are cartoons then so is the picture you are varifying above. See both becasue to me both looks same kind of drawing. They are notable enough as compare to any other picture you have presented. Al-Bîrûnî is even not listed in the list of Islamic scholars but still he become notable. Here people revert all the references I have provided in Islam and science when a big Islamic scholars had no knowledge of science and a big scientist with no religion knowledge. How can you consider a person who as not a religious authority notable to include picture of Muhammad? Is he qualify WP:RS in this case. How? --- ALM 18:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truth vs Verifiability 

message: There are two kind of people that making this mediation impossible to end.
# They have 0 edits on Muhammad article
# They have hundred of edits on Muhammad article but all edits are related to picture warring.
Both of these kind of people even do not know who was Muhammad really. They say Jesus and Muhammad articles should be treated equally and it is not their fault when they have never read about Muhammad. They have not added a single reference in the article. Ask them which reference you have added. Remove these all people and then have votes and we will have solution. Check contribution using Page History Statistics Page History Statistics. --- ALM 19:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the same sort of logic, we should also remove all those people who have an agenda based on religious dogma, i.e. Muslims. TharkunColl 19:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes and anti-Muslims too. --- ALM 19:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any anti-Muslims here? TharkunColl 19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes all those who think there are people with based on religious dogma. --- ALM 19:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the prohibition against pictures of Muhammad in Islam is not religious dogma? What on earth is it, then? TharkunColl 19:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This is nonsense and against the spirit of WP:AGF. I see no difficulty with the mediation. The consensus seems to be to have images though we are negotiating the captions. Learn to live with that instead of denigrating editors. All contributors are equal in Wikipedia though we all admit that some are more equal than others on some 'votes'. Ttiotsw 19:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See the VOTING above. Where did you find consensus. People never have any contribution and never will has nothing to do with this mediation.  --- ALM 19:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a democracy and nobody owns articles.  Nobody needs to have any amount of editing to become involved in the editing at any time, nor are there votes.  Polls are sometimes productive, but that's a seperate issue. WilyD 21:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My concern is to prevent the degradation of Wikipedia by religious censorship. I have a perfect right to express my opinion and vote. TharkunColl 19:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How can you vote when you have no idea who is you voting for. When you do NOT know basic of Muslim history and Muhammad then how can you justify with the article/decision? Then you will say Jesus and Muhammad are same because of you lack of knowledge. What is our fault who seriously wish to contribute here in the article? --- ALM 19:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with ALM here. Usually mediation is over some point of contention between relatively established editors on a given article. My only reservation is over the "image" editors or not. I don't think that matters much if the "image" editors have been involved with the article for some time prior to the mediation. It can look at bit fortuitous for those supporting displaying the image if suddenly there's an influx of previously uninvolved editors supporting such a POV.  23:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it that all the editors here look familiar (well other than the recently created editors or IPs who say the pictures should be removed) ? Could it be that we have crossed paths on Islam pages before or is this just some random coincidence ? So what you are saying is that if we haven't added stuff to a specific page then we cannot have a say on that one page; that's page ownership by another means. I have deliberately avoided the core Islam pages (e.g. Muhammad ) for obvious reasons: Muhammad had a great idea to help destroy the older tribal gods and borrowed the Judeo-Christian myths he probably heard from Waraqah ibn Nawfal and others: it doesn't make any of what he said true or that the record we have is accurate. I usually edit on the edges e.g. where Muslim POV tries to remove Bahá'í Faith references or where Islamic pseudoscience interacts with science or where Muslim POV edits hits "apostate" BIOs e.g. Wafa Sultan or Ibn Warraq where Muslim POV vandals hit articles they don't like e.g. Faith Freedom International which is where I've come across ALM, VirtualEye, Sefringle, Arrow740 , Truthspreader, Itaqallah and others on both sides of the fence. So far hundreds of edits without a single 3RR. I think this a way of discounting editor contributions which is against the spirit of Wikipedia though I do welcome the implicit invitation to edit Muhammad. Ttiotsw 07:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not at all fortuitous: the appearance of religiously-motivated censorship has attracted people who otherwise might not show much interest in Islam-related articles. The fact that editors with a wide variety of religious beliefs and interests and no particular history of collusion have appeared to support inclusion of depictions, in contrast to the relative (with a few notable exceptions) homogeneity of those who seek to remove them, is one reason I'd encourage any course of action which fairly brings this to the attention of the wider community: it may well achieve a strong consensus for upholding WP:NOT by retaining the images. I am still curious to hear the opinion of our moderator on this idea.Proabivouac 07:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: ALM, this sort of behavior is not at all appropriate.Proabivouac 03:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more. It qualifies as WP:POINT in my opinion. State your point, don't play games with us to try to minipulate the results of the mediation.--Sefringle 03:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also this.Proabivouac 03:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason: Mediation without solution 

message: I looked through these this afternoon. I can't say much about the text, but several have pictures we might consider. Tom Harrison Talk 21:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea. This article in particular is admirably uncensored: . Perhaps these will also help us in our search for notable examples of calligraphy.Proabivouac 21:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow-- impressive article those German-speakers have there.  It seems they hit upon the same solution that's been proposed here, of putting a caligraphy at the top, with a large image right below it. --Alecmconroy 07:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seven depictions total, two of which are veiled, including all four we've discussed here.Proabivouac 07:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dare say, that article's use of images is a good example of what we should be shooting for-- an article that uses images wherever they can help illustrate the subject. --Alecmconroy 13:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Mediation usually have parties already in dispute not everyone wishes to piss Muslims comes and join in. --- ALM 14:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A joke I thought better of While true, it's entirely irrelevent.  Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and as an editor acting in good faith you should welcome input from uninvolved editors - hell, you should be begging for it.  In any event, even if this isn't clear, you have no grounds to tell other editors to leave because they have less involvement with the article.  You don't own it, and they have as much of a right to edit it as you do, and as much of a right to be involved in a "content dispute" as you do.  You don't gain any authority by editing the article, or even knowing more about the subject. WilyD 14:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with you Tom Harrison. I was actually a bit surprised to see the Danish article illustrated given all of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy hoopla.  14:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, ALM, mediation is open to anyone who wants to be interested in the topic. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In that case there are many people who are interested Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam. --- ALM 14:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps, but if they are interested they will come here. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other language's wikipedias

message: No. (Not when I checked it, at least.) Why not? Are we going to have mediation to ensure that they are included? Whose feelings are we protecting here, please? Why are we censoring the encyclopedia? The photos would be relevant. He's a historical figure. BYT 22:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think those photo's would be under a compatible license with Wikipedia. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Are they disallowed for religious reasons? Tom Harrison Talk 00:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Then go add them. What on earth can this have to do with what we're discussing?Proabivouac 23:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Has anyone ever raised a debate over whether or not the pictures should be included? If not, then by all means, go start one. But just because the rule may be broken elsewhere doesn't mean that it does not exist. --Hojimachongtalk 23:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: So go post your concerns at Talk:John F. Kennedy autopsy. This doesn't have anything to do with this discussion, at all. It's really chewbacca-ish. --Hojimachongtalk 23:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Because more suitable alternatives exist? Most people associate the Virgin Mary without bloody breasts and a penis. As for Muhammad, nobody knows what he looked like. Therefore, we are trying to find something that is notable and verifiable to represent Muhammad. --Hojimachongtalk 23:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And we can't be sure of the copyright status of that image ;-). --Hojimachongtalk 23:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I cannot understand the point you are making. If you can find public domain pictures for the John F. Kennedy autopsy article, suggest them on the talk page. This whole thread is a little off topic on this talk page though. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: See the image at say, Piss Christ if your curious about where to find images that Christians might find offensive on Wikipedia. WilyD 14:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: VirtualEye, I was merely stating that the Virgin Mary has been extensively documented in artwork, and a solid image exists which people associate her with. The same is true with Muhammad. And WP:V is the issue here as well. --Hojimachongtalk 21:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the article [[John F. Kennedy autopsy]] feature photographs of same? 

message: It seems clear to me that the question of whether an image be put at the top or not is settled.  No valid reasons have been offered to censor the article.  Here's how I'd have things:  Keep the article semiprotected to guard against drive-by vandalism.  Put a paragraph in a box at the top reading something like this: "Do not remove images from this page or clutter it up with 'pbuh' or 'saw'.  This is an encylopedia, not a religious treatise. Violation is grounds for immediate suspension.  Repeated violation is grounds for permanent suspension.".  Perhaps it's time to explore creating protection templates that require a certain number of edits or an account of a certain age in order to edit.   Frotz661 06:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we don't do that and instead we actually compromise? - Merzbow 07:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of us have already compromised and it has not done any good; it has just become the basis from which further compromise is demanded. As long as there are any pictures of Muhammad on the page, some people will remove them, if only out of a sense of religious obligation. I do not expect any agreements to the contrary to be stable, and I do not think there is any use in further mediation. I think we should acknowledge that mediation has failed and move on from there, maybe opening it up to the wider community, or proposing a policy change. Tom Harrison Talk 14:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's highly plausible that the people deleting the image of Muhammad or inserting "pbuh" are doing so with the intention of improving the article as an encyclopedic article.  Therefore, calling these edits "vandalism" is inaccurate.  See WP:VAND and WP:AGF. --Coppertwig 12:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No permanent solution is possible unless an admin with commonsense and courage makes a permanent policy to never censor anything from this article for any reason.--Matt57 12:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: admins are editors entrusted with a few maintenance tools, little else. ITAQALLAH 14:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There already is an official policy not to censor images based on religion: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. It's not permanent policy though; if it is ever changed from images are not censored based on religion to images are censored whenever any religion so requires, then the situation will change. Weregerbil 14:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is censoring that? Where the policy says that not having picture on the top of page is censorship when the tradition for that personality to represent is not in picture. First prove that if someone say that he is mostly represented in calligraphy and not in picture hence we following that tradition is censorship. ---- ALM 14:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Those having picture is doing censorship of reality and pushing a POV (picture) to make a WP:POINT. Hence please do not censor. --- ALM 14:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree this mediation has failed. I also have yet to see a reason not to include the images. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed this mediation has failed. When the difference between a Middle eastern view and Western view about images of Muhammad are so pronounced and there are a roughly equal number of editors supporing each view, I see little hope for a compromise.  15:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This mediation is going nowhere 

message: I am going to attempt to review the arguments against the images, and my response to those arguments.
#It offends my religious beliefs, such images are forbidden.
#:Wikipedia is not censored for the religious tastes of others. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored
#None of the images depict Muhammad accurately.
#:The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. The image :Image:Maome.jpg has been verified as a depiction of Muhammad by a reliable source. Wikipedia:Attribution
#Showing the image is a violation of WP:NPOV.
#:NPOV does not mean leaving out information that is contrary to one set of beliefs, but instead should show all sides of the debate. The belief that these images should be prohibited is covered in the section Muhammad#Depictions_of_Muhammad and the article Depictions of Muhammad. NPOV ensures that we do represent the history of artistic representations.
#The image is not notable enough.
#:The image :Image:Maome.jpg is notable as it is featured at a museum.
#Showing a depiction of Muhammad gives undue weight to the practice of showing images
#:Unless a claim is made then a claim cannot have undue weight. Unless a reliable source has interpreted those images as having that meaning, then attributing that meaning to the images is original research. The belief that the images are prohibited is mentioned in the article and leads to an article about the history of depictions itself, so this belief seems to be given plenty of credence.
Did I miss any arguments? I will gladly address them. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ALM, I'm really not going to discuss this with you further, because there is no point, but it is inaccurate to say that I have been the biggest pusher of pictures since the start. At first I opposed including pictures, but later came to think that instituting religious censorship was worse than offending some of our editors. Tom Harrison Talk 15:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom harrison has been one of the more low key people about "picture pushing" imho. I wouldn't even use that language to describe Tom's involvement.  15:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not sure which policy based argument you are making. Are you addressing an already existing argument, or are you presenting a new one? What is that argument? Maybe I misunderstand, but are you saying because other authors don't do this often we should not? Perhaps those authors did not work under a "not censored" policy. What is more, nowhere in the images or the captions is the idea that depictions are not commonplace challenged. Undue weight is about ideas that have been put forward, not ideas that people assume. If you can find a reliable source that interprets that image as making a claim that images are mainstream then I will accept that argument, till then the idea that the images put forth any idea is OR. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) As a newcomer to the debate, I'll try and do the converse summary of the pro arguments in a minute. Just a note here: I think your discussion of number 2 above is a bit of a red herring. The question isn't, and cannot be, whether these images are "verified" to "be" him, or have a verified claim to being "accurate". That artist lived a millennium after Muhammad. No image of that kind could possibly ever have a claim to being accurate, that's a matter of common sense. Even if the artist had added a declaration next to the image: "this is Muhammad, and this is exactly what he looked like", it wouldn't make any difference, just as the absence of such a declaration doesn't make any difference. The question of authenticity with historic but non-contemporary images of this type is solely whether they reflect a cultural tradition that is central enough to the reception of Muhammad. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But nobody is claiming it is accurate, just that it is a depiction. That is verified by a reliable source. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If there are 10 images and 200 caligaphy pictures in real world. And your article gives ONE calligaphy picutre at the bottom and 3 images on the TOP then will it be giving undue weight or not. What is wrong with understanding here ? --- ALM 15:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Freaky? Do you have a citation for that, or is it just opinion? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: But tell me, where is this claim being made? I don't see any claim in the article that imagery is more common that calligraphy. If it is there it should be removed, but I don't see that claim. If you look at pictures and assume this claim, then you are assuming too much. If you can find a reliable source that interprets these images as making this claim fine, but I don't see it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In your opinion. I am a little confused as to how an idea can have undue weight if that idea is not being claimed at any point. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If you can provide a citation to verify such, we could add "While normally shown in calligraphy, Muhammad was also depicted visually." to the caption HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said, if you can find a reliable source to support the facts we can add "While normally shown in calligraphy, Muhammad was also depicted visually." to the caption. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Since your concern is undue weight I would think that you would care. Such an addition to the caption would clear up the whole undue weight issue. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That is an old saying, not a valid factual argument. For each person, the 1000 words are different. If people don't read the caption, well, I can't help them know what the image is about. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it would be more like the fictional country of "Bindimo", where black people are not photographed due to a superstition they hold. Then showing an image of one black person and saying in the caption "Black people are generally not photographed due to local taboos". A bit a ridiculous premise, but that is what you gave me to work with. Basically, not following a taboo is not tantamount to giving undue weight against that taboo. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The reason I adjusted your comparison, is because I could not apply it to the current situation as it was. I still cannot, it is not an apt comparison. I don't see 20 visual depictions beside one calligraphy. I think my comparison was more apt because the cause of the disparity in the types of depictions is due to the taboo. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My "review" was for reasons against the picture. Are you know arguing that it is okay to have this picture, but that the position and prominence is the problem? I think I may have been confused for a while, as I thought you were still arguing that the image should not be present at all. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ALM is saying here that say for example an image of a caucasian person was at the lead of the article on Senegal it would lead one to tend to think that the country of Senegal is primarily populated by caucasian folks (which is definitely not the case). Having a lead image of Muhammad on the article about him will easily lead a reader to view that such imagery is common and typical... which we know it is not.  16:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think I may have been confused, not sure, waiting on his response to my last question. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  HighInBC look at my signature on all the above compromises. We are willing to compromise. Even to the extend that ONE faced image appear at the bottom on the page. However, it is the lack of compromise from other side that the mediation is in deadlock. --- ALM 16:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, how about this as a compromise. The calligraphy can be at the top, and the visual depiction can be directly below it. The captions can explain their relationship as best we can verify through reliable sources. Remember, this is not just the article about Muhammad the Muslim prophet, but Muhammad the historical figure. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the ratio of caligraphy and pictures were 50/60 then your above compromise was good enough. However, that is not true. Hence I support 3-4 caligraphies which we can find from sites like  and then a picture near the bottom. Even faced picture in which Muhammad is putting stone on Kaaba can be acceptable and vailed pictures ofcourse. --- ALM 16:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked through that site, and there's not a single example of the word "Muhammad" on its own. The closest has "Allah" and "Muhammad" surrounded by the names of the first four Caliphs; the rest are all Qur'anic verses. Could it be that this storied  tradition of "depicting Muhammad" via calligraphy isn't actually that notable outside of the rhetoric of this mediation? It hasn't been shown otherwise.Proabivouac 16:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are many other websites too. --- ALM 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  It is very much against Hadith as compare to Kaaba image. Kaaba image is the OLDEST as far as I can think of. Kaaba image depict right event that actually happened and I can tell the date of that event etc. However, :Image:Maome.jpg does not give us any useful information and is much much away from Hadith depiction of Muhammad. It is also less old. ALM 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Without original research we cannot tell the event depicted in :Image:Maome.jpg however, in Kaaba image we can. --- ALM 16:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is claiming to know what is happening? How does the Kaaba image differ, is there a reliable source that explains it? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I have been accepting that as a given, but I would like to see a citation or two for these claims. Remember this is an article about a historical figure and how he related to all cultures. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can be much more certain that Muhammad forbade intercalation in 631 than this dubious folk tale about him adding the black stone to the Kaaba in his youth (to say nothing about Isra and Mi'raj).Proabivouac 16:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That article does not seem to mention that image, just events that could be interpreted as being what that image represents. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, and this is in line with the compromise I offer. A calligraphic image with a visual depiction directly below and captions on both explaining their relative significance. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've lost patience with this line of argument. It sounds totally reasonable a priori, which is why I included it as one of the points in my proposal (to which Gren has not responded) but after months of hearing about all these notable calligraphic reprentations of the name Muhammad, but only seeing one from early 20th century (just added from German wikipedia) compared to dozens of sourced/notable depictions viewed thusfar (on the depictions article, and in German and Spanish Muhammad articles), it's no longer credible. No more talk of calligraphy in the abstract, please. Produce specific images which you think should be included, or there's nothing more to discuss (and even so it's no argument for blanking depictions, unless we're running out of space.)Proabivouac 16:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 

message: Lets answer your last point: Go to depiction of Muhammad page and also to zumbi-net (or whatever it is) and tell that do you agree or not that all images drawn by Muslim are from 1300 to 1600? Answer in Yes or Not? (Exclude image made by western because that you can find even today, in 17th centruy etc). Hence do the maths 300/1400=' ? 
Even if you do not wish to divide between western scholars and Muslim scholar then see it in general by Tom statement who is the biggest pusher of pictures since start. Hi ALM; From our discussion on my talk page, I visited the (western) library. Of eight biographies of Muhammad, three included pictures: Mohammad, by Tor Andre; Mohammad, by Maxime Rodinson; and Muhammad, by John Glubb. Tom Harrison Talk 13:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ALM, I'm really not going to discuss this with you further, because there is no point, but it is inaccurate to say that I have been the biggest pusher of pictures since the start. At first I opposed including pictures, but later came to think that instituting religious censorship was worse than offending some of our editors. Tom Harrison Talk 15:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom harrison has been one of the more low key people about "picture pushing" imho. I wouldn't even use that language to describe Tom's involvement.  15:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not sure which policy based argument you are making. Are you addressing an already existing argument, or are you presenting a new one? What is that argument? Maybe I misunderstand, but are you saying because other authors don't do this often we should not? Perhaps those authors did not work under a "not censored" policy. What is more, nowhere in the images or the captions is the idea that depictions are not commonplace challenged. Undue weight is about ideas that have been put forward, not ideas that people assume. If you can find a reliable source that interprets that image as making a claim that images are mainstream then I will accept that argument, till then the idea that the images put forth any idea is OR. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) As a newcomer to the debate, I'll try and do the converse summary of the pro arguments in a minute. Just a note here: I think your discussion of number 2 above is a bit of a red herring. The question isn't, and cannot be, whether these images are "verified" to "be" him, or have a verified claim to being "accurate". That artist lived a millennium after Muhammad. No image of that kind could possibly ever have a claim to being accurate, that's a matter of common sense. Even if the artist had added a declaration next to the image: "this is Muhammad, and this is exactly what he looked like", it wouldn't make any difference, just as the absence of such a declaration doesn't make any difference. The question of authenticity with historic but non-contemporary images of this type is solely whether they reflect a cultural tradition that is central enough to the reception of Muhammad. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But nobody is claiming it is accurate, just that it is a depiction. That is verified by a reliable source. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If there are 10 images and 200 caligaphy pictures in real world. And your article gives ONE calligaphy picutre at the bottom and 3 images on the TOP then will it be giving undue weight or not. What is wrong with understanding here ? --- ALM 15:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Freaky? Do you have a citation for that, or is it just opinion? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: But tell me, where is this claim being made? I don't see any claim in the article that imagery is more common that calligraphy. If it is there it should be removed, but I don't see that claim. If you look at pictures and assume this claim, then you are assuming too much. If you can find a reliable source that interprets these images as making this claim fine, but I don't see it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In your opinion. I am a little confused as to how an idea can have undue weight if that idea is not being claimed at any point. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If you can provide a citation to verify such, we could add "While normally shown in calligraphy, Muhammad was also depicted visually." to the caption HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said, if you can find a reliable source to support the facts we can add "While normally shown in calligraphy, Muhammad was also depicted visually." to the caption. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Since your concern is undue weight I would think that you would care. Such an addition to the caption would clear up the whole undue weight issue. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That is an old saying, not a valid factual argument. For each person, the 1000 words are different. If people don't read the caption, well, I can't help them know what the image is about. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it would be more like the fictional country of "Bindimo", where black people are not photographed due to a superstition they hold. Then showing an image of one black person and saying in the caption "Black people are generally not photographed due to local taboos". A bit a ridiculous premise, but that is what you gave me to work with. Basically, not following a taboo is not tantamount to giving undue weight against that taboo. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The reason I adjusted your comparison, is because I could not apply it to the current situation as it was. I still cannot, it is not an apt comparison. I don't see 20 visual depictions beside one calligraphy. I think my comparison was more apt because the cause of the disparity in the types of depictions is due to the taboo. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My "review" was for reasons against the picture. Are you know arguing that it is okay to have this picture, but that the position and prominence is the problem? I think I may have been confused for a while, as I thought you were still arguing that the image should not be present at all. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ALM is saying here that say for example an image of a caucasian person was at the lead of the article on Senegal it would lead one to tend to think that the country of Senegal is primarily populated by caucasian folks (which is definitely not the case). Having a lead image of Muhammad on the article about him will easily lead a reader to view that such imagery is common and typical... which we know it is not.  16:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think I may have been confused, not sure, waiting on his response to my last question. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  HighInBC look at my signature on all the above compromises. We are willing to compromise. Even to the extend that ONE faced image appear at the bottom on the page. However, it is the lack of compromise from other side that the mediation is in deadlock. --- ALM 16:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, how about this as a compromise. The calligraphy can be at the top, and the visual depiction can be directly below it. The captions can explain their relationship as best we can verify through reliable sources. Remember, this is not just the article about Muhammad the Muslim prophet, but Muhammad the historical figure. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the ratio of caligraphy and pictures were 50/60 then your above compromise was good enough. However, that is not true. Hence I support 3-4 caligraphies which we can find from sites like  and then a picture near the bottom. Even faced picture in which Muhammad is putting stone on Kaaba can be acceptable and vailed pictures ofcourse. --- ALM 16:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked through that site, and there's not a single example of the word "Muhammad" on its own. The closest has "Allah" and "Muhammad" surrounded by the names of the first four Caliphs; the rest are all Qur'anic verses. Could it be that this storied  tradition of "depicting Muhammad" via calligraphy isn't actually that notable outside of the rhetoric of this mediation? It hasn't been shown otherwise.Proabivouac 16:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are many other websites too. --- ALM 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  It is very much against Hadith as compare to Kaaba image. Kaaba image is the OLDEST as far as I can think of. Kaaba image depict right event that actually happened and I can tell the date of that event etc. However, :Image:Maome.jpg does not give us any useful information and is much much away from Hadith depiction of Muhammad. It is also less old. ALM 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Without original research we cannot tell the event depicted in :Image:Maome.jpg however, in Kaaba image we can. --- ALM 16:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is claiming to know what is happening? How does the Kaaba image differ, is there a reliable source that explains it? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I have been accepting that as a given, but I would like to see a citation or two for these claims. Remember this is an article about a historical figure and how he related to all cultures. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can be much more certain that Muhammad forbade intercalation in 631 than this dubious folk tale about him adding the black stone to the Kaaba in his youth (to say nothing about Isra and Mi'raj).Proabivouac 16:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That article does not seem to mention that image, just events that could be interpreted as being what that image represents. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, and this is in line with the compromise I offer. A calligraphic image with a visual depiction directly below and captions on both explaining their relative significance. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've lost patience with this line of argument. It sounds totally reasonable a priori, which is why I included it as one of the points in my proposal (to which Gren has not responded) but after months of hearing about all these notable calligraphic reprentations of the name Muhammad, but only seeing one from early 20th century (just added from German wikipedia) compared to dozens of sourced/notable depictions viewed thusfar (on the depictions article, and in German and Spanish Muhammad articles), it's no longer credible. No more talk of calligraphy in the abstract, please. Produce specific images which you think should be included, or there's nothing more to discuss (and even so it's no argument for blanking depictions, unless we're running out of space.)Proabivouac 16:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight

message: :Ok, how about this as a compromise. The calligraphy can be at the top, and the visual depiction can be directly below it. The captions can explain their relationship as best we can verify through reliable sources. Remember, this is not just the article about Muhammad the Muslim prophet, but Muhammad the historical figure. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the ratio of caligraphy and pictures were 50/60 then your above compromise was good enough. However, that is not true. Hence I support 3-4 caligraphies which we can find from sites like  and then a picture near the bottom. Even faced picture in which Muhammad is putting stone on Kaaba can be acceptable and vailed pictures ofcourse. --- ALM 16:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked through that site, and there's not a single example of the word "Muhammad" on its own. The closest has "Allah" and "Muhammad" surrounded by the names of the first four Caliphs; the rest are all Qur'anic verses. Could it be that this storied  tradition of "depicting Muhammad" via calligraphy isn't actually that notable outside of the rhetoric of this mediation? It hasn't been shown otherwise.Proabivouac 16:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are many other websites too. --- ALM 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  It is very much against Hadith as compare to Kaaba image. Kaaba image is the OLDEST as far as I can think of. Kaaba image depict right event that actually happened and I can tell the date of that event etc. However, :Image:Maome.jpg does not give us any useful information and is much much away from Hadith depiction of Muhammad. It is also less old. ALM 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Without original research we cannot tell the event depicted in :Image:Maome.jpg however, in Kaaba image we can. --- ALM 16:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is claiming to know what is happening? How does the Kaaba image differ, is there a reliable source that explains it? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I have been accepting that as a given, but I would like to see a citation or two for these claims. Remember this is an article about a historical figure and how he related to all cultures. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can be much more certain that Muhammad forbade intercalation in 631 than this dubious folk tale about him adding the black stone to the Kaaba in his youth (to say nothing about Isra and Mi'raj).Proabivouac 16:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That article does not seem to mention that image, just events that could be interpreted as being what that image represents. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, and this is in line with the compromise I offer. A calligraphic image with a visual depiction directly below and captions on both explaining their relative significance. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've lost patience with this line of argument. It sounds totally reasonable a priori, which is why I included it as one of the points in my proposal (to which Gren has not responded) but after months of hearing about all these notable calligraphic reprentations of the name Muhammad, but only seeing one from early 20th century (just added from German wikipedia) compared to dozens of sourced/notable depictions viewed thusfar (on the depictions article, and in German and Spanish Muhammad articles), it's no longer credible. No more talk of calligraphy in the abstract, please. Produce specific images which you think should be included, or there's nothing more to discuss (and even so it's no argument for blanking depictions, unless we're running out of space.)Proabivouac 16:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: section break

message: Okay, I'll try to do the converse, summing up the arguments I can see here for inclusion of images.
# Every article about a person should include an image of the person, and there's no need to make an exception here.
#: But we don't (or shouldn't) include images of people simply for the sake of it, or simply because other articles do it. We should do it because it provides interesting encyclopedic information. Either it shows what the person actually looked like (not in this case), or it shows something about the cultural reception of the person within their cultural tradition. Or it's mere decoration, but that's not a strong argument for inclusion.
# Wikipedia is not censored and shouldn't give in to religious pressure.
#: True, Wikipedia can and should include images that some people find offensive. But it should be doing that only for a strong reason, i.e. if there's something that needs to be illustrated that couldn't be illustrated in a different way. Let's first establish the images really serve to convey something central enough so as to make them indispensable. Mere decoration (just because other articles do it) is okay in articles there is no contention and no cultural sensitivity, but not here.
# There's no issue of NPOV in deciding whether to include an image. If it's verifiably an image intended to be one of Mohammed, then it can be included.
#: True, but there is an NPOV-related issue in editorial prioritising what to include where. We are dealing mostly with what to include at the top of the article, in the infobox. That position should be reserved to something that is undoubtedly and undisputably representative and central to the topic. I agree that the issue of depictions is important enough that these images should be included somewhere – simply to serve as illustrations of the exception to the rule of non-depiction. But that's what we have the dedicated  Depictions of Mohammed article for, after all.
# The images illustrate other aspects of real historical information about Mohammed beside his looks, such as outward traits of the culture he came from (clothing etc.) or certain aspects of the role he played.
#: Maybe, but these things are either trivial enough to fade into insignificance compared to the main issue at stake ("he came from a culture where men wore beards and turbans"), or they can just as well be related through words alone ("he used to preach and people looked up to him"). The main thing to be "illustrated" about Mohammed is and will always be the very fact that there is a cultural tradition that doesn't want him "illustrated". Therefore, a "non-image" (such as a calligraphy, or a veiled depiction) is actually more of an illustration, more informative and more encyclopedic, of what the article is about, and should therefore take pride of place at the top.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Issue remains: Is it a central enough part of the history to be told, to warrant placement in a position where it will be perceived as representing a central, summary, symbolic place of the story? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So would you be comfortable with an article that had a piece of caligraphy in the opening, and several historical illustrations further on? WilyD 16:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Review (2)

message: * Has anyone stopped to address why this is a drop-everything issue NOW, when the article sailed along quite nicely for at least three or four years with a general (not unanimous, but general) consensus not to include images of the Prophet? 
* Is it possible the number of editors out for blood has simply increased?
* For years, there was an understanding that including these images in this article needlessly crossed the line into "fighting talk" in a way that caused more trouble than the benefit of the images could conceivably have carried. Now: How do we define civility? Remember? "Personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." That's from WP:CIVIL. Not that such niceties matter in the current climate.
* Believe it: Vast numbers of Muslims who view this page will, if the pro-blood folks have their way, feel themselves "personally targeted"  ... and I think it's essential for us to acknowledge frankly here that that's not exactly a coincidence. 
* Why is this so important now? Because including the images steps on the toes of Muslims, that's why, and there are now more editors who want to do that. Exposing Muslims to an "atmosphere of greater conflict and stress," quite clearly, now constitutes a moral and institutional imperative for some editors. 
* The culture here has changed, and p***ing off Muslims in highly visible ways -- (witness Islamofascism,the permanent enshrining on our servers of the Danish cartoons image, the present controversy) -- p***ing off Muslims in highly visible ways, I say, is clearly a major strategic objective among some here, in way that wasn't the case  in, say, 2004. 
* Lest we think the rough-and-tumble applies to all topics equally, though, we should check out King David Hotel Bombing, whose opening paragraphs has for some years constituted an ever-more-artful ballet around the historically mandated word "terrorist," or Zionism, which in its more surrealistic moments reads like a recruiting pamphlet, and until recently was able to segregate out the fact that Arabs, by and large, aren't particularly keen on the idea. (For all I know, that carefully sourced passage about Arab opposition may have already been deleted by the Thought Police, who made short work indeed of citations demonstrating Jewish opposition.) 
* We are now embracing systemic bias as a valid operating principle of this encyclopedia, I think. BYT 17:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to move that speculation on editors' motives ends here. Weregerbil 17:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This problem has been around since the beginning. I see no benefit to frame this debates as an attack on the Muslims. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Signing off. Peace, Thurgood Marshall, aka BYT 17:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well said BYT -:) I agree all of it. Please contribute more often, I miss you a lot. The fact is that west is increasingly non-tolerant when it come to Muslim. They make sure to express freedom of speech when there is no need to express it. --- ALM 17:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is winding up the watch of his wit. By and by it will strike. Tom Harrison Talk 18:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: FWIW, it's patent nonsense to suggest that something offensive to 1 out of 6 people (to assume an upper bound) is in any way a personal attack.  It's the very definition of an impersonal attack.  That said, I don't think it matters whether or not Muslims feel personally targeted by the article.  What matters is whether tha article is neutral, sourced and verifiable, encyclopaedic and informative.  If it's all of those things and it still offends people, all I can offer is the words of my classical mechanics professor Life is sometimes hard.  Our purpose here is provide people with information, not hugs.  WilyD 18:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's informative, and how people react to verifiable, encyclopaedic information is their own concern.  Look, how people choose to react to information is their own concern, but it's not our place to play pretend with them, and censor out information because a reader might not like it.  If a reader doesn't want information about Muhammad, they shouldn't come here.  But the mission we've charged ourselves with is to provide all the information we can to anyone who wants it - and let them make their own judgements on it.  None of us have the mandate to impose our own judgements on readers - that's what WP:NPOV says.  We simply present the information we've gathered, all of it, and give it away for people to do with as they like.  No more, no less. WilyD 18:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is against relality. Muhammad is not represented in images in reality at least most of the time. Hence an image near bottom will be more near reality. Otherwise cartoon images should be on the top because they are more informative one. --- ALM 18:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's perfectly within reality.  What we're talking about are depictions of the subject of the article that are verifiable as such.  WilyD 18:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That image has a citation verifying that it is a depiction of Muhammad from a manuscript, which is all that is being claimed. You are welcome to add any sourced information to the caption if a previously published source has found this image to be inaccurate. If this image was so wrong, then surely somebody of repute must have made this observation. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If you think three is too many that is one thing, but it seems you are arguing not to have a depiction at the top. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want more calligraphy, find some and add it. But I still don't see a single reason to not have it as a lead image other than it is religiously offensive. You call it a minor issue, but you clearly do not see it as minor or you would not be so determined. You had a good point about undue weight, and we remedied that by putting calligraphy first. Since we both clearly disagree, I think we should wait for others to give their opinions on this matter. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the aniconistic argument has devolved into debate over what color robes Muhammad wore, it's pretty clear that the arguments are somewhat weak. It's not Muhammad {PBUH); It's Muhammad (note the lack of endearing term). In the guise of Wikipedia he is a historical figure, not a Muslim prophet. And please, stop making assumptions that we're all "out to offend Muslims". It's not the case at all. We are simply attempting to make the article the best we can in our interpretation of Wikipedia policies. --Hojimachong 19:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if we're down to the colour of the robes, it may be a sign we'vealmost ironed out a comprimise. WilyD 20:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that compromise was there since long time. If they remove just one image from the lead and keep other TWO images. Then I am fine. Nothing is censored because we will still have two images. One veiled and other non-veiled. --- ALM 20:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: But what is the reason for having no image at the top? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  but doth suffer a sea change into something foul and strange 

message: I appreciate the difficulty with which Gren and others must have struggled behind the scenes when I tried searching for the calligraphic Muhammad myself.  There are indeed many sites with images of this variety, but they are all contemporary.  For example, here is the (uncredited) source for the image we had previously.  There are many more that sound promising until you click through to them and discover that they are all contemporary popular art.  Following the link to the Library of Congress collections turned up nothing at all.
In contrast, a search for "muhammad depictions" search turned up a whole host of notable images of considerable antiquity.
There is of course a tradition of inscribing Qur'anic verses, and these are very easy to find; however Muhammad is mentioned by name hardly at all in the Qur'an. The few examples I could find involved the Shahada, not merely "Muhammad."Calligraphy, then, appears to serve the exact same function as it did in the West, and as fonts do today: the beautification of text, not for the creation of non-representational iconography (at least not involving Muhammad.) The article Islamic calligraphy doesn't say anything about this subject, which from the way it's been presented here, one would think a very salient and central component of the calligrapher's art.
I've seen no evidence that the word "Muhammad" on its own is anything more than a contemporary trend. We all took claims that this was a real and significant historical phenomenon at face value, but at this point, I'm inclined to consider it an unfounded assumption, an impression supported by the failure of anyone to produce anything beyond the 20th century image moved from German article. If so, it's actually calligraphy, not visual depictions, which would be subject to objections from undue weight.
I'm open to changing my mind, but it will have to be demonstrated to me by producing notable examples.Proabivouac 02:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Easiest way to find Islamic caligraphy is to visit mosque and old building and take pictures. However, we cannot do that in a minute or two and will required few months to try this thing. --- ALM 02:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You would think the easiest way would be to scour the wealth of academic information on the subject, and provide a citation. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. One can also use book covers with refernces. If that can come under fair use rational? --- ALM 02:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What do you mean using book covers as references? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Caligraphy from book cover with reference to that book. --- ALM 02:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The first criterion for fair use here is that the image not be replaceable from another source. I don't think it would qualify for copyright reasons. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes but we have multiple of book covers on wikipedia under fair use rational. For example :Image:In_The_Line_Of_Fire.jpg I have uploaded one too. --- ALM 02:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well a rather exemplary case would be found in the Sultan Ahmed Mosque (The Blue Mosque) found in Istanbul, Turkey. Have a look at the calligraphy found in its interior.  02:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is beautiful. I can read two out of four that is Abu-Bakr, Caliph Omar but cannot read properly other text. Need some more arabic expert. --- ALM 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have read other both too now. They are Quranic Ayats. btw Similar text can be find in many many mosque. I have seen Muhammad written many times in mosques. Good search  --- ALM 02:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If this were an article on the book fine. But if the subject is calligraphy and you can find calligraphy elsewhere then it fails WP:FUC. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "Muhammad in Kufi style Desighned by me"?Proabivouac 04:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Cool and another. Both say Allah and Muhammad. --- ALM 04:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: From Esposito - "Islam: The Straight Path" - p.5: "In addition, Prophetic traditions... give us a picture of his meaning and significance in early Islam as do Islamic calligraphy and art, where the names of Allah and Muhammad often occur side by side..." From p.9 - "Many Arab Muslims extended this ban to any representation in art of the human form... This attitude resulted in the use of calligraphy... and arabesque... as dominant forms in Islamic art." I'm sure I can find more sources that emphasize the calligraphic representations of the words Allah and Muhammad. Note Esposito's phrase "early Islam". We don't have to show that a Google search turns up an appropriate percentage of different kinds of art of the appropriate ages, we just have to show reliable sources saying so, as here. - Merzbow 04:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes I agree. :) --- ALM 04:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but unfortunately that wouldn't give us images that we can use. The way to represent the calligraphic tradition is to include examples of it, not to remove something else. They're not quite the standalone logos they were made out to be (such as the one currently on the page, but some look pretty good, so please do keep them coming, and thank you (both of you) for this hard work.Proabivouac 05:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome Proabivouac. I am contecting people on flikr and hoping that someone will reply. Hence hardwork is not finish yet. It is just a start of hard work. --- ALM 05:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The two that looked the best to me turned out upon closer inspection to be the same panel at Wazir Khan Mosque; of these, the first is clearly superior for our purposes here:, . I'd venture to guess that there are many photos of this panel in existence.Proabivouac 06:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I have already send an email to that person and looking for reply. I am also from Lahore and this mosque is from my city -:) (although I am currently in Germany) --- ALM 06:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally we'd have a flat image to focus on the treatment of "Muhammad" rather than the architecture and imaging event. A test in photoshop shows this to be quite easy (rotate, perspective, crop,) but I'm not certain about the rules on this.Proabivouac 06:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wait for couple of days for his reply. I have just sent him another email. --- ALM 06:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The calligraphy myth?

message: What about adding one veiled image to the lead or one of the first few sections, and adding a caption similar to this: "Muhammad has been depicted several times, both by Muslims and non-Muslims, but is often considered sacrilage if not veiled. For more images of Muhammad, see Depictions of Muhammad." I believe this is similar to the compromise that was previously in place, though a little more NPOV. It shows respect for Islam, but also allows for those who do not understand caligraphy to view an image, and follow the link if they wish. Any comments? · AO Talk 15:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the current version of the page. Are you suggesting adding another depiction, or removing the existing one's? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing most of the existing ones, and leaving the one where Muhammad is veiled. · AO Talk 18:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such censorship violates policy.Proabivouac 18:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Who created that image, and when?Proabivouac 10:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another proposal 

message: Thanks goes to razanoor's .
Image:Wazir-mosque-ALLAH-Muhammad.jpg|"Wazir Khan Mosque Beautiful fresco painting with floral designs surrounding the words "Allah" and "Muhammad"  in blue. Inscribed inside the names are calligraphic verses from the Quran in white paint of which the one inside the word "Allah" is the Ayat-ul-Kursi and the one inscribed inside the word "Muhammad" (PBUH) affirms the finality of Prophethood with the Prophet Muhammad". 
Image:Caligraphy-Sahadah.jpg|(Wazir Khan Mosque - Main Eastern Entrance) The main eastern entrance to the octagonal forecourt opens into the 150 feet x 102 feet wide enclosure known as Chowk Wazir Khan. Its original floor still exists five feet below the present ground level. The chowk had four gates of which two still exist. A well in the centre of the chowk serves as a reminder of the elaborate Mughal drainage system. The gateway has a number of inscriptions both in Arabic and Persian. The central Arabic inscription reads: "the best remembrance is that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad (PBUH) is his Prophet". The four adjoining panels contain Persian inscriptions giving the period and date of construction and the name of the mosque.
Image:Waziristan-mosque-hadiths-quran.jpg|Wazir Khan Mosque The recessed arch in the western wall of the central chamber, above the central recessed mihrab. The central panel contains verses from the Quran mentioning that if you ask for forgiveness from the heart, Allah will forgive you. The verse is flanked by four panels with sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The arch also contains exquisite examples of floral frescos and a mind boggling array of 3D geometrical patterns. The sayings from right to left are about, 1) if you honestly believe that there is no God but Allah, you will will enter heaven, 2) those who say there is no God but Allah, they will have no fear in the grave or at their final destination which is to Allah, 3) those who bear witness that there is no God but Allah, hellfire is forbidden on them, 4) those who say there is no God but Allah, they will have no fear during their death or in the grave.
Image:Wazir Khan Mosque Hadith.jpg|Wazir Khan Mosque, Sayings of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) on the northern wall of the arched gateway of the central prayer chamber.
More to come ....  --- ALM 13:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think is necessary to show that? gren グレン 14:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For my part, i don't think representativeness enters into it as much as usefulness to the reader.  I can't imagine the caligraphy conveys much information about Muhammad himself.  To arabic-speaking readers, it's simply a handwritten name.  For those that don't ready arabic, it is just an indecipherable script.  By all means, there's nothing stopping us from using one.  But if we're actually trying to teach people about Muhammmad, the historical figure, it's never going to be a substitute for pictures.  It's not even close.  Pictures are way, way, way more informative.  Don't blame me-- blame the human visual cortex. --Alecmconroy 16:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Picture are informative if they are real or at least drawn to what person used to be. Otherwise what extra information you get. I have no idea. --- ALM 16:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is necessary to show that because it is on topic, sourced, and looks lovely. I want to show that because it is the subject of the article portrayed. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If your argument is the job of an encyclopedia is to represent all relevant forms of art not be representative then I'll buy  that as legitimate. But you were asking for evidence calligraphy is the most important.  What do you want to see to show that... I thought [[what I had found plus other things made it pretty clear that it was.  But, this is a lot more than about it being portrayed... there's how, where, etc. gren グレン 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Read User:Grenavitar/mimages.  I mean, there aren't going to be any sources that way calligraphy is more useful.  It is your a priori assumption that images are representing some historical reality rather than part of a tradition.  That image is no more realistic than the one created in your mind from the text--probably less so (unless your imagination lacks perspective).  I don't think that is a very sound argument and although people tended to like your post showing "what you can learn from these images", I found it to be incredibly simplistic.  The images teach us nothing about the historical reality of Muhammad that texts don't unlike the sat portrait of George Washington or the photograph of George Washington Carver which gives us nuance about his historical reality that words can't.  This is how non-contemporaneous art is.  To present them as representing historical realities is really misleading.  So, they are informative, but not about a historical reality of Muhammad.  They are informative about tradition, art, depictions of Muhammad. gren グレン 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not being compared to the images at George Washington but to those at Cleopatra and Socrates WilyD 16:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think debates about the historical realtiy really enter into it.  I mean-- even if we supposed there wasn't ANY historical reality behind Muhammad-- there is, at least, the "fictional character Muhammad".  And I dare say that visual depictions are just as useful for telling us about fictional charactes as they are for telling us about historical figures.  Just as our biography pages invariable feature portraits in the lead, I suspect the best examples of our articles on fictional characters feature similar portraits-- Prince Hamlet and Perseus for example.  If our goal is really to communicate information about Muhammad (be that information historical or fictional), there's no reason to delete or bury  the images.  --Alecmconroy 17:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The only reason the importance of calligraphy is being challenged at all, is because of the claim that it is so important, and visual depiction are so obscure, that it constitutes undue weight to show a depiction at the top. I have nothing against the calligraphy, I think it is great. But the argument that somehow neutrality dictates we don't show a depiction at the top will require some impressive proof. The way I see it, this can be resolved by finding a citation, and adding information to the caption of the appropriate image, I think this would clear up any undue weight just fine. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  16th Century: Thing of Beauty (More calligraphies) 

message: Decription: Kufic Calligrpahy Style: (Translation) In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Praise be to God, Who created the Heavens and the earth. Prayers and blessings on Gabrael, and the angels on your servants on the Prophets Ibrahim and Ismael and on Mohammad, the last Messenger and (oh God) forgive Zainab daughter of Ibrahim bin Qasim bin Ibrahim bin Ismael bin Ibrahim bin Hasan bin Hasan bin Ali bin Abi Talib, God have mercy on her May God be pleased with her and honor her the company of her Grandfather Mohammad Peace be Upon Him. 
Many more at the website at there. --- ALM 14:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many more older than above. Select one that you feel good for the article and have better translation. --- ALM 14:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It might also be appropriate to Islam#History.Proabivouac 22:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  That what is called old and valuable (800AD - 1000AD) 

message: * --- ALM 17:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Yes (Mediation failed)''' 

message: Right now after User:Alecmconroy edit we have a compromise. Please vote for it at  Compromise Found ---  ALM 17:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Solution: The End? 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Linkimage}}