Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I agree wikipedia should be allowed to keep the images in the article. However, I would value a clear warning such as {{spoiler}} ^{recently deleted} to warn muslims that they should turn off their images before they proceed looking at the page. Since the article is protected, I cannot do this myself.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

{{spoiler}} is already covered in the General Disclaimer. Nakon 16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

even better

Aude has suggested some interesting technical solutions in the main talk page.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I just got a mass mailing from some people that seem to be emailing everyone who has an account on Wikipedia. The email requests that I sign an online petition concerning the photograph. Is it the policy of Wikipedia to be handing out our email for this purpose? I will be reporting the email to Spamcop. trentc (04:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

please dont call the police it was probably a mistake or maye your account was found by another aggregate mailer. there is no need to make legal threats over something as trivial as this. Smith Jones (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

SpamCop, not the cops — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 09:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What user was sending these out, exactly? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't hand out email addresses, but if you did provide one in your preferences, and have checked the "enable email from other users" link, they can send you emails, though it should be a blind email system. i.e.: they send the message through Wikipedia, which does not reveal your email address to the sender unless you reply to them directly via email. Resolute 22:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that in this civilized world people don't know how to regard the religion and beliefs of other people. As Muslims we I love prophet MUHAMMAD (P.B.U.H) more than anything else and making pictures of the prophet is prohibited in our religion. So,no one has the right to disregard the Muslims and hurt them. This will only cause hate and problems. So, please remove the pictures from this site as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.65.113 (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No one is intentionally trying to hurt anyone here. I suggest you familiarize yourself with our policies, such as

WP:NPOV- doing so will give a basic understanding of how things work around here. Additionally, I encourage you to read the list of frequently asked questions

.

To be quite blunt: no, the pictures will not be removed.--C.Logan (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Asking to find your religion special in forcing Wikipedia to follow your customs and beliefs is absolutely absurd. Sooner or later everyone will ask for Wikipedia to follow their religion, and Wikipedia will go straight to hell with censored comments and the like. The first will almost certainly be Christianity asking for pages like

breasts to be censored, ignore the fact that they're reference pictures for anatomy and harming no one. No one with even the slightest bit of intelligence should take a secular site like this and respect something absurd like not showing a particular image. If you really find this so important, then start your own wiki for your religion, but censor the images you don't like. Popisfizzy (talk

) 22:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If would you call yourself civilized, then you would recognize that not everyone shares your beliefs. Wikipedia caters to no religion, and will not censor itself for any. Frankly, these requests to remove the pictures are as ridiculously misguided as any request made to a Muslim website requesting they add images of Muhammad. Resolute 22:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we might be able to make the *captions*, at least, a bit more sensitive to Muslim views, yet still retain the accuracy of course. The images are used in the article are one artist's rendition of events the article is describing. So, instead of using "depiction" you could use "rendition" (i.e. the second image) which has less of an implication of "this is really what Muhammed looked like" (which might be interpreted as POV), and more of a "this is a scene Rashid al-Din painted, and is used here to illustrate the text in the article."

Or, for a better idea of what I'm getting at, for the third image, the caption should be "A scene by 15th century artist Al-Bīrūnī shows Muhammed preaching the Qur'ān in Mecca." No major difference, right? And still npov and accurate. But it tends to suggest that, yes, this is an image of Muhammed despite your protests, it's just that these images exist and imagery is a good way of getting across a certain point, illustrating an event, plus the images are historically relevant.

I think just a little tweak to the captions might go a long way into resolving the issues of pov-pushers when it comes to depicting Muhammed. It's something, and it shows and effort on our part to be sensitive, at least in terms of presentation, but not capitulating at all when it comes to freedom of speech. --24.57.157.81 (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a very reasonable suggestion - specific potential captions would be appreciated, and if there's not too much reasonable objection, we can make a switch. WilyD 00:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems quite reasonable. Jmlk17 00:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

OH GOD. And it's not your fault but Al-Bīrūnī was not the artist. I've changed that but... the first sign of respect towards Muslims would be to not attribute images drawn 400 years after a man's death to that man. Bīrūnī isn't a particularly religious figure but, still.

Okay, now that I am getting over my panic--I think you make a good point. But, we really need to check to make sure Rashid al-Din actually drew the second image--not that it was just taken out of a manuscript he authored. gren グレン 18:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I like this Idea. Changing the captions would work, if the captions don't suggest that the image is depicting Muhammad. I don't think there would be a POV clash then.  UzEE  12:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It will have no impact at all - this has never really been about placement or descriptions - it's that they are displayed to start with. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No if we don't explicitly mention them depicting Muhammad then it would be different. Or better yet, we could say that the subject is not Muhammad at all, but just someone's imagination.  UzEE  12:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your "better yet" suggestion would violated

WP:NOT. The subject of these paintings is verifiably Muhammad and to not say so for fear of offense is self-censorship. -MasonicDevice (talk

) 17:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Aphaia made this relevant posting to the foundation mailing list:

Recently I had a conversation with a fawiki [Persian language Wikipedia] friend and asked if fawiki have any problem about hosting those images on their article. First he seemed to be very surprised to know fawiki hosted "Muhammad's images". After giving a glance, he got his calmness again and said they were not "depicting Muhammad" and Muslims know that. There are rather products of imagination by each artists. So they are okay. And interestingly I haven't heard anyone complaints about fawiki hostings.--Pharos (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just started a Conjectural portrait article, based on an idea (quite unrelated to Islamic topics) which first popped into my sandbox last year, but that I'd sort of neglected. It's just a stub now, but I think there is quite room for further expansion. Maybe a link in the caption to an article like this could make it clearer that these aren't actual portraits of Muhammad.--Pharos (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Would that really help though? It seems a bit redundant as everyone knows that these aren't actual portraits, yet the arguments persist. In the end it's the artist verifiable intent that matters - the intent to depict Muhammad - and these images are important for that reason. -MasonicDevice (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it appears that a very substantial number of people believe (wrongly) that "Wikipedia is claiming these are actual depictions". Pointing to an article like that would correct such a misconception.--Pharos (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's tricky, trying to argue against a strawman-based argument. All you can really do is repeat your position and clarify. An article explaining the concept would help make the discussion/FAQ easier, that's for sure. I'm not so sure it would help in the article though. The concept has been explained again and again in the talk pages and yet it is raised again and again. I think that even if we stuck a link in a caption, some people would still miss the point and raise the strawman. -MasonicDevice (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a strawman argument, it's an actual misconception held by a number of people (not everyone, certainly) opposing the pictures.--Pharos (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor point perhaps, but the pink box on this very page has a rather unfriendly feel to it. Particularly phrases such as "If you have come here from outside Wikipedia..." and "have been given our consideration" seem rather against the spirit of Wikipedia - no one is technically "outside" the project as it is open to all, and "our" similarly encompasses the whole world.

I don't want to see mountains of pointless protests on talk pages either, but we need to encourage people to contribute fruitfully rather than merely antagonise!

I don't disagree. I started to edit it once and then realized I didn't know how to word it. Any suggestions? I doubt any reasonable changes will be reverted. gren グレン 18:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree as well. I particularly find the picture of the Arabic/English 'STOP' sign to be highly suspect. It seems like it might be somewhat patronising. I also think it would be a good idea for us to really push the idea of disabling images

How about something like:

Important notice:

This page is solely for constructive discussion of how best to integrate images into the Muhammad page, within Wikipedia talkpage guidelines.

It has been decided by a consensus of a majority of Wikipedia editors that images should be included in this article. Please refrain from either arguing against their inclusion, or arguing against any future removal.

A summary of the current consensus regarding pictures of Muhammad can be found at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ.

If you would like to avoid seeing the images on that page yourself, you might want to read this:

Wikipedia:How to set your browser to not see images

Because of disruption and trolling, this page can currently be edited only by established Wikipedia users. Please be polite and calm. Trolling or aggressive rhetoric either for or against the use of images will not be tolerated.

In any case, I strongly support the removal of the almost comical picture in the above warning.

I wonder if it would be worthwhile directing 'protestors' or 'supporters' of the images to a more appropriate page for their discussion, such as the Village Pump proposals page. Of course, this would only be constructive if they could be encouraged to adhere by the guidelines of Wikipedia when it comes to their arguments, which, I fear, may be an unfruitful effort. Lor (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone help me track down more artist information? There is no source stating that Rashid Al-Din is the image's artist although he was the book's author. I ask because we recently had Al-Biruni listed as the artist for Image:Maome.jpg on Muhammad which is a massive mistake and I seriously want to avoid anything like that for the other images. Many times the manuscript artists are not well known even though they are illustrating well known works. gren グレン 18:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

According to

Jami al-Tawarikh

, there were four major painters involved in the copy possessed by the University of Edinburgh:

• The Painter of Iram: the most influenced by China (reflected in Chinese elements, such as trees, interest in the landscape, interest in contemplative characters). The work is characterized by open drawing, minimal modelling, linear drapery, extensive details, stripped and balanced compositions, delicate and pale colours, and a rare use of silver. He painted mostly the early miniatures, and may have been assisted by the Master of Tahmura.
• The Painter of Lohrasp: characterized by a variety of subjects, including many throne scenes, a variable and eclectic style, quite severe and angular drapery, a verity of movements, stripped and empty backgrounds. His absence of interest in landscape painting shows a lack of Chinese influences, which is compensated for by inspiration from Arab, Syrian and Mesopotamian painting. His work is of variable quality, and uses silver systematically. His assistant: the Master of Scenes from the Life of the Prophet.
• The Master of the Battle Scenes: a somewhat careless painter, as becomes evident when the number of arms does not match the number of characters, or a leg is missing among the horses. He is notable for a complete lack of focus and horror, and for strong symmetry, his compositions usually comprising two parties face to face composed of a leader and two or three followers. Decoration is limited to grass, indicated in small vegetative clumps, except during sieges and attacks on the city.
• The Master of Alp Arslan appears briefly, at the end of the manuscript. His style is crude and unbalanced, his characters often badly proportioned.

I don't know which this painting was by. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been particularly active, but I notice that a few days ago, someone decided to be bold and move the the image Image:Siyer-i Nebi 151b.jpg to "below the fold", that is, moved from the lead down into the body of the article. For my two cents, this is a mistake and hasn't had sufficient consensus, given how many different people have weighed in on this over the time.

I realize there's a desire to try to find some sort of compromise here, but honestly, I do not believe such a compromise exists. Indeed, Historically, we were already compromising by allowing the Muhammad calligraphy to be placed ABOVE the image, contrary to what Wikipedia does on basically all our other biography page.

I know it's unpleasant, but we have to accept that we are never going to make the anti-images group happy and satisfied. If there are two images of Muhammad, it is their duty to argue that there should only be one. If we move it to the middle of the article, it is their duty to argue it should be moved to the very bottom. If we make lower the size to 250px, it's their duty to argue 250px is to big. That's not to suggest any duplicity or immorality on their part-- in the end, who is to say who is right?

But-- I'd encourage people to pick one philosophy or the other. Wikipedia can cover Muhammad neutrally, with images, using the same kinds of image policies as we use for Abraham, Zoroaster, and everyone in between. Or Wikipedia can decide that not offending is more important than "by the book" neutrality and decide to remove the images.

But half-measures-- burying, downsizing, or limiting the use of images is just embarrassing, and makes no one happy. It's recipe for endless fights over just how limited the limit should be. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree. It's not embarassing--it's quite purposeful and useful. When you look at Muhammad and see an image at the top it gives the misguided impression about the importance of figurative images. Yet, we have consensus that such images are important enough to be represented. It's a matter of emphasis so to keep the images and neutrality we have placed them lower and in their respective places.

WP:LEAD shows you that leads are meant to concisely emphasize the most important parts of an article. By having figurative imagery there you are emphasizing it in a way which completely disproportionately represents its importance. I do not consider myself to be part of the "anti-image" group but someone who tries to properly represent the subject of the article and the tradition and history that surrounds him. We are never going to make people who want no images happy--that's not the goal. Please understand that there are issues beyond "censorship" or "freedom of speech". gren グレン

20:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You assume that you can arbitrarily decide that the images are unimportant, and should therefore be given minimal attention. The furor over the images suggests exactly the opposite- that they are of extremely high importance in understanding the subject of the article and his place in the contemporary world. The more tumult the images generate, the more important they become. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. The importance of depictions of Muhammad is decided by their historical prevalence and significance in tradition, not by the number of people annoyed in any recent outburst. That is an appeal to recentism.

ITAQALLAH

22:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else, moving it "below the fold" significantly improves the layout of the article. WilyD 21:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The images in the lead look to me to be the right ones. They seem to be more typical representations and inform the reader how Muhammad is(n't) usually depicted and avoid the recentism already mentioned. As far as Brian's comments go, the section on Depictions of Muhammad here runs to less than 100 words, barely enough for a mention in the lead I'd say. So, no, moving the images around doesn't look arbitrary in the least. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To reply to gren and others-- where in the world did we get this idea that our articles use of images somehow is supposed to reflect the relative historic importance of the images we us? Images are to illustrate history, not emulate it.

Off the top of my head, Leonhard Euler was a mathematician. I know all about him and his work, but to my knowledge, I've never once seen or heard one word about images of him. And yet, there at the top of the page is a picture of him as is the case with virtually ALL of our biography pages, it's just standard.

I thought we had all reached a compromise on this the last time this flamed up, but I peek back and see most of the same voices are continue to push for fewer, smaller, lower images. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Euler example works because that is probably an historically accurate portrait. Oore (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Then take

Gautama Buddha, Jesus, Socrates,Plato, David, or almost any other biographical article. The point is-- we are under NO obligation to 'embody' aniconistic art histories in how we present our articles. If we are genuinely concerned about educating people about Islamic art history here on the Muhammad page, then add text to the captions and that will solve that problem. --Alecmconroy (talk

) 11:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We are also under no obligation to over-emphasise or provide undue focus on minority traditions through prominent positioning of four depictions (I would go as far as saying they are of little significance when considering the historical memory of Muhammad as a whole, though this is not to say that depictions they are necessarily insignificant). To do so poses a substantial neutrality problem, which back-tracking and caveats in captions will not resolve.

ITAQALLAH

12:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If lead images are good enough for all the other bios, what makes the Muhammad article special? That it's offensive isn't a good enough answer since we're not censored. If indeed people are sincerely concerned about just educating us about art history, is best solved by addition of explanatory text, not deletion of images, but oddly, no one is trying to argue that our images should be accompanied by more explanatory texts, are they? --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to reflect the most significant aspects of the article. Image-wise, depictions just ain't one of them.

As for your second question: Because, again, further explanatory text would be awarding undue focus to this one issue. If the presentation is suggesting a greater significance or prevalence than what is the case, then it's the presentation itself that must be rectified. It cannot be fixed by buttressing the already undue emphasis with even more text.

ITAQALLAH

13:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned, portraiture is vastly different than hagiography. But, those other figures have developed large figurative traditions around them. Europeans romanticizing Greek philosophers. Christian religious arts and their prophets. The images are meant to show relative importance as a means of neutrality. Everyone would be surprised to see too many atypical pictures of Jesus or the Philosophers. If figurative imagery itself is atypical then we should be surprised to see so much of it. So, think of providing an image of Muhammad as being analogous to providing the image of a relatively unimportant form of artistic representation of Jesus--not insulting--just atypical--like this. Nothing insulting about it we just would be unlikely to put it in our article much less multiple times or in a place of prominence. Any image of Muhamamd is similarly atypical. But, they are nonetheless important part of the historical record so we should include some but use proper placement not to give the idea that this is a typical way to represent Muhammad. It's the exact same as having sections in his biography about relatively unimportant events. So, I fail to see how comparisons to other biographies that have vastly different ways of representing their subjects is relevant. I'm sure you can see why having images on Muhammad just like Jesus would give a very odd view of Muhammad. It would convey that it is common to have such images. gren グレン 17:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia Muslims all over the world condemn to draw the pictures of Prophet Muhammad (May Peace Be Upon Him). Administration of wikipedia should understand that it is an offense. Every Muslim will react against the images displayed in the article. [Muhammad Jawwad Saif] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.80.24 (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC) What I don't understand is that why non-muslim people fail to understand a simple request made by muslims that "please remove the pictures of our prophet from the article because it is hurting us"? Why is wikipedia admins insisting to inflict pain and hatred upon muslims? Not removing pictures is a policy but hurting muslims, disrespecting Islam and spreading worldwide protest and conflit is... {Imran Shahid} —Preceding comment was added at 04:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple hundred religions with over one million followers, wikipedia cannot accommodate each religion. For instance, there are many who are offended that Muhammad consummated a marriage with a 9 year old girl, especially in America where pedophilia is looked down upon, however we put aside our personal biases and do not censor the Koran. Aaya35 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are correct, free media cannot accomodate these personal biases. That said, your examplar statement is sort of wrong: pedophiles have a preference for prepubescence. Muhammed loved Aisha even after she began puberty (and probably still even when puberty completed, though he died when she was 18 so that wasn't too long), and also all his other wives were adults. His first wife was actually much older than him as well. He married Aisha due to a dream he had that he viewed as a sign from Allah, not because he chose her because he had a preference for those who had not initiated puberty. So please do not use this terminology so freely, only where it is accurate. Tyciol (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If Wiki doesn't want to remove the pics of prophet Muhammed, a notification should be added to inform viewers that, in Islam, it's NOT legitimate to draw/see pictures of the prophets (all of them). Also, a similar disclaimer must exist under the title of every picture including a character indicating prophet Muhammed's activities or the like. Otherwise, I guess it'll be a very, very big problem to Wiki in the future, since Wiki might be classified as disrespecting Islam and the rights of Muslims (forming about 1/6 of the whole Earth's populations). I'm all sure that the people who made such pictures were either non-Muslims or didn't understand Islam well. Providing a trusted and correct references of the makers will allow Islamic scholars to verify this claim, and then give us their feedback. {Ahmed.ashry (talk)} —Preceding comment was added at 10:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope... sorry. We don't have to

censor ourselves to show any "respect". Jmlk17

10:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

N.B. I'm stressing that I need some kind of "disclaimer" and trusted references. I'm not in any need for your "respect".{Ahmed.ashry (talk)} —Preceding comment was added at 11:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to stop your browser from viewing images a link maybe at the top of article might be a solution. BigDunc (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for any sort of disclaimer whatsoever... Jmlk17 11:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a disclaimer and it is not censorship it is then down to individuals to self censor if they want. BigDunc (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In Islam picture of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is not allowed. But Wikipedia editors are showing illustrations with face illustrated and face is veiled or white washed. But still they are offensive to Muslims. I request you to respect the religion and remove the illustrations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad specially this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg AtifDar (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sure this one have already been said but I trying a new phrasing :):

If I have this believe in my religion that all Muslims should not be allowed in wikipedia do you think wikipedia should allow this because it would offend my religion or ignore my religion in order to make a general encyclopedia? Raffethefirst (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

By putting the images of The Holy Prophet (PBUH) on this site, wiki has committed a great sin. Just remember one thing that drawing the pictures of Prophets is strictly prohibited in Islam, likewise publishing such images is also a great sin. Wiki should respect our religion and remove the pictures immediately. It's not only the matter of Islam; it can become a worldwide dispute. Every religion teaches to respect the religion of others and to keep peace in the world. Wiki has might forgot the issue of a Newspaper of a countrywho published the images of The Holy Prophet and this act made a great disturbance in the whole world. So it would be better for wiki to remove these pictures immediately.

Mian Zeshan Farooqi Mian Zeshan Farooqi —Preceding comment was added at 08:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

By putting the images of The Holy Prophet (PBUH) on this site, wiki has committed a great sin.

No. Wikipedia has comitted a "great sin" according to some muslims.

Just remember one thing that drawing the pictures of Prophets is strictly prohibited in Islam, likewise publishing such images is also a great sin.

No. To publish such pictures is a "great sin" according to some muslims.

Wiki should respect our religion and remove the pictures immediately.

Wikipedia has a set of policies and is following those policies. I can assure you that these policies were not written with the intention to anger some muslims. I am willing to bet that when the policies regarding this subject were written, those who wrote it had no idea that it would escalate into this.

It's not only the matter of Islam; it can become a worldwide dispute.

Is that a threat?

Every religion teaches to respect the religion of others and to keep peace in the world.

That is not a statement that everyone agree upon. That is an opinion, and it can be argued for or against if it is true. Interesting that you say something like that. Do you know all the religions of the world?

Wiki has might forgot the issue of a Newspaper of a countrywho published the images of The Holy Prophet and this act made a great disturbance in the whole world. So it would be better for wiki to remove these pictures immediately.

Now that sounds like a threat. I have a question to wikipedians: am I in violation of the "assume good faith" policy if I report this?

--PureRumble (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you'd be stepping over the

WP:AGF line. I think that threatening Wikipedia (as ridiculous as threatening a website sounds) is completely inappropriate. Oren0 (talk

) 19:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no religion, only facts. If you live under a moral rule that requires you to overlook certain facts that is your concern. This website shouln't be adapted to fit your beliefs. --Xymor (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It's the usual empty "threat" of someone who is not getting their way. Jmlk17 22:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I received a mass email that was addressing the issue of pictures of the prophet Mohammed (PBUH) being shown on the Wikipedia article 'Muhammed'. As a registered user of Wikipedia I attempted to remove these photos, knowing that most likely they would be posted back up. Being the world's largest online encyclopedia and based on a user input approach, I think Wikipedia is probably the most internationally beneficial and greatest web-site on the internet. However, I believe that it is in me to contest and address this issue on this talk page based on what I believe is Wiki's main reason for not removing the pictures (from the FAQ section): Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view, and therefore Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. What I would like to say is, that it is certainly fair enough and correct to strive to represent topics from a neutral point of view...however is THAT really the case here? Is keeping the images up on the article considered 'neutral' and what is the definition of neutral in this case? From an accurate and informative stand-point as an encyclopedia should do what is more ideal, correct and representative of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH): keeping the images up or taking them down? What is more offensive, keeping them up or taking them down? How many people will be offended with the images down? How many will be offended with them UP?! What is more accurate, keeping the inaccurate portrayals of artists imaginations up or taking them down? What is more NEUTRAL, keeping the tension levels associated with this topic high (i.e. images up) or trying to remedy them (i.e. images down)? I also took note of this very strong point on the FAQ section: However, Wikipedia uses the images of Muhammad as examples of how Muhammad has been depicted by various Islamic sects through history and not in a religious context. Point noted, WHY aren't they placed under their respective sects then? Or under the respective articles: e.g. Islamic Art, History, Istanbul, etc... Why are they placed under this particular article 'Muhammed' when there have been so many complaints, arguments, discussions etc...based on very legitimate and more favorable outcomes? I personally would like to see them down once and for all, but I know that this is not representative of Wiki's policies...what I am asking is that Wiki STICK to the policies in an ideal way by repositioning them where they REALLY belong and let THAT article take the blame - if the images are art, then LET them be art. If they are history, LET them be history. Don't LET them be Muhammed (PBUH) when they are obviously not?! Taziommi (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no obligation to "reduce tension" of psychos. Also, keeping the images is the neutral thing to do. Just 1/4 Million people like you vandalize the page because they want the images gone doesn't make it any more right. Now, here's the thing - If the images are removed, Wikipedia gives in to censorship, and Wikipedia is not censored. If this happens, more articles will fall soon after, and it's a downhill slope from there on. The most important thing is keeping Wikipedia neutral. Wikipedia users will just laugh at you if you talk about "tensions"(See Coercion), because they have no bearing here, just like the petition signed by all those people -- What matters is facts, not religious dogma. If dogma's your thing, I'm pretty sure there are Muslim wikipedias. Better yet, if there's not, you could make your own or lobby for a Muslim one to be made instead of vandalizing and censoring this one.

The reason they're placed here is because portrayal of the person or object in question is relevant to the article, be it physical or literal presention, doesn't matter. The Jesus article has it, the Muhammed article should too, because they're both important figures, and people are bound to wonder what they look like or might have looked like. The images do belong on this article, none other, apart from the Depictions_of_Muhammad article. The images are just as much Muhammed as the images of Jesus are Jesus, and either way, it doesn't matter. Eik Corell (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but Wikipedia has an obligation to present facts in an ideal way for all users of the world THAT sir is the "neutral" thing to do - that's what an encyclopedia should be all about, better yet the 'world's largest free encyclopedia'. Your reference to those who feel religously insulted and are contributing to the tensions associated with this article as "psychos" goes to show how ignorant and biased you are...I don't know what religion you belong to, but the best way to put it for you is to ask you how you would like it if someone posted up images of your own father that weren't of him on his own exclusive Wikipedia article dedicated to him? Muslims love the prophet and are spiritually attached unto him more than their own father's, but I don't think that is of significance to you yet I mention this to you so as that PERHAPS you can construct some kind of an understanding in your mind of the situation...perhaps. The 'censorship' and 'religious dogma', as you like to refer to it is simply a call for Wikipedia to a least reposition the images to their 'truly' representative and respective articles (e.g.

Islamic Art

), the ideal outcome for the majority (we're talking about all the members of the second largest religion in the world) v.s. the obvious minority & rarity that support this would be to remove the pics...BUT oh yes of course, that would be 'censorship', 'religous dogma', 'vandalism', a 'threat to the NPOV', etc...

There's no need for a Muslim Wikipedia, a Christian Wikipedia or any other thing of the sort if policies are truly unbiased, upheld and presented in the ideal manner that is in favor of the majority and not the minority (in fact, rarity) -> once more I ask, HOW many people would be insulted with the images down? What is truly more accurate and more neutral, images up or down? I agree with you in that people are naturally bound to wonder what religious figures looked like, esp. Muhammed (PBUH) however I believe the followers of Muhammed (i.e. Muslims) are entitled to that privilage more than any others but that is not the way for them and that ought to be respected. Yes, the images in the respective 'Jesus' and 'Muhammed' articles are "intended" to be either religous figure, one difference though -> those of Jesus are accepted in Christianity (the entitled group to those images that are concerned) but those of Muhammed aren't accepted in Islam (the entitled group to those images that are concerned). Any preference to not uphold that respect unto the religious group concerned, and especially with no respect for the vast majority of those concerned in number is NONE other than bias at it's best (which I think is far astray from Wikipedia's goal of upholding the NPOV/Neutral Point of View). I find it truly ironic that any attempts to remedy this issue to achieve true neutrality (again Wikipedia's GOAL in the presentation of information) is considered to be 'censorship', 'religious dogma', 'vandalism', etc... Taziommi (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not neutral - That's still censorship on behalf of a vocal minority, no matter how you spin it. It's like this - Religious group becomes offended because an encyclopedia does something against that's against their religion, people tell them that the encyclopedia cannot conform to their local religious norms, and they go ahead and vandalize it anymore. You are actually a minority within that minority; one that actually tries discussing the issue instead of forcing their edits. When I mention psychos, I'm talking about the people in Pakistan, etc, who are burning and destroying things; those are the people whose tension we don't have to ease. There's one mistake people here keep making: They say they speak for all Muslims, when clearly they don't. Not all Muslims are against pictures of Mohammed, in fact, the ones that are, they're a minority, albeit a vocal and, as we found out, violent one. Now, hypothetically, if we did move the pictures, the next article would just be vandalized as well. All the words and terms you cited last are correct. Censorship because that's what it is. Religious dogma because Muslims feel that an encyclopedia article on someone related to their religion should conform to their standards, vandalism because... Just look at the page history. A threat to the NPOV because it would create a double standard. And where does it stop? It's not without reason that people keep mentioning the whole domino effect.

Well there obviously is since this one is taking quite a beating for not being Islamic enough. One error that you make is that you assume that articles have to conform with the thing they describe. So we remove the pictures, but that wouldn't be enough because the next thing that would go, as has been witnessed, would be the criticism part, then we start adding SAAW after his name, it WILL go down that road if you send the message that articles are subject to the norms of of the people or thing it talks about. The burden of proof is that removal of the images is not the only vandalism being commited, that's gotta be the burden of proof. It really doesn't matter if Christianity allows or disallows it, or if nooone's allowed to badmouth Muhammed, because this is not a religious wikipedia; the argumentation that this offends them is totally dismissible. It's not about respect when you find threats and insults in the discussion page, warning you that maybe you forgot what happened last time this was done. Eik Corell (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

On the Image FAQ page, under the heading "Content that can be considered blasphemous" there are examples of 3 articles regarding Jesus which may be consideres blasphemous by Christians but are still part of Wikipedia. These are:

• Piss Christ
• Jesus Dress Up; and
• Jesus with erection

While these are very interesting examples of how Wikipedia is not censored - I fail to compare them with the case of

What inconsistency? I counted no less than six images of Jesus on the Jesus article. Are you suggesting that the Muhammad article is being treated unfairly and should have a comparable number of images? —  X  S  G  08:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The inconsistency is that that policy is that we have to reflect the sources on a particular subject, not reflect what we did in other articles. There is absolutely no such policy that says you compare articles on different topics and try to treat them in the same way.

In the case of Jesus, sources are knee-deep in pictures, but in the case of Muhammad, I could only find them in a couple of Western encyclopedias, which aren't sources here (but I could find them easily if I searched specifically for them, but not in very many articles even then, so there's a very real question of bias here; the western world is biased to always include images on any topic; but there's no policy to that effect!)

It's not a great exageration to call these images 'trivia' they're not him, they don't look like him, and they aren't contemporaneous with him. It's analogous to illustrating the Winston Churchill article with a bunch of sketches of actors.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't have contemporaneous picture of Jesus either. Churchill lived in the photographic era. Your comparison is apples and oranges.-MasonicDevice (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no blasphemous pictures of Jesus in the Jesus article.--Goon Noot (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope it doesn't come as a surprise to you that there are sects of Christianity which believe that images depicting Jesus are blasphemous. Regardless of their stance, if you can find a historical and relevant picture of Jesus which is considered to be blasphemous but despite this may improve the overall understanding of Jesus (and has a usage license compatible with Wikipedia), I'd support its addition to the Jesus article. Do you have something in mind? The playing field is quite level, you know... —  X  S  G  09:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not insisting or asking to add any image in Jesus article that has not recieved wide acceptance as a reasonable representation of Jesus. The 3 examples illustrate - images that have not recieved wide acceptance as a reasonable depiction of a sensitive subject have generally been kept in their separate articles on wikipedia. I am only pointing out that the examples given in FAQ page are inadequate / inappropriate to illustrate why images that majority of Muslims would consider objectionable must be on the main article itself, even though they have a separate dedicated article. Arman ^(Talk) 10:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no pictures of Jesus that have widespread acceptance of being a representation of Him. Like these depictions of Muhammad, all we have are artists depictions of Jesus. How does this differ? Why would depictions of one be appropriate whereas depictions of the other are inappropriate? Remember, the sensitivity of the subject is irrelevant to the notablity of the image. -MasonicDevice (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

there aren't any blasphemous pictures in this article either. Putting a "Piss Christ" image up on

dab (𒁳)

16:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Adding an depcition of a religious figure preaching the Qu'ran to an article about that figure is hardly "blasphemous" in the way that adding the image of Piss Christ would be to the Jesus article. The better comparison to Piss Christ would be to add some of the Danish cartoons to this article. That being said, I would have no objection to adding the imate of Piss Christ to the Jesus article if there was an appropriate section that related to it. Resolute 16:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad as a diplomat but not Jesus as a diplomat. gren グレン

17:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What makes you say that they are important though? I actually looked for evidence that this is so, and while the pages that contained the images seemed to claim that, I couldn't find any mainstream support for that at all. The sources that say that, are very few and far between. That means that this is a minority position.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

They are important because they are the earliest surviving depictions of a major world figure. They show how he was viewed by some of his followers. - MasonicDevice (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

they are "important" in the way the

dab (𒁳)

21:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, encyclopedias are exaggerative--meaning we always want to represent a type of work if it has any importance at all. Let's say for argument's sake that only 2% of the depictions of Muhammad are figurative, that doesn't mean only 1 in 50 images can be on Wikipedia. We would still include it/them because they are shown in very notable museums' permanent collections, etc. That may seemingly contradict my previous statements, but I don't think so. It's only a method of inclusion to get at least some representative of distinct types of art. Beyond that you don't use too many of a minority type compared to a majority type. That's why you avoid them in the lead or avoid over representing them beyond the level of mere inclusion. gren グレン 00:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

They are only important in Depictions of Muhammad, placing them in Muhammad gives them extreme undue weight. And there's no policy that 'encyclopedias are exagerative', you seem to have made that up, Grenavitar to try to account for the fact that they are given undue weight.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 04:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Let's come to the point! - We are moving far away from the point that Mr. Arman pointed out here. In the FAQ section three pictures are used to give an impression that how does Wikipedia work. Neither those pictures nor their information is covered in the main Jesus article. But, here we are debating on a disputed picture that has still copyright in some countries from the main article of Mohammad. Now my (perhaps Mr. Arman's as well) question is - how are these two cases inter-related? Could you please explain? Please note that neither I am meaning to add any picture/content in Jesus article nor indicating that current form of Jesus article is biased. Cheers. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 15:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made some edits on the Arabic language Wikipedia, and have been looking at various articles and topics through the interlanguage links. As I'm sure you are aware, the article about Muhammad on the Arabic Wikipedia is illustrated only with calligraphy images. On other topics (e.g. human anatomy), I have found some examples of how they "censor" images

One approach - One way is with a "viewing warning" image, which essentially says "Some people may consider this picture to be disturbing. Don't click here unless you are certain you wish to see it." If you click on it, you are taken to the Image page and see the image.

Pink pimelea (Pimelea spicata) is an endangered plant species native to New South Wales, Australia.

Another approach - use of the show/hide feature, with the image by default hidden. (this example is not an image of Muhammad, but just a picture of a flower, so despite the warning it won't offend anyone.)

Maybe an approach like one of these would serve as a compromise on the issue of images on the Muhammad article. I do know that this is a very sensitive issue to many Muslims and think this is a very rare instance where using the "show/hide" feature for an image would be appropriate. I think we should be more accommodating in this case. Aside from this instance, I'm all for "Wikipedia is not censored".

I don't have lots of time to involve myself in the issue on-wiki, but want to put these ideas out there and help inform about how the Arabic Wikipedia does things in some situations and offer my opinion on the issue. --Aude (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been discussed before, and for my part, I'm vehemently opposed to any kind of opt-in solution. If someone can write some Mediawiki code that allows readers to opt-out at their discretion, I suspect the entire community would be greatful, but I don't want my Wikipedia censored. Resolute 00:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What is your definition of "censorship"? --Be happy!! (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In short, the removal or hiding of content to satisfy the whims of a single group that finds said content objectionable. I want all aspects of Wikipedia to be displayed by default. The desire to opt-out of certain content should be an individual's choice. At this moment, lacking a better technical solution, it should remain up to individual editors to self-censor - either by changing their settings to hide images on this article, or by not reading it. Resolute 05:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would support a "click to view" only if it is opt-in. Perhaps this could be coupled with the CSS alteration discussed in the FAQ file. Perhaps the wiki source code can be hacked to support a "potentially offensive" tag on images. Then, if you'd rather not see a particular class of potentially offensive images, add the appropriate CSS line to your monobook.css. Frotz (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord, this cannot be given any serious thought can it? It doesn't matter if someone may be offended... that's their problem, and as a result, it shouldn't become ours. This a a dangerous precedent that shouldn't be inserted. We might as well put that in every article, since we're never sure if someone may be offended! Jmlk17 00:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The opt in system already exists. It is discussed in the link you just included: CSS alteration. There is no need to further complicate the opt-in system because the CSS alteration is sufficient for everybody in its current form. Those who wish to not display the images have the ability to not display the images on the client side. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My intention was to suggest a general solution for the question of censorship of potentially disagreeable pictures. I now see that such modifications of the wiki source code is unacceptable. Perhaps instead a set of monobook.js scripts can be crafted that lists such images and automatically converts the simple images to the semi-censored form. No source hacking nor article-modification would be necessary. A custodian would necessarily be needed to keep it up to date. The scripts should be kept very narrow in scope and few in number; like one for sexual images, one for gruesome images, one for pics of Muhammad, etc. Frotz (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My intention was to suggest a general solution for the question of censorship of potentially disagreeable pictures. we have a general solution - it's called WP:NOTCENSORED - we don't censor, we don't create forks for the offended, we don't hide sexual images, we don't censor gruesome images (used in line with policy). That's the start, middle and end of it. You can talk about such solutions until the cows come home but the community will whack any attempts to a) censor or b) fork articles. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about altering the fabric of Wikipedia. I'm talking about offering the equivalent of

adblock as was alluded to below. Nothing in Wikipedia changes. No articles are changed or forked. Nobody even needs to be aware of this unless they want to use it. I've thought more on this and realized that it doesn't even have to be a wiki script. The only drawback I can think of is the potential for malware. So, my suggestion is for those with tendencies for censorship to write a Mozilla plugin that does what I suggest. Frotz (talk

) 22:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That clearly doesn't fly. I don't think that NOTCENSORED can apply to AN article, it applies to the wikipedia as a whole, so provided the information is in the wikipedia, and is very easily found, then we're not censoring anything.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course NOTCENSORED applies to each article as an individual as well as Wikipedia as a whole. You can't just take the content you believe to be offensive and hide it in one article and no others, that is censorship.

_(1 == 2)^Until

16:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That is factually untrue. If you go to autofellatio there are images there that you cannot put in any other article; the wiki software won't let you. According to you having them only in that article is censorship, and that the wikipedia doesn't do that, but the wikipedia does put things into appropriate articles and keep them there.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, you are confusing editorial judgment with censorship. We have used technical means to prevent the image on the auto-fellatio article from being used elsewhere on Wikipedia because there was an editorial consensus to do so, not because some special interest group was offended by it. The editorial judgment is, and has been time and time again, that the these pictures are appropriate to the Muhammad article. Your comparison does not take that into account.

_(1 == 2)^Until

18:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Which is what NOTCENSORED is about - it's not a licence to add any picture to any article - it means that where the community has determined that a photo should be included on an article, reason such as a) "I don't like it", b)"it upsets group X" are not legitimate reasons for removal. What are we actually discussing anyway? the community has decided the pictures are appropreriate for the article - nothing had changed on that score - someone attempted a fork and it was quickly blown out of the water. So no amount of wikilawyering is going to either of those facts - what are we discussing that is related to improving the article, rather than general discussion of policy? --Fredrick day (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, so I'm glad you agree that NOTCENSORED is largely moot here; it says you cannot remove them from the wikipedia, but as far as it's concerned you can remove them from Muhammad. Whereas NPOV says that you have to add images and text to any particular article without overemphasis, but massive amounts of sources says that images are highly undesirable in this context (the sources for Depictions of Muhammad which is a different article speak quite differently though- it's totally appropriate to add such images there under policy). Sure, as the point you seem to be making, it ultimately comes down to consensus as to where it all goes, as to how we emphasise the policies or sources in any context. But consensus is a process which does not terminate, and you're attempting to short-circuit it. That doesn't really fly, that's not how it works, the wikipedia doesn't have a policy to make a decision and never revisit it.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's get down to brass tacks - This decision will be revisited again and again and again - but the simple truth is, the majority of (long term) editors here demonstrate a western POV that will prevent the removal of those images whatever arguments are made against their removal from this article. Is that in keeping with the spirit of wikipedia and combating systematic bias? maybe not - is that the reality of having a community with the social,political and demographic profile that we have? yes. That's why the discussion can only be about *where* and *how many* images are in this article because whatever policy says, removal will perceived as submission to islamic dogma. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, seems to me that the uproar has a reasonable basis then; you're self-evidently abusing policy and the wikipedia. Encyclopedias aren't supposed to have systematic bias.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. Not censored is not meant to be used as "if you change anything you're censoring". That's clear. But it does dictate what rationales are legitimate. If we want to remove the images because they offend then we cannot. So, it's not moot but it has been overused on long-term editors who are suggesting legitimate plans. It is perfectly fine to use on a the drop by users who say they think it's offensive. And, while I agree that consensus is an ongoing process we might want to look at FACs / FPCs for guidance. That is, sometimes we need to not renominate something 20 minutes after it just failed. So, let's talk... but don't expect change in two minutes or repeat ourselves each day. gren グレン 17:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So, basically, you lie to the drop-in editors to hide the fact that it's just a 'consensus decision' with at best, very, very marginal policy support? Nice. And given that, re-reading through the FAQ, it's clear that the whole FAQ is a misdirection; the word consensus never appears anywhere; but that's ultimately the real reason.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF... Why the big deal about the FAQ containing the word "consensus"? The FAQ reflects the consensus. It almost is the consensus. Its sole purpose is to relieve long-term eds from having to answer the same questions ad infinitum. If the drive-bys wanted to learn more or change consensus, they could read the Talk archives, WP policies, and maybe a very clever one could come up with an appealing new argument to consensus or solution to avoid the issue. - MasonicDevice (talk

) 18:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"Why the big deal about the FAQ containing the word "consensus"?" Because that's the only policy that actually supports the decision, a careful reading of all the other policies says, no, there is no requirement for there to be images in this article. But if they had mentioned that in the FAQ then it's a lot easier to notice how circular all this is. Basically removed of the sugar coating the FAQ is simply a rationalisation for a bunch of people that don't give a damn about wiki policy and are doing it for multiple other reasons.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point of the FAQ: It's an explanation of the current consensus so that it doesn't need to be explained time after time. Anyone who cares to read the talk archives can see how the consensus was reached. While you may be correct that no policy other than

great, and it might change consensus. If, however, they drive by and call for deletion using arguements in violation of WP:NOT (Offense), WP:VER (Inaccurate depiction), WP:NPOV (Not a Muslim POV of Muhammad) they are shown the FAQ and introduced to the current consensus and the policies guiding it. -MasonicDevice (talk

) 23:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, I said, "It is perfectly fine to use on a the drop by users who say they think it's offensive". No long term editors use the argument that it's offensive anymore because they know that is not a legitimate reason. It's not lying to drop-in editors. If you are coming to complain because you think it's offensive then there is no policy support for that. The images in general are a more complex issue. gren グレン 23:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

People can use ad-blocker to remove images that offends them, or even *gasp* not go to web sites that show such content. We should not have to need people to "opt-in" to see encyclopedic content because it is offensive to some, we don't compromise on encyclopedic content to cater to peoples individual beliefs. Seriously, there are so many people believing so many different things. Some cultures think showing a woman's face is offensive, we are not going to get rid of all such pictures or hide them behind a button.

_(1 == 2)^Until

16:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a Muslim and I have been reading the debate going on - topic after topic and the discussion is wandering into like a hot debate. I think the appropriate way would be to add some sort of disclaimer like "some images might not be appropriate for certain readers bla bla" and then make the person reading the article choose to go in or not.

Um...Not sure if you know this but in Shia'a islam it is ok to depict images of Muhammed. Infact many Shiaa people where his image(along with Ali) around there necks(on a nicklace) in the same way many christians wear jesus. So why should wikipedia choose to be Sunni? Last I check wikipedia was pretty secular.

If we can put restrictions on posting nude images or even graphic images as they are offense to some people, why can't we do it with the images of Muhammed (PBUH)? Shouldn't we make wiki for "everyone" and respect every reader's thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kparacha (talk • contribs) 17:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

this debate isn't "hot" at all. It's as stale as they get. If people would actually read the article lead, they would find mention right there that some people don't like to see these pictures, there is really no need to keep informing us of the fact. No, Wikipedia is not for "everyone", that's a fundamental misunderstanding (see

"If we can put restrictions on posting nude images or even graphic images..."

We can't, and we don't. See here. Wikipedia is not censored; the possibility of offense should be of no concern to editors as per Wikipedia policy. Wiki is intended for anyone seeking to be informed, and that's why we don't limit the information provided to cater to the sensibilities of any particular group. If it bothers you, don't look at it.

As far as I (and many of the other editors) are concerned, it is simple enough: if you don't want to see pictures that may offend you, it is generally unwise to go browsing for the related subjects on an uncensored encyclopedia. In this instance, it is unwise to come to a secular encyclopedia with a religious mindset and expectations.--C.Logan (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

the precedent people are looking for is

dab (𒁳)

19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, in an article about goatse, I'd say the image is pretty encyclopedic. In just about any other article--no. gren グレン 23:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I, personally, think goat should be able to be on here. нмŵוτнτ 04:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

To address the point about disclaimers, this page (like every other one on Wikipedia) already links to Wikipedia:Content disclaimer which states that Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers and Some articles may contain names, images, artworks or descriptions of events that some cultures restrict access to. Hut 8.5 19:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there is something that everyone is missing. The Muslims cannot portray images of the Prophet of Islam, because the Prophet did not want people worshipping his image. Also muslims are bounded by the Quran to respect other people religion in al Kafiroon, so there is no reason why muslims should have any trouble with the portraits as they should know better then to worship them. However, I feel there should be some sign that states that those pictures may not be accurate as their is no proof of what the the Prophet looked like. There is no way to verify the authenticity of those portraits, if they were done while the prophet was there. To support that point I would remind debate over the skin color of Jesus/Isa. Ka$HisHere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ka$HisHere (talk • contribs) 04:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

An example of something that was needlessly offensive is this former version of sportswear [1]. I see this as analagous to the images question in this article, because the issue is not how offensive the picture is in the abstract but whether it added anything useful to the article. Will anyone argue that it was "censorship" to remove the picture from the sportswear article? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could find a better quality image which depicts the same thing. Jockstraps shouldn't really cause offense to anyone; they are simply articles of athletic support. The illustration of this unique piece of sportswear is very useful to the reader. Note, however, the context: an unreferenced article which borders on being little more than a messy stub. The article could be expanded greatly, and several images would find a relevant place- a jockstrap image being one of them (preferably not as wide as this one- perhaps a vertical arrangement would be better).

Although your argument attempt to appeal to the basic usefulness of the image, one must address the historical significance inherent in the images of Muhammad: well-known and academically supported illustrations which attempted to depict the subject in question. Although many Muslims don't like it, this is indeed one part of their history, as there is an illustrative tradition as well as a calligraphic one.

I don't see how the jockstrap example or these images do not "add anything useful" to their respective articles. This is a hollow argument, as far as I'm concerned- one could argue just as much against the usefulness of calligraphic presentations on this article, but that would go nowhere.--C.Logan (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't said that my removal of that image per discussion on the article's (stub's) talk page was censorship though. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So, unless he needlessly escalates this discussion with that other 'c' word, his counterpoints aren't important enough? And if he does, then he's recklessly using hyperbole, and can be disregarded. No thanks. He makes the only salient points needed. The material is historically grounded, widely verifiable, and actually DOES add value to the article by representing the subject, as seen within that faith, during a major period in the history of the faith he founded (being the one in which images were permitted - a period that apparently ran for many many years, and is being not so gently redacted out of the histories by modern activists, to read up on many of the citations shown in the many iterations of this argument. ThuranX (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect he would say so if the removal were in response to machinations by some members of one religion to enforce their rules on Wikipedia. Mike Romete (لن أستسلم) (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be remove the name of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) from the caption and just write Muslims pray like this. We are living in a freedom os speach world but hurting other's feeling is not the right way of freedom of speach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.217.133 (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be misrepresentation, as the images intend to depict Muhammad- the person who illustrated them certainly had that in mind. I encourage you to read the list of frequently asked questions.--C.Logan (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The images FAQ makes no mention of a suggestion that we simply use a show/hide function: the captions remain with a (Show) link beside them which when clicked will show the image in question on the page. Has this already been rejected by one or both sides of this debate? 86.44.6.14 (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it's been brought up several times, but it has largely been dismissed as a policy violation which is still rooted in faulty reasoning in the first place. There's some merit to it, but it still sets a terrible precedent and grates strongly against our censorship policy. That's a good point, though; the FAQ should probably elaborate on some of the responses to this suggestion.--C.Logan (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding disclaimers to the pictures does not constitute censorship. The pictures will still remain the article. And, if disclaimers are indeed a form of censorship, Wikipedia has more disclaimers than any other site I have ever seen and thus is already censored; so why not add another one. -- 12:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unimpeccable (talk • contribs)

Disclaimers are not allowed, and should be removed when found. See

Bahá'u'lláh

article was used as a precedent for launching discussions for the inclusion of disclaimers on this article, but that disclaimer has since been remove in accordance with the guideline (see the archived discussion on this topic below).

On a side note, I'm not sure if you were directly responding to my comment, but if you were, there's some confusion. Disclaimers are not the same thing as the above noted show/hide proposal.--C.Logan (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm you might be wanting to take a look at

Rorschach inkblot test then.Geni

18:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed the disclaimer there. нмŵוτнτ 04:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion--where wikipedia is unwilling to fold under pressure from religious fundamentalists--has increased the encyclopedia's credibility in my opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.101.239 (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Logan, the section you linked to on Disclaimers explicitly states that it is a guide, not official policy; it DOES state on the Disclaimer page that there can be exceptions (and it encourages discussion on the talk page for the article), and I see this article being one of them, since there are so many people here with mixed feelings as to whether or not the image should be displayed. That aside, in keeping with the Wikipedia goal of neutrality, the images should remain, and a disclaimer should be posted warning any followers of Islam that such images are present. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, then we can go ahead on put one on sexual intercourse, because some people might be offended by the images there. Or how about next we add one to pornography because there are some anti-pornography activists who take offense? No. No one is forcing anyone to see these images ever at any time, and as such, they require no forewarning. Jmlk17 21:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the "guideline" status, which is why I referred to it as such above. We are strongly advised to adhere to this particular guideline, and as possible exceptions are dependent upon consensus, it should be noted that consensus here (and, as far as I've experienced, in many articles throughout the encyclopedia) has determined that the disclaimers are not worthy of inclusion. Guidelines, even strong ones, are one thing, but with the reinforcement of consensus, the proposal hits a brick wall (unless someone can revolutionize the argument).

Additionally, the individuals opposed are, almost without exception, anons or new users who were directed here from petition sites or from forums or the like with the naive notion that asking nicely could overturn policies, guidelines and consensus. Since these visitors don't understand why or how we do things, the weight of their opinion in the matter is significantly reduced (if not nullified). You can't expect a change in the rules because a random individual "doesn't like it".

Anyone is welcome to become a productive contributor and familiarize oneself with the various rules and discussion histories relevant to the issue, but the majority of "opposition" posts are based in the groundless assumption that censorship on Wikipedia is acceptable.

Finally, I'm uncertain how the inclusion of a disclaimer here is related to "neutrality"- could you clarify?--C.Logan (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You're comparing apples and oranges here; sexual intercourse is a bad example for a disclaimer, primarily because it's a practice that is engaged in by all cultures, while offense over the depiction of Muhammad is specific to one culture. That aside, people might be offended by it, but given that it is practiced by individuals the world over, those who would raise objections to it would be rendered hypocrites (after all, how else would they have gotten here?) I doubt that people will find it offensive; if nothing else, you probably just offended a lot of Muslims by inadvertently trivializing the life of one of their prophets. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would find it offensive to remove the pictures. Your logic is poor. Posting Mohammad's picture does not trivialize his life, it simply goes against Islamic custom.--Garycompugeek (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You misread what I said; I'm all for keeping the pictures. Please take the context of the entire discussion into account before attacking me senselessly. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Enough. We don't censor not for anyone. We don't censor the hebrew name of God
  our neutral point of view policy. And adding disclaimers is just as POV. We don't do it for any subject beyond the standard legal disclaimer that can be found on every single page. At this point, almost no one going to this article expects to see something other than these pictures so a disclaimer wouldn't help; people want them removed because they find their existence on a prominent website offensive and it happens to be a website that is a wiki so they think they have a decent chance at getting them taken down. Enough already. JoshuaZ (talk
  ) 01:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not seeing anything that looks demeaning to the prophet Mohammed. I totally respect everyone's right to observe their own religion and I can honestly say that that if there was something that I thought was not correct or demeaning to my Jesus, as a Christian I believe I might would want it removed as well. We all need to spend more time trying to understand each other and the beliefs of our fellow man and respect them than we need to spend time telling each other they are wrong. I love each of my brothers and sisters as a Christian as that is what Our God wants us to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PearsonH (talk • contribs) 04:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

how many times have we been through this? Dozens? Hundreds? Just point to the FAQ. We are aware we technically could put disclaimers in place. It's just that we

I suggest using a similar disclaimer to the top of this page [2] at the top of the article.

Note: This section may contain the names and images of deceased people. The ABC strives to treat Indigenous culture and beliefs with respect. We acknowledge that to some communities, it is distressing and offensive to show images of people who have died.

To provide context,some indigenous Australian cultures have a religious taboo against images of their deceased This disclaimer:

a) does act as a disclaimer warning so that people are aware of the images before they scroll down

b) is tactful and sensitive in nature, openly acknowledging that the images may be offensive to some

c) does NOT censor the images in any way.

people.82.44.221.140 (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see

WP:No disclaimers in articles and WP:Content disclaimer, thanks. Resolute

19:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of the existence of the general disclaimer until I read the point above. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that neither would many other people, and thus that the disclaimer you refer may not be practically functioning in the general manner intended.Also,

WP:No disclaimers in articlesis

a style guide, not a policy. To quote:

Given the highly contentious nature of the photos in this article, surely common sense would dictate that any disclaimer that could help to mitigate the tension would be a worthwhile exception? 82.44.221.140 (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I got an email response from the Wikipedia saying that the editors are adamant that there is an educational value to the pictures and if it weren't for that, removal of the pictures could be considered seriously.

"It is hard for me to predict which arguments would convince the cohort of Wikipedia editors to develop a consensus to remove the images. Generally, though, the argument would likely be along the lines of the educational benefit of the images being outweighed by the damage caused by their presence in the article." [Christopher Petrelis]

The arguments given so far in favor of keeping the pictures more or less express the same but what I can not seem to find is an explanation of the "value/benefit" that there is with the pictures. Can someone please explain the educational gain there is for anyone who happens to see the pictures?

To summarize here are my questions in detail, can the editors be kind enough to answer those please?

- As mentioned in the discussion these pictures were painted by a Muslim painters some 300 years after the prophet's era. It is also evident that the painter could never have met the prophet in real and thus the paintings are only a manifestation of the painter's own imagination. Is a discussion of a personality (be it anyone and not just the prophet) incomplete if not supplemented by an "imaginary perception" of a not so famous painter who lived a thousand years ago?

- What are the intrinsic educational elements of the pictures? What extra enlightenment about the prophet's person does one receive by looking at them? Put another way, what kind of information someone would miss if there weren't any such pictures? Please keep in mind that the pictures are, at best, an imagination.

- An overwhelming majority of Muslim has always held it a matter of faith to not to paint pictures of the prophets, and that includes all prophets not just the prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Assuming that the painter who painted the pictures was in reality a Muslim (and for all good faith I want to believe that he was), he was among the rarest of the Muslims to have attempted such an act. A small group of (deviant) Muslims have ever attempted this. Why is that an act of a small (and deviant) group of Muslims is such an important piece of reference that it must be reproduced with the history of the prophet?

- The person of the prophet shown in the picture is not at all in accordance with the authentic transmission of the description of the prophet's figure. Anyone can "lookup/validate" in authentic Muslim texts to get a "comprehensive description" of what the prophet looked like. Once you know that, its not too difficult to find out that the depiction is so far from the truth. IMHO, it only serves to misinform an unbiased observer. What kind of an image would a non-Muslim create in mind by just looking at the pictures? I know most of the editors involved are non-Muslims, can the editors please attempt to delineate their perception of the prophet's figure (after having looked at the pictures)? Are the editors confident enough that they can describe something that is even close to accurate?

- A corollary of the previous argument is that it gives no clue at all to a non-Muslim that majority of the followers of Muhammad actually hold it blasphemous to depict the prophet in any pictorial form? To the contrary it would suggest the opposite, won't it? Wouldn't that be false information? Do the editors think the value that the pictures bring is far more important than the harm that they cause?

- Assuming for the sake of discussion, that there is some message that the pictures contain. The article on prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is probably complete even without the pictures. But lets assume that it isn't. Even then, is it not just a matter of taste (personal judgment) that someone decides "what extra information" he/she wants to add by including the pictures? There are probably a thousand other equally or even more informative references that could have been included in place of the pictures, keeping intact the informational value of the content. Why just some fictitious artifacts? Does fictitious graphic information outweigh authentic and real non-graphic information?

Thank you for reading thus far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alleey (talk • contribs) 09:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your coherently argued contribution. I do not think you bring up anything that hasn't been discussed before, but you may add clarity on some points. If nothing else, it should help us to improve the FAQ page. The central misconception here seems to be that Wikipedia does some sort of "cost/benefit" analysis to optimize its articles. This is not the case at all. A fundamental and non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia is that all articles fall under the same content policies, without regard for specific sensitivities. These policies are

encyclopedicity. Your argument goes towards the claim that images add no encyclopedic value to the article. Now it may be true that each individual image is not central to encyclopedicity, but this holds for tens of thousands of images shown on Wikipedia articles. Your argument would apply identically to Image:Cave Hira.jpg or Image:Al aqsa moschee 2.jpg. If the ms images are irrelevant to the topic, how are these images at all relevant? The fact that you argue for the removal of the ms images, and not of the Hira cave or Al aqsa mosque ones shows that your concern is not encyclopedicity at all, but religious sensitivity. If we removed the ms images as "irrelevant", we'd need to remove tens of thousands of similarly "irrelevant" images, such as Image:Artus2.jpg from King Arthur, or Image:CristobalColon.jpg from Christopher Columbus, or Image:Rembrandt, Faust.jpg from Faust. This would clearly imply a clear deterioration of content and encyclopedicity, Wikipedia-wide, and there is no way the "cohorts of Wikipedians" might agree to such a course. The 15th century "Arthur" statue clearly adds value to the King Arthur

article, even if it isn't drawn from the live 5th century king.

On the other hand, if we remove just the Siyer i Nebi images but not the Faust or Columbus ones, we will have treated the Muhammad article differently from others, exclusively due to religious sensitivities, which will be in violation of our core principles that all articles be treated exactly alike.

dab (𒁳)

10:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you replied. Your answer suggests that you do agree that the images do not hold much, the way you put it, 'encyclopedicity'. That answers some questions, but you still have not commented on other questions. I didn't say that all images besides those of Muhammad (PBUH) are relevant. Let me take Columbus as example. I'm talking hypothetically so please bear with me. If you can somehow reproduce some authentic evidence that Columbus had say, red hair, then you could certainly claim that the image of Columbus is misinforming. And of course this argument applies to not just Muhammad (PBUH), Columbus or Jesus (PBUH) but to ten of thousands of images. In case of Muhammad (PBUH) a whole lot of text is invalidated inadvertently by a less than authentic depiction. Wikipedia might be one encyclopedia but what about the other encyclopedias (in differing forms like Muslim texts)? In simple words Wikipedia is representing something that is not inline with mainstream transmission of history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alleey (talk • contribs) 12:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I blogged about this the other day and suggested that "It's worth considering for a moment whether the Western preference for natural representations, as opposed to the abstract representations preferred in most Islamic traditions, has informed the predominance of physical depictions of Muhammad in the English Wikipedia and on Commons".

Discuss. --

The dominance of one theological/aesthetic perspective in Islam doesn't justify not using 'natural representations' in an article concerning the figure being written about. The representational images included in the article were produced by Islamic cultures. Most people like being able to put a 'face to the name' whenever possible...

talk

) 17:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Kalindoscopy, the issue is not that the images are not representative of any relevant tradition; they are. The issue is that as it stands our articles focus on that tradition almost exclusively. It's like illustrating

talk

) 00:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A positive justification would be to say that these depictions are part of the islamic cultural heritage, as they show the way artists throughout the years have visualised Muhammad. Aecis^Brievenbus 17:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

While we should indeed represent this aspect of tradition, it is important not to over-represent, over-emphasise, or overstate it through excess in number or prominence. I think the latter is currently the case, unfortunately. The tradition of depicting Muhammad was pretty much a minority one, that we know for sure. Presenting it as otherwise causes more problems than it fixes - the nature and focus of our presentation has major implications as to the perceived balance and neutrality, especially with regards to undue weight.

ITAQALLAH

17:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There are fewer "naturalistic" representations of Muhammad on this page than there are of other world/religious leaders on their pages, and it is precisely because of tradition that this is so. Plus it gets a mention in the article and a linked sub-article. Seems adequate, no?-MasonicDevice (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Comparing this article with others like Jesus or Buddha (for example), which have a rich, diverse and highly prominent history of depiction/iconism is an analogy that doesn't quite work. Let's be careful that we're not providing

ITAQALLAH

18:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not undue, though, as the article mentions it's a minority tradition and includes several more common representations. The undue standard incluedes the following, "If a viewpoint is held by a signifigant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." I'd say that, in this context, Shi'a would suffice. They're a sizable minority of the Muslim world. Furthermore, by saying that these have unude weight because of being a minority in Muslim tradition, you are implying that the article's base NPOV should be a Muslim POV. Muhammad is bigger than Islam. He performed signifigant secluar deeds, and this is evidenced by the fact that nearly half the article details his various millitary campaigns. You might say that this was due to his faith, but the article is well sourced and says that it's because he was a damn good general and leader. He sowed the seeds for an empire that, within a century of his death, extended from Punjab to Portugal. When someone exerts the kind of influence on the flow of world history that he did, his life and accomplishments cannot be examined through a national, religous or ethnic filter. Rather, we must endeavour to look at the man and his role in the larger picture. -MasonicDevice (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If anything is being presented in undue weight, it is the lack of modern Muslim depictions of Muhammad. While the majority frowns on the inclusion of such depictions, the Shi'a are a significant minority, and given they have little trouble with depictions, perhaps we should replace one of the mideval images with a modern one representing that view of Muhammad. Resolute 21:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is that "the Shia" don't accept images. It's just that Shia are much more likely to do that... also, modern non-Muslim images just aren't important. Muhammad was not particularly central in the Inferno or in the SCOTUS frieze. gren グレン 23:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, MasonicDevice, that Muhammad's impact was global and is as you describe. Even more significant, then, is the fact that the depictions were not prevalent in the historical memory of Muhammad. The portion from WP:UNDUE you quote is quite right, but do consider the other parts which describe how positioning and presentation plays a part in neutrality, or how the relevant prevalence of the aspect decides the amount of focus we give it. It's a bit paradoxical to note that depictions are rare, but proceed to imply otherwise through excess in our presentation. I don't believe the article should reflect a Muslim POV, but the issue here, as you said, is the fact that we are trying to represent a cultural heritage. I for one suggested something I thought was a bit more balanced

ITAQALLAH

11:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Muhammad's article reflecting Muhammad's cultural heritage is that to do so is to reflect a specific, non-neutral point of view. Doing so would diverge from policy and precedent set on articles of other world leaders. The articles of

John Paul II, George Bush, Elizabeth I, and Hirohito do not reflect Catholic, American, English, or Japanese POVs so to treat Muhammad differently because of his religion/ethnicity/cultural heritage would seem to violate NPOV. -MasonicDevice (talk

) 03:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow. If we are representing a specific tradition (as you say), then we shouldn't do so in a way that suggests it was more prominent than reality affords - especially as it is verifiably a minority tradition. If it wasn't prominent, don't present it as otherwise. Even if you want to look at it from a broader perspective, there were historically very few depictions of Muhammad from the West or far East. Hardly reflecting a specific viewpoint, it's an application of

ITAQALLAH

13:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What I am saying is thus: we should not attempt to represent a cultural heritage that would have us include or exclude the images because to do so would be out of line with policy and precedent. In fact, we should not attempt to represent any cultural heritage. Culture is typically soft, slippery and hard to pin down, like a

weasel. Cultural/ethnic/religious heritage of subject has no place informing WP editorial decisions. Like Joe Friday, "All we want are the facts, Ma'am." We should judge the images on their own merits. Are they relevant? Yes - They are paintings of the article's subject, painted by Muslims to teach other Muslims of episodes in the Prophet's life. Can this be verified? Of course it can, or there's no reason for the discussion to have gone this far, right? Once you get past whether the images assert anything about cultural tradition - which has no bearing on this article (the article on depictions is another matter)- the issue becomes a lot simpler. -MasonicDevice (talk

) 00:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What are we attempting to represent, if not a depictional tradition? We certainly aren't showing pictures of what Muhammad looked like - they are cartoonish, hardly lifelike, and no such resemblance can be verified. What we are showing, in fact, is how people have represented Muhammad pictorally. You can't divorce an image (especially ones like these) from its historical context.

The prominence or rarity of aspects of a topic do indeed affect how we will represent it and the weight of coverage we'll give it: it is enshrined in our neutrality policy and manifests itself as the undue clause. If you've ever written an article, especially one with many branching sub-topics, you'll know that balancing relative coverage between all the different aspects must be spot on. So while you assert policy and precedent, I think policy in this case (WP:NOT#CENSOR, WP:UNDUE) is quite clear, and I think the argument of precedent is a poor one for reasons previously explained.

We should of course aim to give the facts, and present them neutrally. The central fact here is: depictions of Muhammad are a rarity in general. From a neutrality perspective, this means we don't decorate the article with minatures - thereby inflating its significance to the article topic and implicitly contradicting the claim of it being a minority tradition. Instead, it means we maintain a balance: while we represent them to a degree (and link to its dedicated article), we don't do so in a way suggesting greater significance or prevalence than is the case. In any case, if we still don't see eye to eye, we can always agree to disagree at least ^_^.

ITAQALLAH

23:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the crux of the disagreement resides in my, and most editors', answer to the question you pose in your first paragraph: What is the article attempting to represent by using the images? I believe its editors are attempting to represent illustrations of specific events mentioned in the text of the article, much as the

WP:NPOV. vr -MasonicDevice (talk

) 18:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Why have they all been replaced with random pictures of locations in the Arab world?Eik Corell (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, more vandalism it seems...Eik Corell (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

They're all still there. Random users keep removing the images, but vigilant editors are always on top of it to revert and replace them. Jmlk17 00:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a huge petition for the removal of pictures dipicting the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) from this website. The effect the refusal is having upon the Muslim community is tremendous, yet the pictures are still here. Why? Can you not respect a person's beliefs? This website is here to educate, yet the topic which is being educated is insulting those who would teach it. The administrators of this website need to consider how their negligence should not be continued. The SIZE of this petition should be taken seriously.

For the sake of an entire religion and it's people REMOVE THESE PICTURES FROM THIS WEBSITE.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamino (talk • contribs) 12:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

the most this petition can hope to achieve is the creation of a dedicated article,

dab (𒁳)

12:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

ok, your petition is mentioned

dab (𒁳)

12:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is what it's all about and really about. There would be no discussion of why and/or why not to have and/or to not have images of Mohammed — or whether to present more positive rather than more negative arguments in favor of them — and whatever else is being discussed here — were it not for the fact that many Moslems consider the mere existence of the images as art, and their presence in the article, as violations of their rules that they want to enforce on the kafir. Mike Romete (لن أستسلم) (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

sure, this is politics and primate chest-pounding, not religion.

dab (𒁳)

13:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ease of use would be the other big one. 99.98% of the signers of the petition likely will never visit the BNF, and I'd guess a majority have never heard of it. If you are on the internet though, and you know of google, then you've heard of Wikipedia, cause it's the first hit on nearly anything. Wikipedia has a far, far greater ability to spread a secular POV on Muhammad than the BNF does, which makes it far more dangerous in the minds of fundamentalists. Resolute 16:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the sad irony about this whole affair. The furor will most likely lead to the image in in question appearing on more articles, not less. -MasonicDevice (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia will not censor anything for any particular group's benefit. Free speech supersedes those calls for censorship. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting more people to ask, or just asking over and over again is not going to change things. This is the Internet, there are things that will offend people. Aniconistic beliefs are not grounds for removal of content here. You don't have to look at it. We don't have to follow your beliefs.

_(1 == 2)^Until

06:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

researching this image more closely, I ended up compiling the article