Wikipedia

Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 20

< Talk:Muhammad | images
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Amatulic in topic Images
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Images (but not the "Muslim" or "WP:NOTCENSORED" viewpoints)

Latest comment: 13 years ago195 comments17 people in discussion

I know this should go on the Images Talk page but it's difficult to get a discussion going there because it's pretty much ignored (due to postings of the usual requests). I hope thius can be left here for a short while anyway because I wanted to raise a different point. Here is a post I made on that page:

"I'm increasingly coming to the view that these images are somewhat problematic and that focusing the argument on WP:NOTCENSORED (bacause of the Muslim reaction) has stunted a "normal" discussion on the images value. I posted on this in an earlier thread but that didn't really go anywhere. I'll cut and paste the main point: "It seems to me that, as a generality, there would be three reasons to chose an image: to show what the person actually looked like (not applicable); to show what they might have looked like - typical style of dress etc (not applicable to most, as Ottoman/Ilkhanid styles are shown - perhaps applies to the Russian paninting); and to show what the prevalent cultural image of that person is, eg as with Jesus (mostly not applicable - since by definition there is no cultural image in general. The images shown are representative of 2 relatively narror cultural sources)." I think the representation of Muhammad in calligraphy in the infobox actually satisfies the third justification of an "image" since that is the overwhelmingly preponderent way of representing him. There's a real discussion to be had on this but it's been drowned out by the "Islamic" v. "not censored" positions."

It's slightly expanded in this thread. Any thoughts? DeCausa (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There aren't just three reasons to choose an image. A fourth reason would be to provide an illustration of an historical event. A fifth reason would be to create a visual break-up of a monotonous flow of text with an image that has relevance to that text. Both of these purposes add value to an article, they are valid, and applicable to this article.
The only reason the images generate controversy is because some Muslims choose to be offended by them — for which the counterargument is WP:NOTCENSORED. Take all that discussion out of the talk page archives and you have almost nothing left. The real question is, do the images add value to the article? From my point of view, when I read through the article from my non-Muslim perspective, I would give a resounding "yes". ~Amatulić (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
<sigh...> I don't want to get involved in this debate at the moment, but I have to point out the NOTCENSORED is intended to preserve the ability of the encyclopedia to present necessary information in articles. It is not carte blanche for indulging every little bit of prurience and crapulence that wikipedia editors might enjoy (because - unfortunately - wikipedia by its open nature is a bottomless pit of petty prurience and crapulence). there is no necessary reason to show an image of the prophet in this article, and any argument one might give for doing so will ultimately boil down to ILIKEIT, and do I really need to comment on the poverty of common sense that puts an ILIKEIT rationale ahead of offense to hundreds of thousands of other people? like I said: petty crapulence. --Ludwigs2 18:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The same could be said for any image on Wikipedia. WP:NOTCENSORED says nothing whatsoever about including only "necessary" information. That would violate the purpose of a project intended to be encyclopedic, useful, and interesting. Including relevant information is what WP:NOTCENSORED is all about (read it). Furthermore, let's stick to the topic. WP:NOTCENSORED is a side issue in this thread. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
You've added two further reasons to my three. ("A fourth reason would be to provide an illustration of an historical event. A fifth reason would be to create a visual break-up of a monotonous flow of text with an image that has relevance to that text.") On the illustration of a historical event, by the nature of the stylistic approach (the paintings are art not journalism) I think it's difficult, again with the exception of the Russian painting, to argue that they are very informative depictions of an event. With regard to your fifth reason, I think that has always to be a minor one and I think that it is reasonable to say that this reason must be subject to not giving offence (since it is so minor in an encyclopedia). I notice that you didn't argue that the pictures are acceptable under the three reasons I give. I'm left feeling a little uncomfortable with our rationale for having these pictures. Is it just about defying a POV and defending WP:NOTCENSORED? You say you give a "resounding yes" to "do they add value". I'm not really seeing it at the moment. DeCausa (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Paintings of historical events are never journalism. I'm surprised you would make that argument. Go to any royal palace in Europe and look at the ceiling murals depicting key battles in the country's history. They are artwork, intended to glorify a specific subject. Nobody ever claims they adhere to any standard of journalistic accuracy. And they need not do so (one particular ceiling of the royal palaces in France and Sweden, for example, depict the same battle scene between Sweden and France, commissioned by the same artist, but with different emphasis to please the customer). The point is that they depict an historical event. My fourth reason was "to provide an illustration of an historical event". The images serve that purpose, and they serve that purpose very well.
Don't belittle the value of creating a break in the monotony of lengthy text. You may regard this as minor, but it isn't. Just seeing an image or two in a section can make a person more willing to read the section. Even if I don't look at the images, the visual effect keeps the interest up. Like many other human beings, I tend to skip over walls o' text. An article's ability to inform a reader should not be overridden by the fact that some readers may find an image offensive. The images are not disrespectful, many Muslims have no problem with them, and we have mechanisms for readers to avoid seeing them, so "it might offend someone" is a bogus argument.
I felt no need to argue the reasons you presented because I don't agree with them. The two reasons I proposed boil down to "are they pertinent and encyclopedic in nature" (see WP:IMAGES) and "do they make the article interesting". To the images here, I would give a resounding "yes". This is my benchmark to weigh the value of any image in any article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
My point on "art not journalism" wasn't a general one (of course works of art, as in the one's you mention, give a particular perspective). I was pointing out that these ones specifically are highly stylized and it's difficult to actually see what's happening in them. I agree with your other point about "walls of text" - but that's not what I was suggesting. There's no reason to have that - other pictures could be included. Because they don't satisfy any of the three reasons I first mentioned, I'm having difficulty seeing that they add much to the reader's understanding of the subject. DeCausa (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you feel the same way about the depiction of Jesus on the Jesus page? thx1138 (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
No (a point I've already made in my first post). DeCausa (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Is an illustrated article better than a wall of text? Yes. Do these pictures represent events discussed in the text? Yes. Will the article be better without them? No. No reason to remove except "I dont like" IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but that seems to ignore (or suggest you haven't read) the above points. DeCausa (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I have read and do not agree with to your arguments. Illustrated articles are better than non-illustrated articles, these illustrationas are relevant, and removing them does not improve the article. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
But I didn't say that this article shouldn't have illustrations. I agree illustrated articles are better than non-illustrated. DeCausa (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that everyone move away from the horse. It's dead, and it's not rising again. We have a big blurb at the top of the page and a separate talk page for this anyway. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I've gone through the archives on the image question and cannot find where this has been properly discussed. It's all bogged down in Islamic view v Notcensored (both of which are irrelevant to the point I'm raising). I've also asked anyone involved at the time where in the archive this is discussed - no one has. If you know, point it out. The blurb at the top also doesn't address the point I'm raising. DeCausa (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I already addressed it, but not directly. Pardon me for speaking in a roundabout way. I contend that the illustrations add exactly as much to this article as the illustrations on Jesus add to that article. This is an article about Mohamed. The images in this article are images of Mohamed created by Muslims, just as the images in the Jesus article are images of Jesus created by Christians. The images don't tell us anything about the men themselves, but they do tell us something about the people who created them. thx1138 (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Based on the reliable source we have, 3 or 4 of the images in this article are not known to have been drawn by Muslims. It is disputed, and the article as it stands gives the wrong impression. Wiqi55 (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
But this is EXACTLY my point of concern. What you say is correct about Jesus. That is a culturally relevant image, reflective of a widespread Christian view. The paintings of Muhammad are rare examples of depictions of him reflective of only a very narrow cultural background (Ilkhanid/Ottoman - and then only a sub-strain within those cultures). DeCausa (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
this page is rife with wp:IDHT, isn't it? Just in the spirit of fun, allow me to demolish your arguments:
  • Many images on wikipedia contribute meaningful information to articles that cannot be adequately captured in words: Images of people show their likeness; images of events give a sense of realism; images of objects help identify them and show functional relationships. none of these points apply to images of Muhammed, since no one knows what he looks like and depictions of the events of his life are at best fanciful.
    • images of Muhammed have no intrinsic encyclopedic value, like the way an image of a corkscrew or a photo of Hiroshima after the bombing do - these pictures are just aesthetic additions.
  • The images of Jesus on the Jesus article are perfectly fine because no one really cares whether one makes an image of Jesus. Images of Muhammed, by contrast, are objectionable to may people.
  • One can easily find images to break up the text and beautify this page that do not feature the prophet, and the page will not suffer any loss of information or attractiveness.
In other words, these images are not needed, other images could be easily found that would fulfill their beautification function perfectly well, and people are offended by them - so why are we keeping them on the article? the only conceivable reason to keep them on the article is so that some editors can get their rocks off by pissing off Muslim readers - pure crapulence. no need to say more on the issue. --Ludwigs2 01:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The consensus of the editors is basically the exact opposite of what you said. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
consensus is not majority rule, and one can never use consensus to overturn common sense and reason. If you think that any of my reasoning is wrong, say why you think it's wrong. But if your entire argument is that 'most people' think differently, well then... I have an earful for you about the way 'most people' think. particularly true on articles like this, where you get lots of people editing hormonally. --Ludwigs2 05:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I distinctly read above "I don't want to get involved in this debate" followed by a rather trollish comment, yet here you are still, fortunately no longer trollish.
I think your reasoning is wrong.
  • no one knows what he looks like -- applies to Jesus and most any other historical figure before the age of renaissance painting or photography. So?
  • depictions of the events of his life are at best fanciful. As are depictions of events in the lives of Jesus or Moses. The images portray events relevant to the article and described in the article. If an artist felt that an event from Muhammad's life was worthy of portrayal in a painting, that's a rather noteworthy fact considering that so few portrayals of Muhammad exist from those ancient times.
  • images of Muhammad have no intrinsic encyclopedic value -- yes, they do. It is valuable to see how Muhammad has been portrayed throughout the ages.
  • These pictures are just aesthetic additions. Seems like a case of WP:IDHT on your part; see the discussion above. They serve multiple purposes, one of which is aesthetic.
  • The images of Jesus are perfectly fine. Really? Even though they are not accurate portrayals? (Hint: Jesus was likely not caucasian).
  • Images of Muhammed... are objectionable to may people. WP:IDHT again? As has been discussed ad nauseam, that is not an argument to remove them.
  • One can easily find images to break up the text and beautify this page that do not feature the prophet — perhaps so. And oddly, none have been proposed. The burden is on you to do so, and to demonstrate that the images you select are adequate replacements.
If you want the images removed, please come up with some compelling arguments to remove them. Thus far, I see none. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
(ec)I've been thinking about this on and off for a while, and I'm inclined to believe that Ludwigs and DeCause may have a good point here. If these images are not actually the "standard" depiction of Muhammad (and I think it's pretty clear that, at least at present, they're not), and if they only represent a certain historical subset of Islamic "images" of Muhammad, then, in fact, they don't seem to be providing encyclopedic value to this article. Note that I emphasize that last point--it is certainly acceptable for these images to appear elsewhere on Wikipedia where appropriate. For instance, the image currently in "Sources for Muhammad's life" by Nakkaş Osman could certainly go into Osman's article, or into the article on the book it's in (Siyer-i Nebi). But what is it doing here? Does it really help the reader understand anything about Muhammad? In a certain sense, we should measure the value pictures by the same standard that we measure pictures of a sexual/nudity nature--are they contributing something necessary to the article, or are they just titillating/provocative? Ohnotitsjamie says that this is a dead horse, but I'm not so sure that it is--I think that DeCausa is right at the very beginning to say that it's not really dead, it's that the argument has been conducted under only 2 very narrow lines that don't even really intersect, and don't get to the heart of the matter--deciding what is most beneficial for an encyclopedic treatment of this subject. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
@ Qwyrxian: yes, that's exactly the point. it's reasonably clear to me that these images are kept on this page mostly because they are provocative than because of any particular value they have
@ Amatulić: You've managed to miss my main points. to repeat:
  • The fact that portrayals of Jesus are inaccurate is of no consequence, because there is no significant Christian belief that prohibits depicting Jesus. Christians don't care.
  • The fact that many Muslims don't mind depictions of Muhammed is of no consequence, because there are significant Muslim sects that find it deeply offensive. Some Muslims clearly do care. You may not care that they care, but that lack of sensitivity is not something that the project should support or indulge.
The burden is on you to show that these images are needed on the article. I can remove these images at any time simply on the grounds that they are offensive to some people and not required for any particular encyclopedic purpose; I simply don't want the headache of dealing with the freak-out that would cause right at the moment. You have to show that they have a needed encyclopedic purpose - that the images inform in some way that is not feasible by other means - otherwise their noted offensiveness dictates they should be removed. Breaking up text is not informative; inaccurate illustration of historical events explained in text is not informative; color and spacing are not informative. Give a reason to keep these images that justifies pissing off hundreds of thousands of Muslims; if you can't, the pictures go (because there's no sense pissing off hundreds of thousands of people for no good reason).
And please don't pull that NOTCENSORED literalism on me - I have no problem IARing NOTCENSORED when I see people applying it just because they want to use Wikipedia to annoy people. --Ludwigs2 07:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with Ludwigs2, that's not why I'm questioning the images. I think offence given to Muslims is not relevant (with one minor exception). I opened this thread and gave it this heading specifically so as not to re-hash Muslim sensitivity v. Notcensored. I'm looking at this from solely the point of view of how you would judge any images in a WP article. What concerns me is they tick none of the usual criteria for choosing images (with the possible exception of the Russian painting):
  • They don't represent accurate depictions of Muhammad (obviously)
  • They don't represent an informative representation of what the events or Muhammad might have looked like (with the exception of the Russian painting) because they are in an Ilkhanid/Ottoman setting not 7th century Arabia
  • They don't illustrate events in the text effectively, with the exception of the Russian painting; because of the stylistic nature of the depictions it's difficult to actually see what's happening in them
  • They don't represent a culturally relevant representation of Muhammad (The "Jesus argument"). These are rare examples of depictions from a very narrow cultural source. It's as if all the images of Jesus in the Jesus article were taken from Inuit art. The equivalent of the mainstream representations of Jesus used in that article is the various calligraphy represenations of Muhammad. (Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that the illustrations be replaced just by calligraphy.) Perhaps if only one of the Ilkhanid/Ottoman pictures were present this argument would be of less concern.
  • They are decorative - but to my mind this is the one minor instance when offence should be taken into account, since this reason is trivial givenn that other images can be chosen to fulfil the decorative requirement.
I agree very much with the excellent points made by Qwyrxian. There are other articles where these images could well be included. DeCausa (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
P.S. A good example of my point is found in two of the pictures: Muhammad at the Ka'aba and the Destruction of the Idols. As far as the latter is concerned, I personally can't make any sense of it. What is going on? You can't see anything. How does this add anything to the article? As far as the former picture is concerned, it would be much more interesting and informative to see a photograph of the Ka'aba. You don't get any sense of what the Ka'aba is, let alone any sense of Muhammad, from the picture. On the other hand, there may be a case for leaving in the picture of Gabriel and Muhammad because it does arguably clearly illustrate an important event in his life. Perhaps that would be the one Ilkhanis picture to stay. DeCausa (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
DeCausa, I don't think we're disagreeing that much, I just tend to be a bit salty in discussions like this (personality flaw, probably). At any rate, I think we've made good cases, so the next step is to remove the images (possibly replacing them with different images, as appropriate), and let people present arguments for their reinclusion. --Ludwigs2 17:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that's likely to go far. I suspect it would be immediately reverted and per WP:BRD it would just go back to where we are now. It may be better to make a proposal here identifying what's wrong with each pic (or not) and propose an alternative where necessary. Fundamentally, the rationale for each individual picture is weak and difficult to defend on a pic-by-pic basis. DeCausa (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I expect you're right, but sometimes one needs to be BOLD and see what the result is, rather than making assumption. I'll look into the matter now. --Ludwigs2 23:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine then, lets get consensus here

Okay, other users have decided to strongarm the discussion here. In that case, let's hold it here, get consensus here, and then, if we have consensus, remove the images that do not meet WP standards for inclusion of images. So far, I haven't seen any rationale for keeping the images other than the generic idea that "images are better". I and at least DeCausa agree with this. However, that's not a rationale for keeping these specific images. For example, I can't just add pictures of pretty hearts and pink unicorns to this article because it looks better with them. The burden on having any given image in is with those who wish to include it. So, there are currently 17 images in the article (not counting the infoboxes). I believe that many of these are good, useful, encyclopedic images, but not all of them. I'll list them out in a few minutes. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No other articles would have a similar image removed. All the stuff about how nobody knows what he looks like, etc., are straw men—otherwise you'd also be trying to remove images from the Homer article. Therefore the only reason people are trying to remove images is because they offend Muslim. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, that is not a legitimate reason.—Chowbok ☠ 00:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
(ec--directed at Chowbok's post) I'm afraid it's obvious that you've completely missed the point. None of those are issues being discussed in this thread. You've jumped to the assumption that it's the "usual" arguments being put forward. Have you actually taken the trouble to read and understand the points being made. (And by the way, an univolved editor has already commented in the Wikiquette thread that you are inflaming the situation). I'm not sure your involvement in this issue is very helpful. DeCausa (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
"None of those issues are being discussed in this thread"? Hmm, how about the editor that said about the pictures "They don't represent accurate depictions of Muhammad" and "They don't represent an informative representation of what the events or Muhammad might have looked like (with the exception of the Russian painting) because they are in an Ilkhanid/Ottoman setting not 7th century Arabia" less than 24 hours ago?—Chowbok ☠ 00:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
That's part of a checklist of issues, not the central point!!! Go back and read the full post carefully. Do you understand the Inuit art analogy?DeCausa (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I love that it's gone from "those issues haven't been discussed" to "those issues were discussed, but they weren't my main point".—Chowbok ☠ 01:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and in response to the Inuit art thing–if the Inuits in question were Christian, I don't see why their contribution would be inherently less valid than Christians anywhere other than in Jerusalem. But still, my Homer analogy applies: the bust there is Roman, not Greek.—Chowbok ☠ 01:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not. You didn't read what DeCausa said. Here, let me list the images I think should be removed (others, of course, may have different opinions):
  • "Muhammad at the Ka'ba from Siyer-i Nebi". This doesn't seem to illustrate anything related to the surrounding text. Furthermore, the image does not readily explain anything to the viewer (that is, it's iconography is not clear). Third, it does not reflect a commonly used image of Muhammad, nor is it representative of a particularly important style of depicting Muhammad.
  • "Imprint of Muhammad's seal". This is only very tangentially related to the connected text (about how Muhammad attempted to negotiate with other rulers). Seeing the seal does not help a reader understand more about the idea of sending emissaries to other rulers.
  • "Persian manuscript miniature depicting Muhammad, from Rashid-al-Din Hamadani's Jami al-Tawarikh". This is about the episode of the "Black Stone", which is not discussed in this article. It has no relevance here (and the same arguments as in the first picture also apply).
  • "A 19th century depiction titled "Muhammad preaching" (1840–1850) by Russian artist Grigory Gagarin." This is purely gratuitous. It's not from Islamic tradition, and it has no historical connection to Muhammad. It's of no more value than a painting by any random 21st century artist would have. It also does not depict any specific scene connected to this text.
I'm also concerned about the first two pictures in "Final years", but find it harder to articulate why. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The images used at Jesus aren't accurate depictions either. I don't understand the complaints. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm really trying to assume good faith here, but all I can see is that you aren't listening. I didn't say even once in my list of points that these pictures "aren't accurate depictions". If editors refuse to respond to our points, how can we have a productive discussion? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
By removing images from this article, you'll invite charges of cencurship. I've no intentions of edit-fighting over this topic, personally. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian: I'm fine with removing all six of those images - I don't see any real value they add to the article - the only question we need to address is whether we should replace them with other images. It seems to me that we need at least four of those replaced with other images otherwise the article will start to look bare. let's take some time tomorrow and link to some images on commons that might work so we can discuss them. --Ludwigs2 07:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
quick thought: I think we can replace "Muhammad at the Ka'ba from Siyer-i Nebi" with either of these images - File:Koran cover calligraphy.PNG or File:Koran.JPG. An image of the qu'ran works better at that point anyway, since the text is talking about sources for Muhammed's life. what do you think? --Ludwigs2 08:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
An image showing an event from Muhammad's life works better in a section about his life. So I disagree these are adequate replacements. However, of the two you proposed, I like the second one better than the first. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Note that the section is explicitly about the sources for his life, not about his life in and of itself, so the qu'ran - being the primary source for information about Muhammed's life - seems apt. but let's see what Qwyrxian has to say. --Ludwigs2 20:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Right, I agree, and I like your second picture for that section. But I'm saying that the article shouldn't lose that image. If it's in the wrong section, it can be moved. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Wehre did you have in mind? we have no translation of the text in the image, and the image itself doesn't seem to depict anything (it's Mohammed - assumedly - kneeling in front of the ka'aba with what's either a funky hat, the rising flames of spiritual essence, or a really bad hair day). If there were a section specifically on the Ottomans it could have gone there, but there isn't. again, if there's a particular use for this picture, cool; but if not, then we should probably remove out of consideration for those who dislike images of the prophet. --Ludwigs2 01:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I also prefer the second picture, and also believe that we shouldn't keep that image just to keep it, if it has no connection to the text. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but "consideration for those who dislike images of the prophet" is not a factor on Wikipedia. That's not Wikipedia policy. Aside from that Ludwigs makes good points. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to go ahead and make that change now (no comment on Doctorx's comment for the moment - save that discussion for later). --Ludwigs2 05:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
User: TharkunColl reverted your change with the edit summary "rv censorship". I re-reverted to the Koran text. Please note that that the burden for including any given image lies on those who wish to include it, so TharkunColl needs to give a clear, specific reason why this picture, which is difficult to make out, is from a very unique time period in Islamic history, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the section it is next to (or, in fact, to any section of this article), should be included here. This is especially the case in light of the fact that the substituted picture actually far better represents that section (which is about the Qu'ran). Qwyrxian (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
This is the problem with using subpages rather than article talk - editors tend to ignore what goes on here. oh well... --Ludwigs2 15:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit conflicted over this discussion. I generally support the idea that images should only be included if there's a reason to do so. The whole "images help the reader understand, even if the images don't mean much" argument is lost on me. However, I get the strong feeling from the discussion that people want to apply a higher standard to images in this article (even if subconsciously) because of the issue of offending Muslims, and I object to that pretty strongly. Offending a religious group is nearly irrelevant, and shouldn't have an impact on our decision making process. The only reason I say "nearly irrelevant" is that I can envision shock images: a Penthouse Pet modeling Mormon temple garments, for example, would be an image created solely to offend Mormons, and I can't see any value in including such things. If someone created a Tijuana bible featuring Mohammed, I would be strongly against including images from it here, because its inclusion would be solely to offend. Most of these images that are being discussed have some value, even if the value is a bit marginal. I don't think they should subject to any higher standard of editorial scrutiny.—Kww(talk) 16:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Kww: no, this is a general point of editing philosophy for me. I made the same argument when I worked to get the screenshot off of the Goatse.cx article (the one of a guy using his finders to stretch open his asshole to the size of a tennis ball). The point is this (bulleted):
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it needs to be informative.
  • Some images are required for an article to be properly informative, and such images should not be removed just because they are offensive. (this is the correct use of NOTCENSORED)
  • Where images are not required for an article to be properly informative, wikipedia should show some sensitivity to the feelings, beliefs and standards of all its readers.
Now there is obviously room for discussion over what the word 'required' means, yes. But wikipedia - being what it is - is always going to have editors with a mildly pathological desire to offend other people, just because they want to, and can. Some of the images of mohammed on this page may have some value, but that value (IMO) is minimal, and none of the images (IMO) are absolutely required. If they were morally neutral there would be no problem (obviously) but everyone knows they are not morally neutral, and so everyone involved - whether they admit it or not - is making a moral choice about the display of these pictures: to whit, they are choosing to do something they know offends others, for whatever reason they might have. To my mind, only encyclopedic matters of necessary informativeness are valid reasons for doing something we all know offends some people. Hence my perpetual question - Is there something in these images that necessitates their presence on the article and so justifies the offense we all know that they give? Or are these pictures just being shown to offend people for the sake of offending people? --Ludwigs2 17:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
"Whatever reason they may have" isn't the standard I apply, or that I think should be applied. If the offense is caused by religion, I assign it essentially no weight in the decision making process. About the only time I give it any weight at all is if I believe the intent behind the image is primarily to shock or offend, and I don't think these images were chosen on that basis.—Kww(talk) 17:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
careful, Kww:
  1. "Whatever reason" is a standard many people apply, whether or not you do. It's naive to discount malicious mischievousness as a motivating factor on wikipedia'
  2. "If the offense is caused by religion, I assign it essentially no weight in the decision-making process." that statement is one of the more biased and bigoted statements I have heard on project. We do not discount the offense someone feels for any reason at all, and certainly not because we don't give a flying fuck about their faith. If we offend someone, we should do it because we need to for a particular reason, not because we have such a low opinion of them as people that we're willing to tell them to go screw themselves.
Common courtesy and common decency, Kww: If you don't think these are important principles to uphold on project say so now. Your attitude on that point needs to be corrected, IMO, and there's no sense beating around the bush with it. --Ludwigs2 18:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm a courteous and decent man. I don't seek out religious people and intentionally cause them offense. I'm not discounting malicious mischievousness, either: as I said, if the intent behind selecting or creating an image is to cause shock or offense, that's a problem. If the discomfort is a side-effect of a normal editorial decision, it isn't worth much consideration. It isn't a matter of "justifying an offense", it's a matter of whether causing that offense was the intent. If there's a valid purpose to an image, and a valid intent to an image, it should be subject to our normal standards for inclusion: neither heightened because of a religious objection, nor lowered because someone enjoys shocking or belittling a group that holds those beliefs.—Kww(talk) 18:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Well said, Kww. Ludwigs2, you are failing to assume good faith on the part of others. It appears that the underlying reason you want the images removed is due to your view that they were added maliciously or mischievously, and therefore they constitute "crapulence" (your word). Sorry, but your arguments along those lines mean nothing. Your opinion of the "correct" use of WP:NOTCENSORED, restricting it only to required rather than relevant information, is just your opinion, and I'll wager it is not shared by the community at large, otherwise NOTCENSORED would use different wording.
A person chooses, or is taught, what offends them. Because offense is a purely subjective matter, the fact that some Muslims are offended by images that are not intended to offend should carry zero editorial weight. That fact does happen to carry editorial weight here, which is one reason why images of Muhammad don't appear at the top of the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Amatulić, this isn't a question of bad faith, this is a question of you all not reading my posts. I don't really care why the images were added (I was just pointing out that there are some true idiots on project). What I care about is the very simple logic of the following:
  1. We know these images offend some people. It doesn't matter why they are offended, but it is an established fact that they are
  2. The images do not add any necessary information to the article (at least, no one here has made an argument that they do)
  3. Therefore, the images should be removed, as a matter of good faith and common courtesy.
now obviously you either don't understand that logic, or you don't care if people are offended for no project-related reason. I don't know which of those is true, but either way you are not making an informed decision about content. I don't really care to argue the matter with you, however; I'm simply IARing any reference to NOTCENSORED as a misuse of rules to the detriment of the project's reputation. In the meantime, I'm going to open up a thread at Pump (policy) about NOTCENSORED and try to put a stop to this kind of silliness once and for all. I'll post a link here when I've done it. --Ludwigs2 21:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Your failure to AGF is noted. As to your points:
  1. Irrelevant premise. It does not matter if some people are offended.
  2. Invalid premise. There is no requirement to provide necessary information, only relevant information, and I have argued that they do.
  3. Invalid conclusion following from invalid premises.
Also you repeatedly reference WP:IAR as justification for your position. Sorry, see WP:POINT. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I haven't had a chance to read all of this thread but I noticed there was some disagreement on the "destruction of the idols" image. I just wanted to say I have no idea why anyone would choose this image in the first place. It's impossible to see what's going on in it - and that's partly to do with the magnification but mainly to do with the composition. I really don't see the point of it. There must be something more interesting/relevant to replace it. DeCausa (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Policy RfC is here - Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 85#time_to_fix_wp:NOTCENSORED. FYI
DeCausta, I don't really think anyone here cares about the image at all, so long as it contains a depiction of Muhammed. But I'm more than happy to be proven wrong on that, so if someone has an explanation for it, I'm interested. --Ludwigs2 21:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

". . I'm going to open up a thread at Pump (policy) about NOTCENSORED and try to put a stop to this kind of silliness once and for all." Good, because Village Pump is where this belongs and NOT HERE. I will head on over there and check it out. I hope you specifically point them to this page and the Muhammad page. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't point them here, because I wanted to make the RfC general rather than specific. but you are welcome to do so. --Ludwigs2 21:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I hate to shout but MY POINT'S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH NOTCENSORED (for the umpteenth time). The point I'm raising very definitely belongs here and not the Village Pump. DeCausa (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll repeat what I asked over at Village Pump. So then, what are the criteria for replacing an image with a substantially different one? What are the criteria for removing an image without replacing it? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


(ec--this is following up on what DeCausa says and the general tenor of discussion above, esp. wrt Kww and Ludwigs2) No one should care about what anyone's motives are. What matters is very simple: what pictures are best for this article, to elucidate the text's meaning and provide aesthetic value. As DeCausa says, WP:NOTCENSORED has nothing to do with this. Let me draw an analogy: look at the article Neck. It has a lovely picture in the top right corner illustrating a neck, as well it should. Now, is that the only picture we have in commons of a neck? No, certainly not, we could, for example, use File:Topless brunette-25.jpg. This file also has a picture of a woman's neck, fairly clear, in profile view rather than front view. The main difference, of course, is that this other picture also happens to include the woman's naked breasts. Now, as editors, we have to choose between these two images (and, of course, countless others). In this case, it would be obviously and clearly wrong to argue for the second picture by invoked WP:NOTCENSORED, because the second picture is 1) does a worse job of showing it's subject's neck, and 2) would be using nudity primarily to titillate, not elucidate. This is exactly the point that I have with the Ka'ba picture--it doesn't illustrate anything in this section (or, in the rest of the article, for that matter--do a quick search, and you'll find that event mentioned nowhere here). It doesn't give the reader any idea about what Muhammad looked like, or even what most (Muslims) think he looked like. It doesn't provide insight into common religious iconography of Muhammad. Furthermore, this is the section about the sources for information about Muhammad's life, and is specifically mentions the Qu'ran; thus, a picture of a Qu'ran seems to very clearly illustrate this section.
So, this is the point that at least I and DeCausa are trying to make. Ludwigs2's point is a little different, but related. I'm trying to say that anyone preferring the Ka'ba picture needs to justify clearly why it is a better picture at explaining the text and illustrating the article that the Qu'ran picture we tried to replace it with. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Doctorx0079, I'll give you a criterion: "Destruction of the idols" adds nothing whatsoever to the article because you can't make out anything from it. Just look at the picture. Notcensored v Muslim offence is irrelevant because it is a badly chosen image that illustrates nothing. DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, I don't disagree with this kind of reasoning: "Depicts the topic better" is a great reason for choosing one image over another. "Doesn't cause religious offense" isn't a question that should occupy our time. The question here is whether the thing being depicted is Kabaa, or whether the image is included to show a historical representation of Mohammed. In this article, I suspect the latter is the goal, and File:Kabaa.jpg fails miserably in that regard.—Kww(talk) 22:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you replace "Destruction of the idols" with a better image? I wonder who included that image in the first place and why. I bet it was a long time ago, probably years ago. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Exactly. This is what I'm trying to get at. I am so sick of repeating this. Religious offence is not the issue. WE SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSING THAT. It's irrelevant. I don't care about it. How much clearer can I be. But because one editor here who objects to the images basis his objection on that, everone's jumped on that particular bandwaggon and the issues raised by myself and Qwyrxian don't get discussed. There is no proper discussion on these images. There is no decent reasoning for these images and that is what needs to be discussed. DeCausa (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

And, to clarify, after looking at what Ludwigs2 wrote at VPP, I do not agree with xyr position in general. As an additional point, note that neither DeCausa nor I have proposed to remove the picture with the Angel Gabriel, as that does seem to do something useful and encyclopedic here. Thus, it's not about scrubbing out the Prophet, it's about choosing the best images. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see if the image was added after the GA reassessment: apparently they were suitable and relevant at that point in time. Jarkeld (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC) - addendum: the picture was added after the GA reassessment. Jarkeld (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Please explain why "Destruction of the idols" is a good image. In fact, if you didn't know the title, what would you say it represents? DeCausa (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
As I see it the picture represents a group of people destroying idols. It seems to mesh well with "According to Ibn Sad, the opposition in Mecca started when Muhammad delivered verses that condemned idol worship and the Meccan forefathers who engaged in polytheism." text next to it. So I'm inclined to think that it is suitable for the article and suitable to be at that position. Jarkeld (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
You have fantastic eyesight. what I see is a melee of people (of Mongol/Ilkhanid appearance) taking up most of the picture. It's unclear what they are doing. It's unclear which is Muhammad and whether he's actually there. Around the this picture (on two sides) are "people" some of whom are dismembered sitting often cross-legged under arches. I only get that from clicking on the image because you can't see much at all without doing that. And you think that is a good illustration of the text? DeCausa (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • General comment - Since when did a discussion of a couple hours length specific to the changing of an image or two that involves such a small number of editors qualify as "achieving consensus" on such a controversial page/proposal? I am very much inclined to revert back to the point the article sat before the above subsection was created until more input has been received. Resolute 23:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
"a small number of editors". Tough. You wanted to exile this discussion on a sub-page which has little traffic. That's the consequence. DeCausa (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that just isn't how it works. And indeed, your response certainly is not going to help me view your actions related to this article as being made in good faith. I'm not even opposed to the relocation/change of some images - indeed, the Koran is a good fit (though you need to decide which spelling you want to use: Koran or Qu'ran) - but attempting to circumvent discussion by claiming a consensus the second you have numerical advantage is mighty weak. Resolute 23:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I have an idea. This article is listed as a Good Article because a majority of editors agreed that it meets the criteria for a Good Article. One of those criteria is good images. So if you believe that one or more of the images in the article are not good, go to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, list the article there and complain about it there. That may be the best way to get the attention of those who made it a Good Article and try to change the consensus. It sounds like what some of the editors here really want is a GAR. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • That's unnecessary process wonkery. No article is locked to its form from a GA/FA assessment. Also, I suspect many of the people who made it a good article are watchers of this page. Resolute 23:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
But some of the editors are claiming this is not a good article because of the image choices. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the choice of images violates the GA criteria. I do agree that the images should be examined, and possibly replaced, as has been done already in one case. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Apart from the other reasons given above, there is still a widespread misunderstanding, sometimes amounting to a state of denial, among both Muslims and non-Muslims, over the historical Islamic (both Sunni and Shiah) traditions of depicting Muhammad. This was probably always somewhat controversial, and depictions nearly all appear in the relatively private medium of book illustrations as manuscript miniatures (but never of the Qu'ran), but the tradtion is/was long-lived and widespread. It is important to have some pictures to increase awareness of this. At present they first appear quite a long way into the article, which is as it should be. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Critique of each image

The issue is about each image, so can we establish a consensus on each image:

Muhammad and Gabriel

Muhammad and Gabriel

NOTE: Wiqi55 has just twice removed this image from Islamic view of angels, where it was the only picture. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Now he's done it again! Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly represents text. DeCausa (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, not because it represents the text but because it illustrates a relevant detail about traditional beliefs concerning Muhammad's life. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Very well, I'll play along. Keep this one as per both arguments. Resolute 00:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Change Angel is shown in female form, contrary to the teachings of Muhammad (or the Qur'an), and thus misinforms the reader about one aspect of Muhammad. We also have no indication that it was drawn by a Muslim (according to Arnold). Thus it's placement here, and not, for instance, in a non-Muslim views section, conveys the wrong information about the status of the image. Also it's one page of the same book (Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh) and short period (Ilkhanid) which shouldn't be given undue space (one image is enough from that book/period). Wiqi55 (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Additional Comment: This image is in the Revelation section. The goal of that section is to describe a spiritual event from the point of view of Muhammad, based on the written traditions reaching back to him. This image, however, represents someone else's imagination or interpretation of that event. There are three objections here:
  1. We have no idea whether or not this image faithfully represents the written traditions going back to Muhammad (which is what we are after in this section of the article). Thus we simply don't know whether it is instructive or not (per FAQ #2).
  2. Since the image only represents one possible interpretation of a spiritual event (or any aspect of it, like the looks of angels), it should *not* be given undue space over all other interpretations, some of which might be more common or more consistent with the written tradition. The common view in Muslim theology is that angels are genderless -- not only they should not be considered female, but also they should not be given any masculine or feminine attributes. We all have agreed that this image ascribes to Gabriel feminine attributes. Since there is no room in this section to represent all notable views and interpretation about this event, using this image in a section about the experiences of Muhammad means we're choosing one interpretation over others.
  3. We also do not know whether this image represents widespread Islamic views, or those of an extremely minor sect, or any view at all that can be deemed Islamic (where Islamic refers to Islam). For this to happen, we need names of Islamic scholars (with death dates and book titles) that refer directly to this image. Until that happens, this makes the image not suitable for articles and sections about Islamic views.
As long as these objections are valid, we have to move this image to a more suitable section. Wiqi(55) 22:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • What makes you say the angel is "in female form"? This shows a misunderstanding of the image. We know that this well-known manuscript was commissioned for a Muslim ruler by his (converted) Muslim vizier Rashid-al-Din Hamadani. There were artists from a number of backgrounds in the Ilknanid court at this time, probably including some non-Muslims, but the contents of the illustrations were certainly supervised by Muslims (Sunnis by the way), who would have had any images they did not approve of redone. In fact the image of the angel, though introducing Chinese influences in the depiction, is wholly consistent with later images of angels by known Muslim artists. See: Titley, Norah M., Persian Miniature Painting, and its Influence on the Art of Turkey and India, 1983, University of Texas Press, 0292764847, who discusses this manuscript on pp 18-19. Countering this sort of denial that there was a Muslim tradition of these images is itself an impoertant region for keeping them. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I've seen this and other images from the same book and they all show angels in female form or with female features. I'm certainly not alone in this, and other readers/editors have also come to the same conclusion, both supporting and against the inclusion of this image (see the comment of Arctic Gnome, in the this page). Even Amatulic above compared this image to how Gabriel is depicted in other cultures, without knowing that, unlike the teachings of Muhammad, these other cultures consider Gabriel to be female or at least having some female characteristics more than any other angel (read the Gabriel article). In this article, however, we should be faithful in conveying correct information about the teachings of Muhammad. Anything else would be unethical. The conception of Angels by random Sunnis or Shias of later times is both misleading and irrelevant, and definitely not inline with the subject matter and goals of this section of the article (i.e., to teach about Muhammad).
As for this specific manuscript, we know very little about the processes and intentions of some of the names you mention. For example, the author of this book, Rashid-al-Din Hamadani, was a controversial figure, was beheaded for being an impostor of Islam, praised at the same time for being a good Muslim and doing charity, accused of Plagiarism by his colleagues (see his entry in EI2), buried as a Jewish man, etc. You're wrong in considering him an authority on Islamic religious views about Angels. We also know that the Ilkhanid period was a mixed bag of different races and religions, and we have no indication about the painters identity, religious or national (according to Arnold). We also lack any knowledge about the history of these images and styles used, like whether they were copies of previous version done elsewhere. Furthermore, we know that non-Muslim cultures at that time and region used to draw images of Muhammad and his Companion (according to Arnold). Also, this book was commissioned by two different rulers (the second, was a Shia, but I'm not sure, and this doesn't really matter). Of course, all of this is irrelevant to this article, which is about Muhammad. Wiqi(55) 15:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
A Shia? Really, how appalling! This is an early image of the depiction of angels which became standard in Islamic art, drawing more on Chinese than Western styles. I'm now setting up a Commons category for Islamic angels, as it is alarming that this level of denial of traditions in Islamic art still exists among educated people. Meanwhile, please stop edit-warring over this image at Islamic view of angels. The images mentioned by Arnold are several centuries older - soon after the lifetime of the Prophet. According to the later Islamic legends, they were in fact created by God, with a set of copies made by the Prophet Daniel. See pp 171-173 [1] here. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Umm, you are aware that the objection of "inaccurate" is already addressed in the FAQ, and is not considered a reason to remove the image? See entry #2. I also don't see why the nationality or religion of the artist is relevant. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you show exactly where does the FAQ allow images that misrepresent the teachings of Muhammad, or misinform readers about events in his life? Perhaps you should read the FAQ again, as it clearly states that images are only allowed as long as they are "considered to be more instructive than using no image". From what I understand, the FAQ only allows for Muhammad's face to be false. I happen to agree that his face being false shouldn't be considered a reason to remove images, and the typical reader would know that it isn't his face anyway. However, a typical reader would *not* know that these images contain other, more subtle forms of misinformation, making the article less instructive. Also, this specific image does not meet the criteria set by the FAQ (like being drawn by a Muslim), so is the FAQ still relevant or not? Wiqi55 (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The point here is that any painting created outside the subject's time period isn't expected to be accurate in its depiction of the subject's garb, weaponry, environment, etc. Such erroneous images of Jesus, Moses, and other biblical characters abound, showing them as caucasians wearing flowing white robes or colorful satin sashes when it's more likely they looked like Semites wearing commoner clothing — and it isn't a problem for those articles that include them. I have mentioned before that ceiling murals in royal palaces have the same flaws, depicting common fighters battling it out in royal-looking velvet garments and such that they likely would have never worn. Artists will portray a subject in a manner appropriate to the artist's time period and intended audience. I think that's widely understood, so I see no reason to hold these images to a different standard. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
But none of the images you mention misrepresents the teachings of earlier prophets. What is special about this image is that it misinforms the reader on matters beyond those of race, settings, weaponry, or time period. It would be like adding an image showing the Sun revolving around the Earth in a section about Copernicus (but in this case it isn't as obvious, which makes it even worse). And the race issue is not relevant to my point. My point is about showing multiple images from the Ilkhanid period, a rather peculiar historical period in the long history of Muhammad. After all, this is an article about "Muhammad", not "Muhammad of the Ilkhanids". Thus one image from that period would be more than enough. Currently, there are more Ilkhanid paintings on this article than on Hulagu, the founder of the Ilkhanate dynasty. That doesn't seem right. Wiqi55 (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I believe angels are often deliberately depicted with ambiguous gender. Hermaphroditic, if you will. Even in the west, Gabriel is considered "male" but not always depicted that way. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Christian theology is totally clear that no angel has a gender (why would they need one?), and also are very beautiful, & most depictions try to convey this - having angels with breasts is mostly a 19th century thing. I suspect the Muslim view is similar, but the issue isn't mentioned in Islamic view of angels where it probably should be. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Amatulic, your comparison shows exactly why we shouldn't use this image. In some religions/cultures, Gabriel is thought to be female or having female features, which explains why Gabriel has sometimes been depicted as such. But this is *not* the case according to Muhammad. In other words, this section should reflect the opposite of what you're saying. Since there is a possibility of misleading readers about Muhammad, making them wrongly assume that his teachings/experiences about Gabriel are similar to those found in other cultures, I think this image is not informative, especially not in a section that intends to inform the reader about Muhammad's experiences of Gabriel. I don't mind having it in another section though. Wiqi(55) 10:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Which cultures would that be? Once again, you are imposing your own incorrect interpretation - see above. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Wiqi55, other cultures do not regard Gabriel as female, as far as I know. Any description of Gabriel invariably uses a male pronoun although angels aren't supposed to have a gender. Also, angels are supposed to be beautiful, so an artist will try to convey a sense of grace, which often ends up looking feminine. The gender of Gabriel in this image is similarly ambiguous. I don't perceive it as female, although you apparently do. FAQ #2 definitely applies here.
I wouldn't mind moving it to another section either, but which one? The one that describes the revelation seems like the most logical place. We could add a clarifying note to the caption that the artist gave the angel feminine attributes although Muslim tradition holds that Gabriel is male. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Considering that we do not know the religious identity of the artists, and while the caption convey (wrongly and unavoidably) that they were Muslims, and the style has been described as "Chinese", it seems to me that "Other Views" or "Non-Western views" would be an interesting section to have this image in. It would at least convey the historical uncertainty surrounding its origin and style. Wiqi(55) 18:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
This desperate wriggling to deny the limited but clear Islamic tradition of depiction of Muhammad won't work. Chinese influence is frequent in Persian art, but that does not make it Chinese. There is no great "historical uncertainty surrounding its origin and style" - we don't know the identity of individual artists but the overall context of the commissioning of these works by a Sunni ruler is clear, and I think stated in the prefaces to the manuscripts. Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The theme of your posts in this thread appears to be that there was a "tradition" of Muslim depictions of Muhammad, and that, in part, justifies the images here (if I'm not misrepresenting you). You haven't been too specific on this and I think it would be helpful if you could expand upon what you see this tradition as being. One of my concerns with the images is that it over-represents the Ilkhanid cultural background (in proprortion to the totality of Muslim culture) and in fact my understanding is that the very rare examples of Muslim depictions of Muhammad are all Ilkhanid with some Safavid, plus Ottoman copies. Do you agree that this is the "tradition"? If so, (a) don't you think that the rarity of these images means that the tag "tradition" is somewhat of an over-statement and (b) what would your answer be to the point that they are so rare or from such a narrow milieu that they give a skewed view of the subject. If you believe the "tradition" is wider than this, perhaps you could give details. DeCausa (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The subject is covered, not very comprehensively, at Depictions of Muhammad. The Ilhanid images are some of the earliest Persian miniatures to survive, there are also Timurid images, and Safavid ones, going pretty much up to the end of production of large illustrated books in the late 16th century. By then the Ottoman tradition had started up, & continued until at least the mid-17th century - there is no reason to call these "copies". I'm not aware of Mughal examples, except I think Khamsa of Nizami (British Library, Or. 12208) may have one, or eg Egyptian ones, but there might be some, and there was much less of a tradition of illustrated books of history & poetry, the context the images appear in, in the Arabic-speaking world. The images are rare, but then the type of manuscripts they are in are themselves now rare, far rarer than European illuminated manuscripts. Most forms of medieval Islamic art are rare. We don't know what else once existed, especially as images of Muhammad may have been destroyed for religious reasons later on. The Mongol invasion famously destroyed the main libraries in Bagdhad and elsewhere. The images form a not insignificant part of the Persian (and Persianate) & Ottoman miniature traditions. A recent academic "preliminary survey" is almost all online (from where I am anyway) - Gruber, Christiane, Representations of the Prophet Muhammad in Islamic painting, in Gulru Necipoglu, Karen Leal eds., Muqarnas, Volume 26, 2009, BRILL, ISBN 900417589X, 9789004175891, google books. This should be used in preference to Arnold's book of 1928; he was a leading art historian of Islamic art in his day, but inevitably now outdated. Prof. Christiane Gruber is the current leading specialist on the subject, and working on a general book on it - ready 2011/12, says her CV. Here's one sample: "There exist countless single-page paintings of the meʿrāj included in the beginnings of Persian and Turkish romances and epic stories produced from the beginning of the 15th century to the 20th century (for an overview of such works, see Gruber, 2005, Appendix V, 425-27)...." - and that is just one subject from the life of the Prophet. That's from Encyclopedia Iranica. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep: While I appreciate Wiqi55's concern here, I like Jarkeld, don't read this image as showing a female angel. If that is the only concern, than I would say that this should be the one Ilkhanid painting we keep, as being the most clearly connected to the text it is near. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete (though I might be convinced on this one): this section has two images, which is a bit much, and the picture is at best fanciful - angels in Muslim belief are not physical beings who drop in for chats. I don't see anything pertinent this adds to the article, since all it does is provide a visual depiction of the simple phrase "an angel visit muhammed". --Ludwigs2 15:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Clear image of an important episode, and from early in the artistic tradition. The angel should not be understood as female. See my comments above. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Destruction of the Idols

Destruction of the Idols

  • Change. Poor image and very unclear what is happening in the picture. Poor illustration of the text. DeCausa (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep because it illustrates a relevant detail concerning Muhammad's life. This event appears to be analogous to the famous event where Jesus kicked the moneychangers out of the temple. It's significant and deserves an illustration. It is irrelevant that it is unclear what is happening; it is enough to know what the artist was trying to depict in the style of his time. There is no requirement for images to represent or illustrate the text; rather, they should complement the text, which means they can convey additional information not contained in the text. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid image and adequately describes his opposition to icons. Should be moved down a few paragraphs, however, as it unnecessarily squeezes the text when placed opposite the template. Resolute 00:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Undecided. Doesn't seem notable or informative. Also, the destruction of Idols happened after the conquest of Makkah, if I recall correctly, so it must be moved to a later section. Wiqi55 (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep- Useful illustration of important event. Doc Tropics 13:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep compliments the text it's placed next to. Jarkeld (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Replace: This is a poor quality image that serves no real purpose in this section - the image of the ka'aba that I had earlier replaced it with is better quality, just as informative, more historically correct, and less confusing.--Ludwigs2 15:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Advancing on Mecca

Advancing on Mecca

  • Change. Again very unclear what is happening. Muhammad’s face is scratched out. Adds no value. DeCausa (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Change to equivalent image that has not been censored, if there is one. Commons is full of censored Muhammad images. Past discussion has established that this article should not include them. I don't find the criticism "unclear what is happening" to be valid. That criticism would apply to any image from the Ottoman, due to the prevalent style. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, upon examination of Commons: it seems the original may have been censored this way — to those who object on the grounds of being offensive, this image isn't one of those that offend. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
CommentDisagree with keeping it because it "isn't one of those that offend". Whether it offends or not is irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree. That was a side comment, not my rationale for keeping it. Sorry I muddled the two together. My main point is that lack of clarity due to artistic style isn't a reason to delete. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep The description makes it clear what is happening. I also find value in keeping one image of Muhammad with face blanked out as that is a notable aspect of how Muhammad has been viewed by some Muslims throughout history. It may help to use the image text to make note of this fact, but this image definitely adds value and understanding. Resolute 00:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Change. Muhammad (and everything else) are shown in 16th-century Ottoman settings (according to reliable sources commenting on this book). Not very useful or informative in this context. Unaware readers might think that Muhammad did wear similar clothes or had military equipment similar to those shown. But that is just misinformation. Wiqi55 (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, see the FAQ entry #2. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad prohibits intercalary months

Muhammad prohibits intercalary months

In fact this said to be a 17th century image on the file, though copying an earlier one. I think the composition goes back to the Timurid period. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite caption. The image here comes from a book on calendrical matters, but the composition was copied a number of times (this seems to be a later version) and depicts The Farewell Sermon, where the calendrical issue was just one matter, & and hardly the most important, covered. In fact our article has cut that bit from the text it gives (which it should't really)- see the "....". Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The episode of the Black Stone

The episode of the Black Stone.

  • Change. Incident not described in accompanying text.DeCausa (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. This may be more of a problem with the text than the image. The image depicts a significant event. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. In my view, this shows a deficiency in the text, and that is a reason to improve the prose, not remove an image. That said, I might reverse this image's placement with Siyer-i_Nebi_298a. The Black Stone seems related to Muhammad's time in Mecca, while the advance on Mecca image could be placed into the "Islamic views of Muhammad" section to illustrate how blanking his face is an example of one type of depiction. Resolute 00:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe Keep. This one is considered the most notable depiction of Muhammad. The content also matches some of the written traditions about the Black stone story, so it has the least amount of misinformation compared to the rest of images on this list. But it should be moved to a non-Muslim section, because it is not known to have been drawn by a Muslim. Still not notable enough for a major article on Muhammad, given that religious pictorial art about Muhammad was extremely lacking throughout Islamic history (by Muslims or non-Muslims). But this one is worth consideration. Wiqi55 (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Good idea; I have moved it out of the Muslim views section and into a section about final years in Mecca that had no images. It seems to fit better there, although I don't presume to claim that's the "best" place. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep the image, change the text. Doc Tropics 13:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Change/Remove This has absolutely nothing to do with the text as currently written. I don't like the idea of changing our text to fit the picture, as that seems to be entirely backwards to the reasons why images are being used here in the first place. If this event is not notable enough in Muhammad's life for us to have text about, we shouldn't have a picture about it either. If, at some future time, we do find the story important enough for inclusion, we could consider re-adding the picture, but not until then. Furthermore, I find this to be the least useful image, as it nearly impossible to figure out what is happening in it. If the picture is here to help explain/illuminate the text, it should do so. If it's just here to be yet another picture, then we don't need it. We don't need every centimeter of margin space to have a picture in it--this isn't even a requirement of featured articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
From what I can gather in my readings, this is a notable event, as the black stone pre-dates Islam, it has great significance to the people of that region, and it was Muhammad who (before he became a prophet) set it in the wall of the Kaaba. (Did I get it right? I'm not a scholar of this history.) I also think Alwiqi's characterization of this as a notable image is, um, notable.
The image might fit best at the end of the "Childhood and early life" section with some text added to summarize this event in the context of Islamic tradition (this is undoubtedly why the image was in the "Muslim views" section for so long). It's about the only significant thing one can say about Muhammad prior to his prophethood, and it deserves to be said somewhere. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the image is not notable for a major article on Muhammad, as none of them are, but it's more notable compared to some of the images we have here, and sometimes thought to be the earliest extant depiction. As for the black stone incident, I believe it happened while the Prophet was in his 30s, before the revelation, and after a flood that had destroyed the Kaʿba and displaced the black stone. The tribes of Makkah were fighting over who would have the honor to carry it and place it back, and thought that whomever enters a certain door near the Kaʿba should be the one to decide. The Prophet entered that door, and decided that 4 persons (shown in the image), each from a different tribe, should carry it. He then (I'm not sure of this) placed it at the Kaʿba. This is not the only incident mentioned in Muslim tradition about the Prophet's life before the revelation. From my understanding, it also did not affect his life after the revelation in any meaningful way. Wiqi(55) 11:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

“Muhammad preaching” by Gagarin

“Muhammad preaching” by Gagarin

Splitting of the Moon

I'll add another:
Splitting of the Moon, apparent Photoshop image from 2007

  • Remove or move. I really don't see the necessity of this image, which seems to be someone's WP:OR literal interpretation of a description of Muhammad's splitting of the moon miracle. While it is useful to have an image in an otherwise long section of text, I am not seeing how this image complements that particular text, particularly an illustration of a religious viewpoint in a section on the history of a battle. No context. The miracle is mentioned further down in Muslim view, so perhaps it could go there. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Change. This miracle is not unanimously accepted in Muslim tradition. Also note that images are subject to WP:DUE. So if we have an image supporting one view, we should level things a bit by allowing a paragraph next to it for scholars who think the miracle didn't happen (or will happen in the future). I see no reason to bring this debate into this article at this moment. Now, considering that it is a section on the Battle of Uhud, the best image would be this image of Mount Uhud. It is also more suitable for an article about "historical Muhammad". Wiqi55 (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove/Change - This is easily the least useful and least "accurate" image in the article. Doc Tropics 13:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral This was only put in for the first time a few days ago and I thought of reverting it then - it is pretty amateurish looking. However, I left it for the time being becaue it's quite novel (and made me laugh!). DeCausa (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove I know that pictures have a different requirement for WP:OR than text does, but..still. Furthermore, people keep telling us that this is the secular article about Muhammad's life--does any "secular" authority actually think that Muhammad literally split the moon? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove OR etc, as others have said. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Overall balance of images

Separate section as suggested by DocTropics:

"I don't support what Ludwigs2 said at all, particularly the possible imputation of an intention to offend Muslims. However, I do suspect that the instinct to defend WP:NOTCENSORED from attack has - perhaps subconsciously and without affecting good faith - led some to take positions which they might not otherwise have. I do find the sourcing of the images from such a narrow cultural mileu (because of their overall rarity in Muslim culture) problematic - and would have been subject to much more crticism in any other article. DeCausa (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)"
"The over-representation of images from a single culture or time-period is a valid issue and has been brought up by a couple of different editors recently. I would suggest separating it from these other issues that it's currently entangled with and give it a section of its own for some specific discussion on the topic. Doc Tropics 21:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)"
General comment: I think that Wiqi55's point that we're over-representing one specific historical period needs to be accounted for in our series of decisions. It doesn't make sense to have 3 or 4 images all from the same, narrow style/time frame. So whatever specific pictures we worry about, we should also be aware of the overall "image" we're portraying. While WP:DUE only refers to opinions, the same principle applies--we don't want to depict the subject solely through a single artistic lens (which does have POV notes, just not as obviously). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The specific complaint was that there is an over representation of Ilkhanid-era images in proportion to other historical and contemporary images. So I'll make the obvious suggestion that we should actively seek out non-Ilkhanid images to add to the article, thereby giving a more balanced perspective. I would strongly urge that any image added be related very directly to the section of text that it is being added into - nothing gratuitous thrown in just for the sake of having more images. Of course, if there are more Ilkhanid images than any other kind in the real world, we might consider it reasonable that our article reflect that fact by allowing a higher proportion of them. Personally I'm not sure what would be considered "due weight" for any given historical period....Doc Tropics 23:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
But this is the point. The images are vanishingly rare. The article mines these Ilkhanid images because that's all there is (or almost). In Islamic art, the "image" of Muhammad in the vast majority of cases is by calligraphic representation. I've made this analogy before, but it's as if the Jesus article contained only images of Jesus from Inuit art. DeCausa (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I think your analysis here is strong DeCausa, and ties directly into Wiqi55's question about "tradition" in "Muhammad and Gabriel". It's fine to have some images, even if some groups currently find them offensive, but our image balance should, to some degree, represent the historical image balance of Muhammad. That means, one or two pictures from the specific period(s) in question, and a larger number of pictures that represent the wider historical images of Muhammad. This can and probably should include non-Islamic depictions, like the Gagarin image. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
See my comments at the Gabriel image above, including: "There exist countless single-page paintings of the meʿrāj included in the beginnings of Persian and Turkish romances and epic stories produced from the beginning of the 15th century to the 20th century (for an overview of such works, see Gruber, 2005, Appendix V, 425-27)...." from Encyclopedia Iranica. People are being sold a line here, based on the outdated Arnold distorted by very POV reporting. I agree that images from a wider range of periods would more useful, including modern Iranian postcards and a Safavid or later mi'raj, like File:Miraj by Sultan Muhammad.jpg, a featured pic on the Turkish WP. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Wow, File:Miraj by Sultan Muhammad.jpg is incredibly beautiful! I'm not competent to comment on the artist's technique, but the composition is exquisite and his use of color practically breathtaking. I can see why this is a Featured Image; if we're looking for non-Ilkhanid works, this one would get my vote for inclusion here. I note that we don't currently have any illustration related to the Mi'raj and this one seems perfect. Doc Tropics 17:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Johnbod, Arnold knew about these 1-page illustrations and mentioned them. However, they are still confined to a limited geographical location (Persia and parts of India), and mostly included in privately-owned poetry books (not very notable; doesn't represent a religious tradition of pictorial art; and not very representative of perceptions of Muhammad found in other cultures/locations/periods). The subject matter of these paintings is also very limited. Your other assertion about the Arnold book being outdated is still unsubstantiated, and it's just WP:OR as far as I'm concerned. But I noticed that some of your edits at the Depiction of Muhammad also need an explanation, like this one. As far as I know, the cited paper refers to depictions of Muhammad done by Christians (also mentioned by Arnold). How come you added that part to a section that says "Depictions by Muslims"? This is just an honest question, I'm not assuming anything but WP:AGF. Wiqi(55) 17:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
No, they are confined to the Persianate world, the Ottoman Empire and apparently some from the Mughal Empire, ie the core Islamic world, though far less common in Arabic-speaking territories. I agree that the surviving older depictions all seem to be "privately-owned" work - I wonder why you reverted my adding that point to the article? So are most Western paintings since the Renaissance, which does not seem to affect their "notability". Commons in fact has a photo of a modern Mi'raj with unveiled face painted on an arch in a mosque, and an earlier mosque wall-painting where the Prophet's face can be made out beneath a rather transparent veil. Whether it is "religious art", and what that might mean, is a question much discussed, but that there is a tradition should not be doubted. Any work published in 1928 on Islamic art is bound to be largely outdated, & it will be seen that many specific points of fact in Arnold are incorrect, & his interpretations often not followed by subsequent scholars, though reference is often made to his work as a foundational study. Let's deal with specific "Depictions" edits at that page. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think anything you have said has altered the basic proposition. First, the images are limited to "the Persianate world, the Ottoman Empire and apparently some from the Mughal Empire"; second, they are limited to a particular period; third, they remain unusual even within those cultures; fourth, those areas were only "the core of the Islamic world" for certain periods - there are no images from Umayyad, Abassid, Fatimid, etc cultures. In any event, what we have here is an over-representation of Ilkhanid examples. DeCausa (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
That minimalist statement is already very different from several versions of "the basic proposition" given elsewhere on this page! We can only speak of what survives, and to some extent what is referred to in historical documents, and many of the manuscript images that do survive have been altered by scratching out and/or painting over the face, and other ways. It is likely that other images were removed altogether, and these may have been of different types, and in different locations. The images could not really be called "unusual" within the miniature painting traditions; they appear in certain types of work very regularly. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
My basic proposition (which began this thread) is that the images by necessity (i.e. they're rarity) are taken from very narrow cultural sources in the context of Islamic culture as a whole. Your position is that this is "a line" which is incorrect, but nothing you have said actually appears to challenge that basic proposition, and in some ways you have confirmed it. (Btw, "we can only speak of what survives", yes, but don't infer that there was a "tradition" of images of Muhammad which just haven't survived. There's no evidence for that.) DeCausa (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I think Johnbod challenged your basic proposition quite well way up above in the comments about the Gabriel image. 17:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Really? All he said was that there are Timurid and Safavid images in existence as well as Ilkhanid - of course all in succession as late medieval/early modern "Persian" empires (plus a few Ottoman and Mughal examples) and all a "minority interest" even within those cultures. The rest of Islamic history - nothing. DeCausa (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
No, there a lots of Ottoman ones - I'm not sure how many Indian ones (some are pre-Mughal). And "Persian" here means "Persianate" - ie covering about 10 other modern countries that used manuscripts written in Persian. And the Persian examples go up to the present day, though most art-historians lose interest after the Safavids. What there are not are a lot of examples from Arabic language-speaking areas. Africa, Indonesia etc I have no idea about, and nothing much is known about the earlier periods anywhere. But that still leaves a wide range by any standards - note the emphasis on images of Muhammad given in this general article on Islamic painting [2]. Johnbod (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Although one would not find such emphasis in a biography of Muhammad (which is what we're after). You seem to be conflating this article with Islamic art. Wiqi(55) 20:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

hunh?

Someone seems to have gotten the idea this is a vote, given all of the above. it isn't a vote - it's a discussion about the relevance of each image. so we might as well just stop the above silliness and get back to discussing each image independently. we have plenty of time to debate each. --Ludwigs2 02:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The above is not a vote per se, but an attempt to determine consensus after a lengthy and extended discussion. It's totally appropriate so feel free to contribute. Doc Tropics 13:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Right, it isn't a vote. It's a discussion of each image independently. I don't see the problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that it really doesn't matter how many people say keep and how many say remove: what maters is whether the picture has enough value to the article to justify using it. It has (perhaps accidentally) been structured as a vote, but I'm OK with it so long as we are all clear that it is not a vote and has no value in that respect. (The reason I'm against a vote here is that there are numerous people watching this article who will vote for or against the images on purely ideological grounds, and the issue should not be decided by ideologues). --Ludwigs2 15:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, you yourself have argued against them on ideological grounds (that they may offend people), although not in this specific discussion. The only person I see arguing on the edge of ideology would be Wiqi55 with his perception of the depicted gender of Gabriel going against Islamic teachings. Even if we treat it as a vote, it was clear from the beginning of this discussion is that whatever consensus appears should not use ideological arguments, such as any arguments that can be answered by Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Arguments so far have focused on the value of the images. A view is emerging about which ones are appropriate to keep, to change, or have no consensus. I am pleased to see all parties making compelling arguments for either position. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Amatulić, 'offense' is not an ideological ground, it's an observable fact: it's not a question that these 'might' offend someone; it's that they 'do' offend largish numbers of people, who consistently come here and say that they are offended. I don't really care about ideological perspectives (if I were going to have any religious beliefs, I'd go with something like Buddhism where people don't bother to bash each other over stupid ideological differences).
My point is simple: If we don't need to offend people for some well-defined purpose, we shouldn't offend people. That seems unarguably logical to me. The counter-argument seems to be that it's ok to offend people for no reason because policy says it's ok, which strikes me as an incredibly tawdry and pugnacious bit of bureaucratic petulance (and leads me to believe that you all are just using it as an excuse to bash people you don't like over stupid ideological differences).
In short, I don't give a crap about Muslims qua Muslims; I give a crap about people who are being offended for no damned good reason. I would make (and have made) the same argument if I saw Christians or Jews or scientologists or anyone else being offended without need, and I can only see your resistance to this way of seeing things as unconscionably narrow-minded. Do we understand each other? --Ludwigs2 20:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Ludwigs2, I must disagree with your statement that 'offense' is "...an observable fact." Many of us reject the notion that "we are offending Muslims by including these images" and would instead phrase it as "some (but not all) Muslims choose to be offended by images of Muhammad, and to a lesser extent, other people". Being offended by any aspect of the world around us is not some sort of universal constant that all people experience equally; it is instead a personal construct often rooted in cultural conditioning. Personally I have seen a number of things in my life that disgusted me, but never has any image offended me and I find such a reaction hard to fathom. Since any individual who does find themselves offended by this content can follow our detailed instructions on how to disallow the images, it seems to be a total non-issue. Doc Tropics 20:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Yeah, what Doc Tropics said.
Ludwigs2, I understand what you're saying. My point is that people are offended by these images due to their ideology. It is ridiculous to give consideration to an ideology-driven point of view in editorial decisions — and to me that seemed to be what you were doing. There is a purpose to having images in articles. To demand different standards for images in this article versus any other, is groundless. Your point "If we don't need to offend people for some well-defined purpose, we shouldn't offend people" seems to miss the point. We need not actively avoid causing offense. Rather, editorial decisions should consider presenting encyclopedic content as the first priority of an encyclopedia. If anyone is offended as a consequence, that's too bad for them. The images here add encyclopedic value.
Maybe you and I are saying the same thing from different perspectives, but your stridency on this topic, your RFC and your repeated invocation of IAR to enforce your view of NOTCENSORED, has given an impression that you believe we have these images just to provoke Muslims. Right or wrong, that is the impression I got. I object strongly to any allegation that the images are in this article for that reason, or that we should remove any content on the basis that it "needlessly" offends someone. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't support what Ludwigs2 said at all, particularly the possible imputation of an intention to offend Muslims. However, I do suspect that the instinct to defend WP:NOTCENSORED from attack has - perhaps subconsciously and without affecting good faith - led some to take positions which they might not otherwise have. I do find the sourcing of the images from such a narrow cultural mileu (because of their overall rarity in Muslim culture) problematic - and would have been subject to much more crticism in any other article. DeCausa (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The over-representation of images from a single culture or time-period is a valid issue and has been brought up by a couple of different editors recently. I would suggest separating it from these other issues that it's currently entangled with and give it a section of its own for some specific discussion on the topic. Doc Tropics 21:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
@ Doc Tropics: You're talking in abstractions; I'm telling you that largish numbers of actual living people are actually offended. I don't care if all muslims are offended, I don't care whether these people should be offended, I don't care if other people are not offended - I'm telling you these particular people are offended, as a matter of unquestionable fact. If someone comes over to your house for dinner and you discover that they are Jewish, would you tell them they have to eat the pork chops you made or go hungry? no, because you wouldn't want to offend them. what's different about this situation, that you're willing to tell people who are offended to suck it up or find some other option?
@Amatulić: I don't care why people are offended, I care that they are offended. Yes articles are better with images, but I can't see any particular reason why we need these images - there are billions of images in the world, and I'm sure we can find a few that fill the purposes of this article without offending people. Don't get me wrong - I know that people are offended by images of penises and vaginas too, but such images serve very clear purposes on certain articles across the project, and I'd be first in line to defend them because I don't want the project to suffer because of someone's puritanical ideology. But by the same token, I wouldn't go adding pictures of penises and vaginas to articles without a darned good reason, because I wouldn't want to offend the puritans among us without due cause. same deal here: why are we using images that we know they are considered offensive by particular people and groups? To my mind, we use them if we have a good reason, we don't use them if we don't.
I don't know from appearances, and I'm sorry you feel offended by by what you think are my allegations (that was not my intention); and as for the RfC this is an issue that's been bugging me for a long time, and I'm sick of it in a very non-personal way. For me it comes down to this simple rubric: We know we are offending some people when we use these images - that is not in question; Do we have a reason for using these images that justifies the offense we are giving to people? Now, if there is a strong benefit to the encyclopedia that comes from using these images, I'm good with that. If there's some strong reason to believe that no one is actually being offended (e.g., if this is all just smoke and mirrors and no one in the real world cares about images of the prophet), I'd be ok with that too. but I don't see a specific benefit to the encyclopedia from using these particular images, and I think it's obvious that there are good numbers of actual people out there who are offended, and I am not willing to discount the fact that they are offended as a meaningless bit of trivia (because that strikes me as rude). The main source of my grumpiness here is that so many editors are willing to be overtly rude to others for no good reason. Do you think that's consistent with the spirit of the project? --Ludwigs2 21:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Your view has been universally rejected, Ludwigs2. It's time to accept that and move on.—Kww(talk) 21:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Ludwigs2, Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. DeCausa (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I won't comment any more on this other than to say I recognize that Ludwigs2 cares that Muslims are offended. I can respect that. I think few would disagree with the spirit of Ludwigs2's point of view; it aligns with my personal view in real life. However, this position doesn't align with the spirit of NPOV. The community at large was almost unanimous that Wikipedia as a project shouldn't assume such a position. The emotions of readers have zero relevance when the objective is to be encyclopedic and informative in a neutral fashion. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Lol - now you're saying that we offend people without cause as a matter of policy? and you wonder why I invoke IAR... I really wish I could be offended by your viewpoint, but it's just so ludicrous that it's actually funny. So, you keep on doing what you do, and I'll keep on doing what I do, and at least one of us will get a chuckle out it all.   --Ludwigs2 23:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't misrepresent your opposition. You've tried to claim that if there's a group known to take offense, then proponents of the image have to demonstrate that the inclusion of the image is necessary, when the normal standard can be summarized as desirable and relevant. "Desirable and relevant" is a long way from "without cause", it just doesn't meet the standard that you think should be applied.—Kww(talk) 00:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
sorry if I misrepresented you. However, whether you want to use the term 'necessary' or he terms 'desirable and relevant' the key point is that it has some value that makes offending people worthwhile. I think we can all agree that using an image of the prophet simply for decoration would not be a worthwhile reason for offending people. It's up to you guys to show that the images you want included are more substantially relevant than mere decoration, so that we have a decent reason for offending people. I don't see that that burden has been met, though I'm more than welcome to hear you out on the issue. --Ludwigs2 00:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
There doesn't exist any burden to be met regarding a "reason to offend people", because the fact that people may be offended isn't relevant to any editorial decision regarding encyclopedic value. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
That is exactly the point where we disagree. I would suggest (in the gentlest terms possible) that in your above statement you are using a bureaucratic rationale to justify overtly offending people. In that move you join the ranks of Dick Cheney, cops who use racial profiling, and DMV employees everywhere. congratulations!
(non-sarcastic response: abdicating moral responsibility because of bureaucratic pedantry is a bad move in any context. But the real problem here is that you don't see that that's what you're doing. I don't have any choice except to continue to point out that that's what you're doing, which is bound to make you uncomfortable. Apologies, but those are the constraints of this situation.) --Ludwigs2 06:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Yup, that's where you disagree with the rest of the Wikipedia community, who appeared to be unanimous in their opposition to your RFC at the village pump. No, I'm not made uncomfortable by misguided opinions or personal attacks. No rationale is being used "to justify offending people" because that's a separate, unrelated issue from making neutral and encyclopedic editorial decisions. I and others (including some Muslim contributors who are personally offended but agree the images belong) are capable of separating these issues in our Wikipedia activities. You aren't, or won't. You did the right thing at the Village Pump; that's the place to plant the seeds of change. This talk page isn't it. I'm happy to continue this discussion somewhere else if you like, but I think this horse has been flogged enough. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Dude, I learned a long, long time ago that government by mass emotion is the stupidest form of government possible. It squelches the application of reason under an avalanche of crass opinion. When it turns on idiotic misperception the way that this one does, I ignore it completely and continue on with reasoned discussion.
The only thing like "personal attack" I've leveled against you here is that you're failing to use reason in a way that looks bigoted. That's not a personal attack, that's fact. If you're not bigoted, and you don't want me to point out that you look bigoted, stop doing things that make you look bigoted. easy equation. --Ludwigs2 16:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Read again the second half of my last comment. Your reasoning appears as sophistry, sorry. Refusal to accept that a community who disagrees with you might actually have a point, failure to assume good faith, and misguided personal perceptions of others (hint: a neutral position may appear bigoted in the same way as neutral news reporting is perceived as "liberal" to the far right) are issues worthy of a good deal of private contemplation. I'm done here. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. This is much ado about fairly straightforward policy. In discussing these images, pretend you're talking about which images belong at Playstation. Is the picture of that playstation relevant to the text? Does it illustrate the subject in a valuable way? Is it copyright-free, or at least fair use? Does the image maintain the decor of the page (eg there aren't already a dozen images)? Then add it. Offensiveness to a given group does not increase dependance on these criteria in any way. Arguing that an image must be "extra-notable" or "extra-descriptive" to justify how many people are offended is like arguing the same based on the color balance of that image- non-issue, doesn't matter. --King Öomie 19:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"I learned a long, long time ago that government by mass emotion is the stupidest form of government possible. It squelches the application of reason under an avalanche of crass opinion. When it turns on idiotic misperception the way that this one does, I ignore it completely and continue on with reasoned discussion."

These sort of abstractions and pontificating do not belong here, ever. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Do the contested images only appear to registered users?

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I have a technical question regarding the images in this article. I apologize if this is not the appropriate location but it seems to be an odd error that is specific to only this article. The problem I have is that when I view the article while I am logged into Wikipedia, the images in the article all appear as consistent with the most recent revision. That is, everything seems normal. However, when I log out of my account, all of the images that have been contested in this talk page vanish from the article. If I log back in, it's back to its current state again. Can anyone else verify this to see if it is a local problem only? Or is this normal? Number3son (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Somebody recently removed them & was reverted. Maybe you have cached versions of the period when they were removed? Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

So I completely deleted all my cache (shows "0kb" in the options) and refreshed the page. Same problem, still reverts back and forth depending on whether I'm logged in or not. Looking at the bottom of each page, the "logged in" version shows last revision at 1:06 (up to date), while the "logged out" version's was at 1:04 (previous edit that removed the pics). This is an odd error, more so because after checking all three of the browsers I have, the problem only shows up in Firefox 4, while in IE 8 and Chrome 10 there's no issue. I'm assuming it's just a technical glitch with Firefox then, though not one I've ever encountered before. Number3son (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I use Firefox, and it does take much longer for it to recognize changes in some images - IE is usually instantaneous - and I've had that problem before. Sometimes it's taken 12hrs+ for Firefox to show a new image. But I've not noticed a difference between logged in and not logged in. DeCausa (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
There's actually a separate rendering cache for anonymous and registered editors. If the anonymous version of any article looks wrong, purge it while you are logged out, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&action=purge . If it's an image, do the same thing to the image file. That will clear it up for all anonymous editors. Someone tried to explain to me why there were two separate caches once. I don't remember the details, but it seemed more like an excuse for a kludge than a real explanation.—Kww(talk) 14:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Blasphamous Images of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him):

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Please Remove blasphamous images of Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) immediatly. Picturing Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is a blasphamy against his excellency, He is the most notable and last prophet of Allah for human kind, Please Remove all of fasle images depicting the Holy Prophet(pbuh). Actually there is no need of pictures to depict him just words are enough.According to Muslims The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) is the most beatutiful and handsome perosn on earth ever lived, its itself a blasphamay to try to depict him, As he is the most beloved prophet of Allah (SWT), I hope i have made it clear to not depict Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) in pictures. On humanity basis these blasphamous images must be removed ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.5.152.145 (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No - see FAQ above. DeCausa (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm now convinced this guy is a troll. The same editor has posted multiple nearly identical "blasphemy" accusations over the past year, while pointedly ignoring the FAQ. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
We're allowed to assume that what looks like a duck and quacks like a duck is indeed almost certainly a duck. But what if it looks like a Troll and quacks like a Duck...would that make it a Truck? Doc Tropics 17:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC) yes, I know I'm full of nonsense, but I figured that on this page no one would notice the difference :)
...And until now I thought puns were the lowest form of humor. :) ~Amatulić (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
IP, Thou does makeith me laugh. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The Images

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Images are just depictions and in no way represent Prophet Muhammad and should be removed from encyclopedia since they serve no purpose in the article. If depictions can be part of an encyclopedia, then any one who picks up a pencil and draws a hang man and says it depicts louis the 14th should have his drawing posted on Louis 14th's article on wikipedia! Images should be removed cuz they have nothing to do with the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammar93scorpio (talk • contribs) 21:36, 8 April 2011

You evidently failed to read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ as instructed at the top of this page, which addresses your argument. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Images

Latest comment: 13 years ago24 comments11 people in discussion

I am still not convinced with the images . Its not at all required.--Alwasif (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What is required? Really, all of Wikipedia is optional when you get down to it.—Chowbok ☠ 06:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Alwasif: Please present an argument that hasn't already been addressed in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which I am not convinced you have actually read. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


Why don't you remove these pictures????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.36.50.201 (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll find your answers at the top of the page. --King Öomie 15:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


Well I've read all the points and discussion and there is not a single point which is sensible all you and your other campanions said is just nothing but rubbish you guys dont have any right to make pics images etc of others religion its like making fun of others believe and feelings.Raza536 (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No one is making fun of anything. Most religious articles on here offend my beliefs and feelings. Most science articles on here offend the beliefs and feelings of various religious groups. We can't pick and choose or censor articles based on people's feelings and beliefs. Dougweller (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

well you are hard hearted enough to tolerate such nonsense but we are not. and is there really a need to upload false depiction of our beloved prophet??? Raza536 (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to not look at them. ðarkuncoll 12:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Request for removal, denied. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

oh don't insist to loosers i' free to not to look at those images. but the question here is that its misguiding the readers as its one's imagination And I'm not requesting I want to present an argument for this where every body will talk sensible things of removing or not removing images????Raza536 (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/FAQ - Question 2 --NeilN talk to me 06:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah what's there i've already read this its like saying "once there might have alien come to earth(example)" here the question doesnt deals with the misguiding effects of wikipediaRaza536 (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


Argument For The REMOVAL Of Images: Now lets start a detailed argument unlike before, My Objections for removing the images are enlisted below: 1> Those images are not depictions of our holy prophet. 2>Its just one's imagination 3>its misguiding the readers 4> Its destroying the friendly atmosphere and spoiling the relationship with muslims 5>Here Angel has been shown as female 6>the exact colour of holy prophet (saww) is not certeinly known as he was fair or dark what we know is that he was the nost beautiful person in the universe that ever existed 7>its spreading idolatory 9>Such images is giving wrong concepts of Islam as in Islam Images are prohibited Raza536 (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Except these exact same arguments have been made before. Read the FAQ and archives as you obviously have not done. --NeilN talk to me 06:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, these same arguments that have been addressed countless times before. You might want to look over the talk page archives sometime. And read the FAQ. I'll try to summarize:
#1, #2, #3 are already addressed in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Please read it.
#4 exists only in the minds of those who choose to be offended. You do have a choice about what offends you. Not all Muslims are offended by the images. Note that the Persian Wikipedia, presumably edited by Muslims, contains the same images. It isn't a problem for them, so why is it a problem for anyone else?
For #5, the angel is not female, the gender is ambiguous. Gabriel is never described as female in any tradition, but angels are supposed to be beautiful so they are depicted with beauty and grace, which results in some feminine features. That you see it as female is your own imagination. Others don't see it that way. This is discussed extensively above.
#6 is also addressed in the FAQ. Do you honestly believe that Islam is so frail that Muslims risk committing idolatry just from seeing an image? Do you personally feel that you are in danger of committing idolatry because of these images, knowing full well that they aren't accurate depictions? Also the topic of idolatry is irrelevant for non-Muslims. For this article, it's also irrelevant for Muslims because anyone can easily change their settings to avoid seeing the images. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ again.
#9 (you skipped #8) is incorrect. Images are not prohibited by the Qur'an, which specifically says that which is not forbidden is allowed. You may find enlightening our article on depictions of Muhammad, which goes into detail about prohibitions.
These arguments are all based in Islam, and this is a secular encyclopedia. Better arguments against the images are not grounded in religious faith, because not everyone here is Muslim, and Wikipedia is not bound by the rules of any religion. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Who said wikipedia is bound by religious rules???its that FAQ is not clearing my concept that why there is any need to upload any image about which nobody is certain and authenticRaza536 (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

So you're advocating removing every single picture of Jesus, Homer, Charlemagne, and Paul of Tarsus too? --NeilN talk to me 12:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Raza536, I am suspecting that you haven't actually bothered to read the FAQ or depictions of Muhammad or any of the talk page archives here. The FAQ clearly explains the issue about authenticity. Otherwise, your arguments are old. They have been answered countless times. You are not presenting anything new. And you have not answered any of the questions I asked above. They were not rhetorical.
This is an encyclopedia. Its purpose is to present encyclopedic content. That includes historical images that are appropriate for illustrating an article. There is not a single image of any historical figure anywhere in the world that can be considered authentic if it was not made during the time when the subject existed or before the age of photography. And yet, such images are appropriate for illustrating articles about those historical figures, including the prophets Jesus and Moses. And Muslims are mysteriously silent about images of those prophets.
You are trying to single out Muhammad for special treatment, which, frankly, appears as if you are engaging in idolatry. Neutrality means we treat every historical figure the same. Muslims have created images of Muhammad. Many Muslims have no problem with the images in this article. They are not disrespectful. They provide readers with an idea of how Muhammad was viewed in ancient times. They serve to illustrate sections of the article. Therefore, they are included. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
"What we know is that Muhammad was the most beautiful person in the universe who ever existed"
"YOU GUYS are spreading idolatry"
Please excuse my incredulity... --King Öomie 18:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

huh? I've read all the FAQ but they aren't clearing my concepts @kingoomie Idolatory doesn't mean to describe one's beauty as most beatiful and well yes I'm advocating to remove such pictures or images or depictions because they aren't of any use in the sense that they promote idolatory and well i've said earlier in the discussion enlist the name of such muslims who painted those images according to you I assure that they weren't muslimsRaza536 (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately you evidently know zero about Islamic art, especially the traditions of the Persian miniature, Ottoman miniature etc. . Why don't you read a bit about it. Countering this widespread ignorance of Muslim history among some types of modern Muslim is itself a strong reason for keeping the images. I wish we had a modern-day Shia image we could use too. Of course the images are not based on a consistent tradition of authentic portraits going back to the Prophet's lifetime, but are generalized images using what authentic written descriptions there are. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
So you want to remove every single picture of Jesus, Homer, Charlemagne, and Paul of Tarsus from Wikipedia? I can safely say that will never, ever, happen. --NeilN talk to me 09:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Raza536: Again, you have not addressed my points or my questions. I will point you to Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 12#A Muslim reaction. It's a short paragraph that you would do well to read. Please do us all the courtesy of reading that as well as the replies to you above (particularly the reply from Johnbod) before you comment further. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive_20&oldid=1087720341"