Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images/Question 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is closed and should not be edited.

↑ Intro

<- Question 1b | Question 2 | Question 3 ->

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question 2: What image should appear in the infobox?

The

infobox for the Wikipedia article Muhammad (top at right) could feature: a depiction of Muhammad without a veil (for example only, a cropped version of this image); a depiction of a veiled Muhammad (for example only, a cropped version of this image); an image of Muhammad's name in Arabic calligraphy, as currently (for example only, this image); an image of a location associated with Muhammad (for example only, this image
); no image.



Q: Which class of image is best suited to the infobox and why?

(place answers under the lettered subsection below; do not only express what you oppose, but also support your favorite option) .

a) Unveiled
Did you mean to say "unacceptable"? Do you support an unveiled image or not? — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 09:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, my bad. Fixed.
books} 21:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Re: "Anything other than this is unacceptable per
talk) 15:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • This is the way we depict all other ancient religious figures for whom no contemporaneous images exist. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before I refute this, let me make clear that my approach has nothing to do with a desire to self-censor. I am completely in favour of showing images of Muhammad on the article, and am open minded about the extent to which we should help Muslims who actively want to restrict what they see.

      But the fact is that the most common way of depicting Muhammad takes a different form to that of almost all other religious figures, and the lead image should reflect this. It is nonsense to knowingly argue for anything other than the most common depiction, regardless of what the appropriate depiction is at other articles. It also goes against the widely accepted principle that

      other stuff exists is a non-argument. —WFC— 17:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]

b) Veiled

  • Oppose. Too cluttered. Not acceptable. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Useless for infobox purposes, unless if this is (and as I understand it, it isn't) how Muhammad is depicted in the overwhelming majority of works. Goodraise 04:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because we can't understand it's whos. It can just be a man flying in the air.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 07:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This wouldn't depict the subject in a meaningful manner. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A veiled image might be suitable for an article about how Muhammad is depicted, but it's not relevant to his biography. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Would have no value. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It would be better to have no image than this image. —SW— converse 14:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not a particularly helpful image. Kelly hi! 14:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third choice. In looking through reliable sources (which I believe most of the people commenting here haven't), there is an image which tends to show up more often than others. My first choice would stilll be calligraphy, followed by an image of Muhammad's tomb, but if we chose a veiled image, I would recommend this one. File:Miraj_by_Sultan_Muhammad.jpg. --Elonka 15:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it is neither neutral nor wise to embarrass potential readers without necessity. It is educational to use the principle of least astonishment. --Advocado 15:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: it isn't the most common representation of Muhammad these days. Effectively it is more of historical interest. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose cmadler (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per inverse of my comments above. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 00:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in favour of next option per my rationale to above. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose does do little to illustrate the subject. --Pgallert (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pretty much just silly. OSborn arfcontribs. 22:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC) no opinion. OSborn arfcontribs. 21:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose An infobox about a notable person must first and foremost contain facts, not fiction, facts on fiction or related facts. Still this is much better than unveiled version as it has less potentials to offend. Yes, yes, please do not bother reminding me that per WP:NOTCENSORED, we have the right to show all forms of undesirable contents indiscriminately as part of our holy mission to harass the universe! Fleet Command (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DISTANT second choice tied with other image option see rationale above.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 16:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Using clipped images, veiled or unveiled, which form a tiny part of an illuninated manuscript is highly artificial. Victorian or Edwardian images of prophets like Moses (also mentioned in the Quran) are not suitable comparisons. Calligraphy is the way to go. Mathsci (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not really good for this encyclopedia. Toa Nidhiki05 14:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A veiled image does not impart useful information, and so choosing this image would be a form of censorship. The image chosen must be the best one on purely encyclopedic grounds, and not selected on the basis of potential offence. Thom2002 (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as a main illustration, but okay for discussion of historical depiction. Neotarf (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I'm surprised by the strength of opposition here, as I can see the benefits of a veiled image, even if this particular image is not ideal. It is both a strength and a weakness of such an image that it illustrates not only Mohammed, but an aspect of the associated iconography. However, for the main article on Mohammed, I think it is undue weight to draw attention to this issue in the lead or infobox. Geometry guy 23:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Wikipedia is not censored! a×pdeHello! 18:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Pointless, as a lead image. The most common manner of representing Muhammad is the "iconic image" of his name. Amandajm (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Elonka and Neotarf. This is not the most common or historically significant type of depiction. Rivertorch (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, silly. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not the most common way of doing it, even less than unveiled, calligraphy is clearly NPOV. JHSnl (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose - no veiling in any way --Rax (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - use best available image. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my !vote above.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 18:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Undue weight; calligraphy is the most common depiction, followed by unveiled, with veiled a distant third. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The calligraphic representation currently in the article is fine. As we have no idea what Muhammad looked like, any 'portrait' would be incorrect and misleading. Apuldram (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No secular justification for such a choice has been presented.—Kww(talk) 13:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose See bold type above.--Benjamin 00:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose doesnt add value to the article, a calligraphic representation would be better choice then this Gnangarra 23:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose what should be the use in such a picture? Weissbier (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't care but prefer over unveiled. ~
    talk) 15:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose, seems rather pointless to me.--SUFC Boy 18:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this should be an unacceptable compromise on WP liberty.A ntv (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pointless --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose none are representative, so with no accurate likenesses, we might as well go with the most common depiction in Islamic cultures. No need to go out of our way to purposely offend, which a figurative image in the infobox would do. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose as I am not against the veiled representation in an of itself, I am more against the veiled image being used as the only, or primary (lead) image. My first preference for lead image is the highest quality unveiled version available. Amarand (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose is there any historical accounts that Mohammad wore a veil? Thought not. Maybe this would pass muster at Jyllandsposten but not WP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is slightly better than the "unveiled" proposal, but only slightly. By blocking the face, a portrait provides little value in an encyclopedic context. Seeing as this is a common representation both historically and in modern publications, there is some argument that such an image should be included - but I don't believe it is fitting for a lead image, which should be representative of the topic.
    talk) 14:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

c) Calligraphy
Only here on Wikipedia... in Muslim communities it is how it's done. Which are you more likely to recognize, a picture of Mohamed of the Calligraphy for him? I would recognize the Calligraphy before an image.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 14:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a Muslim community. —SW— express 22:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But Mohamed is a Muslim figure and most representations of him come from Muslim communities. The point is that other religions have standard tropes around which their characters are identified. We can recognize St Francis of Assissi, even if we've never seen the image, because there are standard conventions surrounding his presentation. We can recognize different historical figures because the art which is used to depict them uses standard conventions to do so. With Mohamed, this isn't the case. With Mohamed, the standard depiction used isn't a figure, it's calligraphic. To use an image that isn't indicative of the community or the norm in the historical profile is not NPOV, but rather UNDUE weighting. It is using our Western biases to select a fringe/minority presentation because we want it (and we want to prove that we aren't censored.) But it does not mirror the historical reality and it does distort the historical record.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 18:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Jclemens. Knobbly (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistent with how Muhammad is most commonly and famously depicted. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently the best way to help the reader identify the article subject. Goodraise 04:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely the best option. Calligraphy from an actual mosque or other Islamic site should be preferred to a simple user-generated graphic. We need to remember that the purpose of these articles is to educate, and someone who browses briefly (or uses a lede-only version distributed on a CD, etc.) should not come away with the notion that "Muhammad looks like this" or even "Muhammad is represented this way" because it would be wrong. Wnt (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best choice. A man famous for not getting his portrait shouldn't have a portrait as his primary image. The most informative image we can provide is one which reflects that.--HectorMoffet (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely the most appropriate choice, seeing as most existing depictions are of this form. There's no binding decision anywhere that says infoboxes must have portraits, even if they are the norm elsewhere. HectorMoffet's comment sums it up best, IMO. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 06:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferred as I assume the calligraphy is the least varies option of images to choose from. If there is a continuous debate on what he looks like, bypass what he looks like for the main piece of the article and let people make up their minds as other images are shown later. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 06:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because it makes sense and is acceptable--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 07:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best Choice. It is the most common and appropriate method of depicting Prophet Muhammad through an image. Shariq r82 (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no rule that infoboxes should have portraits. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't know of any other figure whose infobox includes a stylized name as a picture, especially when there are numerous depictions of said person. What function would this even serve, since it's clearly not depicting the person in question? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; standard way to depict Muhammad, per sources. I also want to register concerns that the push to display an potrait style image in the infobox is being influenced by a push-back against resistance to these images being in the article. That's hugely problematic. --Errant (chat!) 10:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — If opposition against a veiled or an unveiled depiction is really that fierce, we should be considerate hereof and opt for the least offensive solution that we all can get along with in the infobox. This should, however, not lead to the conclusion that other depictions of a veiled or an unveiled Muhammad are no longer displayed in Wikipedia altogether.--Aschmidt (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional neutral. It's far from ideal to represent the subject of a biography in this manner, but given the fierce opposition in some quarters I can't really object in the circumstances. However, I oppose both infobox and lead images being calligraphy as this is a biography not an article about calligraphy. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Other articles have artistic depictions of people, as Jclemens said above. --CapitalR (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Text, no matter how stylized, is not an image, and should not substitute for it when images are available. Skier Dude (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Jclemens. Every other article on a deity prophet starts out with a portrayal of that deity prophet, why would this one start out with calligraphy? In the context of a secular, rational, factual, and neutral encyclopedia, this makes no sense. It only makes sense in the context of an encyclopedia that is biased by religious pressure and caters to the irrational fears of the religiously extreme. Yes, I understand that Muhammad has been frequently depicted as calligraphy, but generally when most humans think about deities prophets who supposedly took human form at some point, they don't imagine the deity prophet as a jumble of fancy script letters walking down the street. I have no objection to a calligraphy depiction later on in the article (since it appears in many sources), but to have it at the top of the article would be ridiculous. —SW— converse 14:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, assuming the statement that "it's the most common way that Muhammad is represented" is true.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:31 (UTC)
  • Oppose, depiction would be more helpful and educational than text. Kelly hi! 14:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The calligraphy image is redolent of computer-generated devotional art that can be found on the Internet, which is not a neutral way for Wikipedia to illustrate an infobox. FormerIP (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It can transport similar emotional information like a picture of Muhammad. In contrast, as nobody knows how he really looked like, a picture of Muhammad himself wouldn't be representative. --Advocado 15:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—This seems the most appropriate to me, not because it does not offend Muslims, but because it is the most common form of depicting Muhammad. Much as Emperor Jimmu is depicted through traditional Japanese artwork and Plato depicted by a Hellenistic bust, it seems fitting to use a culturally-relevant depiction in the infobox. GRAPPLE X 16:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support-This is the kind of depiction that most muslims would recognize. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Elonka, Wnt, and others. Presenting any other manner of depiction as primary in an encyclopedia if such depictions do not, in fact, hold primacy beyond the bounds of the encyclopedia itself would be misleading and thus would serve no encyclopedic purpose. scisdahl (t•c) 16:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most common depiction. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it took a lot of discussion many years ago to arrive at this position I don't see any reason to change.--Salix (talk): 16:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: In many other areas of Wikipedia (cf.
    WP:CIVIL, please. Ravenswing 16:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support. We should use the most common available representation in the infobox. That said, I agree with the rationales of Thryduulf and Allens among others that not all of the images in the article should be calligraphy. Jclemens' rationale I vehemently disagree with: the arguments applicable to the most common depiction of Muhammad are not applicable to similarly prominent figures in other religions. —WFC— 17:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The most common, mainstream and culturally significant representation. JN466 19:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The most widespread style of representation is clearly the best choice as the main image. Cloveapple (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's ridiculous to suggest that an article on a historical figure should have calligraphy as its main image, when for very good reason we always choose to depict such figures as fully as possible. Equazcion (talk) 20:44, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)
  • Support In my humble opinion, in an article about a factual person, the infobox must first and foremost supply facts about the subject instead of fiction, facts on fiction, or facts about related subjects. So far, calligraphy fits the bill for being facts on the subject, i.e. the spelling and the pronunciation of writing his name as well as a common way of identifying association with him. Fleet Command (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We are streeeeetching the
    WP:Other-stuffy), I can't think of a single other notable biographical article that uses calligraphy or lettering as the only infobox image (if there is one, please bring it up). Sleddog116 (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note that
WP:ASTONISH is nothing more or less than an opinion essay and is not a consensus-determined guideline or policy of English-Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Support: the article should give the most
    weight to the modern viewpoint on Muhammad. As long as it is now common to depict him with calligraphy, we should stick with it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support as most common depiction. It's not Wikipedia's job to make arbitrary decisions on what constitutes a valid depiction and what doesn't, our job is to reflect the majority of reliable sources. The calligraphy option achieves this cleanly. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits›     01:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—not only the most common depiction in modern times and the least-offensive, many of these images are quite beautiful and widely-regarded examples of Islamic art. Davidjamesbeck (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The lede image should be one that is most universally accepted. Those who think pictorial images appropriate also accept calligraphy, but not the other way around. Nobody can really say that a calligraphic image is waffling or a concession--it is simply the most universally accepted form. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Absolutely not. We are not a Catholic or Jewish or Protestant or Muslim encycylopedia, we are an English-language encyclopedia, and our criteria for inclusion should not be swayed by what one group of people want to the exclusion of all others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Either an unveiled image or calligraphy would be acceptable, there is a case to be made either way. What isn't acceptable is veiling or omitting for religious reasons. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wouldn't mind if both kinds of pictures were shown, though. --Voyager (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Darkness Shines (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per above comments, and adding: What about when various religions begin to push for a portrayal of Jesus Christ using "ICXC NIKA" or "INRI"? Muslims are opposed to all depictions of all living creatures, after all. Bad precedent. Wikipedia is not about being "considerate" or "not offensive". The "principle of least astonishment" is satisfied here for all but hard-line Muslims, as, when looking up a person, you expect to see - a person, not a stylized representation of his name in a different script, essentially the article title repeated in a different language. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 00:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Jclemens -- Neozoon 00:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support: this would be the correct representation of the Islamic culture. Even country articles seem to use that specific country's version of English language... why not in cases of other cultural aspects. Even from a neutral POV this is the correct representation. No wonder wikipedia is busy offending people claiming the not-censored policy as a pretext. Adding calligraphy would be most appropriate. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral/Second choice ~FeedintmParley 01:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, best choice because it is the most common illustration of the subject. --Pgallert (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The correct, common and accurate representation, as used by Muslims, is calligraphy. No reason as to why Wikipedia should be any different as far as this is concerned. Mar4d (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral to Oppose Second Choice because the made computer images proposed are just plain bad. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The most commonly-used representation. – 
    talk) 15:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support so they can see the message about clicking to suppress images. Images are supposed to be illustrative of the subject. I just answered a question like this in another place and they wanted to show a demure version of a porn acress and I was saying they need to show some sort of inclination that way as that's what she is known for. The subject is the founder of the religion not just a face and the calligraphy illustrates their belief system well.
    Dmcq (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose as per
    WP:NOTCENSORED. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose While the calligraphic representation should be present in the article, we should not give special treatment. Having calligraphy does not accurately portray what the article is about - a person, and having a calligraphic representation when other representation (which is more consistent with other articles) exist seems to be bowing the sensibilities of a specific group.
    AFAIK Wikipedia is fairly infamous for its explicit sexual content which is of course offensive to many, saying that calligraphy is a good choice because it is doable or not inflammatory seems like a massive double standard. I think it quite possible that the reason other encyclopedias etc. do not represent Muhammad this way is because they have been bullied into such a position.
    I also understand from the comments of user     FormerIP (talk · contribs) that the claim that calligraphic renderings are more common than depictions is challenged. OSborn arfcontribs. 22:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The least inflammatory option combined with the fact that no actual photos or pictures painted during his lifetime exist. Moreover, this is how he is traditionally represented for Muslims who make up 20% of the world's population. It would be better to leave it to them to choose a representative image of their prophet than a group of westerners. Veritycheck (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Traditionally depicted in exactly this way. PuppyOnTheRadio talk 07:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as it is the most common depiction of Muhammad in an Islamic context; in fact, the most common depiction of him anywhere. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as far as I know it doesn't offend anyone at all. I can't see it as censorship to have the first image (veiled or otherwise) of a person further down the page, so that it isn't the first thing you see when viewing the article. That's being sensitive to others feelings. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • First Choice if this is how Mohamed is presented in most places and by the community in question, why not? Those who argue that we shouldn't use the common (and respected) depiction of Mohamed in the lead, appear to be doing so not because they are right, but rather because they don't want to be "censored." Well, it's not censorship, it is a valid editorial decision. CConsider this, if this were an article on the Olympics, wouldn't the Olympic rings be the most logical symbol to go into the info box? A gold medal, athlete, location, etc wouldn't work as well because people expect to see the ring. It almost feels as if some people who are contributing here want to use images of mohamed in the lead to spite the Muslim community---to piss them off---and to tell them that they can't tell Wikipedia what to do. But that is not a valid rationale... a valid rationale is to use the image/symbol most widely associated with the subject. (Hell, as a non-Muslim, I'm more likely to recognize the calligraphy of Allah than I would some random picture of him.)---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 14:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basically my argument boils down to this. Can a strong argument be made for calligraphy? Yes. A similarly strong argument can be made for an image. Both make sense to a certain degree. Since both are editorially sound decisions, we then look at who the audience is. For this article, we will have a large population of Muslims. For that community having an image in the lead might be offensive. So we have two equally valid views, but one might be more offensive to the audience of the article. This lends credence to the editorial decision to use the calligraphy. What about the non-muslim community? Shouldn't they see a 'figure?' Why? Is it an actual photo of Mohamed or just an artistic representation? Isn't that what calligraphy is, an artistic representation? But there is even a stronger editorial argument here for the calligraphy over the image. Some of the pro-image people have argued that to capture peoples attention, you have to astonish them to catch them off guard. Well, using that rationale, it could be argued that the Western reader expects to see a portrait. By having calligraphy instead, we catch them off guard. This presents a strong learning device for the western reader---that in Islam it is considered offensive to have images of Mohamed. So basically, we have two rational editorial arguments---one to have calligraphy the other to have an artistic fabrication of Mohamed (which likely bears no actual semblance to the historical figure). One will offend the subjects target community. The other will not offend the community, but will provide an educational opportunity for the Western reader. I think the decision is obvious. Go with the calligraphy as it is both the more sensitive towards the Muslim community AND the most educational to the non-Muslim community.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 16:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're assuming that the majority of visitors to the Muhammad article will be Muslims. I don't think this is necessarily a valid assumption. While it may be true, there is no data to support it (that I'm aware of). —SW— gab 22:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not at all. My argument is applicable both if the majority of readers are Muslim or Non-Muslim. The fact that calligraphy is less offensive to some, is only one factor in my position. The fact that using calligraphy in the lead would be educational to non-Muslims is the principle argument. Since most depictions of Mohamed are NOT figurative, by having calligraphical image in the lead, it accentuates how important it is to Muslim communities and it accentuates how Muslim communities depict their prophet. By using a calligraphic image, we provide a strong learning opportunity to the non-Muslim readership while at the same time respecting the morales of the Muslims who might come here.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Art, within any tradition, is full of conventions and standards. People can look at historical piece of art and identify the subject based upon these standards. This is espeically true for religious art. Depictions of historical/artistic figures are emmeshed in these conventions, which help art historians identify the subects of pieces of work. The conventions surrounding Mohammed are not to use figurative art. Figurative art to depict Mohamed is not representative of the historical norm. This is true regardless of one's religious beliefs. To use a figurative piece of art in the lead, is thus UNDUE and not consistent with the artistic conventions used to depict Mohamed.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 16:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per my above. I see no reason why this is not a valid way of doing this, that respects both the most common means of achieving our goal elsewhere and the means that is far less likely to offend a large proportion of our readership.
    WP:NOTCENSORED shouldn't be something we wave in people's faces, and the possibility of offence should weigh into discussion - not as the only factor but as a significant one. I think Balloonman puts it very well above, and I agree with him. Kahastok talk 23:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support - least surprise, but not shamelessly yielding to the censors; reasonable position. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is the most common way of depicting Muhammad. An artistic representation of his person would be preferable only if it was known to depict him as he actually appeared are was notable iconic. Since no such images exist, the most common depiction, non-pictoral as it is is best. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Using clipped images, veiled or unveiled, which form a tiny part of an illuninated manuscript is highly artificial. Victorian or Edwardian images of prophets like Moses (also mentioned in the Quran) are not suitable comparisons. Calligraphy is the way to go. I would support calligraphy, possibly from Persia, of high artistic quality, i.e. not just something looking like a logo. Mathsci (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Mathsci, so second choice. Although there is no reason to then use such calligraphy over and over again, at least the ones proposed and available on commons, which is why the more informative and educational use of a location such as the mosque he founded and is buried in is my first choice, as it's both more educational and more interesting. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Calligraphy in the infobox, images in the body. Mathsci nailed it. This is by far the most common depiction. We shouldn't even be discussing what does or does not constitute a valid depiction. Our job is to figure out what depiction the majority of reliable sources use and use that, no matter what our personal opinion is. The majority of sources use calligraphy to depict Muhammad. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - This is just silly. A fancy writing of somebody's name is not a good depiction of them for an infobox. Toa Nidhiki05 14:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The image in the infobox is usually a portrait. Since there is no known portrait of Muhammad I think the best representation is calligraphic. Ruslik_Zero 15:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The infobox image should best represent the subject as it is most commonly known, and due to the unusual historical circumstances, this is it. Rami R 17:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While it is an interesting choice that has some appeal, it isn't the traditional Wikipedia style. It raises more questions and problems than it solves. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clearly best choice along several dimensions. It's how the subject is depicted in sources, it avoids giving unnecessary offense (i.e. trolling) and aesthetically pleasing.VolunteerMarek 21:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - most common option, also since a choice of image is arbitrary and none can be assumed to have any real likeness.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- Easily most feasible. Bzweebl (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because it makes the point that we don't have a clue what really he looked like. Putting one of the later images in "pole position" would give the impression that the chosen image is definitive when it isn't. The later images belong in the body of the article. Woz2 (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We know how to spell his name but not what he looks liks. Best option. --Wavehunter (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support So long as no significant portion of the population is deeply, seriously, offended, and I believe that is the case, then sweet. Illustrations are cool ! If a few people don't like that, who cares ! Penyulap ☏ 15:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If it can be established that calligraphy is the most common and recognizable representation of him, I think this is reasonable. --Karl.brown (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the main illustration, but it should be included somewhere, just because it has dangled from so many rear-view mirrors. Neotarf (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. It is a bit dull, but is illustrative, representative, and more interesting the more one thinks about it. Geometry guy 23:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, calligraphy is historically the most common depiction and should therefore be shown, just as the most common or typical depiction is usually shown for others topics. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is the most commonly used and recognised depiction of the prophet, therefore it seems entirely appropriate that it should be the lead image, just as Jesus leads with a classical depiction. SFB 12:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this most commonly used depiction, and will add more to an understanding of the topic than one of the depictions. Incidentally, our feature article on Ælle of Sussex leads with an image of a line from a historic document which gives his name, and includes a (wholly imaginary) depiction only later in the article. Warofdreams talk 13:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Wikipedia is not censored! a×pdeHello! 18:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support This is the way he is depicted by an unimaginably vast majority of those who write about him. The infobox should contain the image that is most informative; it's not like we have a photo of the guy, so pictorial representation gives no essential information. Seems like a no-brainer (to use a trite, objectionable phrase). -RunningOnBrains(talk) 22:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support The most common manner of representing Muhammad is the "iconic image" of his name. We should go with the best available version of that image. I would prefer one with some cultural context, such as text taken from a tile, embroidery or manuscript, rather than the very bland black and white image given as the sample. Amandajm (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support most common form of representation. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Cla68 (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Allens, Shooterwalker, and WNT. Best choice for infobox. Rivertorch (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Random support - AFAIK this one is the most popular - so this one should be used per
    WP:UNDUE Bulwersator (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose per
    WP:NOTCENSORED. Ale_Jrbtalk 10:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support This is the standard modern representation, so it's the one that belongs in the infobox. It doesn't prevent the other images being used elsewhere in the article, so I see no issue with censorship. Anaxial (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, seems the most common representation. Superp (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose,
    WP:NOTCENSORED. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support, this seems to be the most common representation of Muhammad and while many are citing
    WP:NOTCENSORED, there is also no need to purposely cause a stir. I am not opposed to other depictions appearing elsewhere in the article. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Second choice; but should be placed prominently. SpencerT♦C 21:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support as it is, as is extensively documented, the most common depiction. NOTCENSORED arguments are used in a roundabout way, it should not be used as a counterargument against NPOV. JHSnl (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the most common depiction of Muhammad, and as such the most neutral choice. Robofish (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as text is still only text and should not used as a place-holder because all other images are controversial. Use a image, or use none. Examples can be seen on pi and e (mathematical constant) for non-controversal articles where the calligraphy is not used at the info box. *Update*: The image location in the info box is used for a depiction of the subject. Even if one were to use Calligraphy, it too could be considered offensive. Its the use of depiction, not images techniques that is cited as offensive. Belorn (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • neutral - would'nt be my choice, but - hej ;) - its only a box ;) --Rax (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - while it is the most common "depiction" of him, it is undeniably an abstract representation of the phonetic value of his name and not of his physical being: it therefore would be highly unusual to use as the main image of an historical individual, even if it is commonly used for that purpose. Perhaps both depictions could be used in some equal setting?  White Whirlwind  咨  00:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - use best available image. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since the images are not likenesses but only fanciful anyway, why bother to include one. Peter Flass (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No valid portrait exists. Calligraphy is the best available choice and has the advantage that it rarely gives offence. Apuldram (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Inconsistent with presentation of similar figures, no secular justification for different choice.—Kww(talk) 13:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate Support: Baloonman seems to sum up my views --VikÞor | Talk 14:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - If this is the way he is most commonly depicted, it is the most useful representation for the general reader. MSJapan (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Care--Benjamin 00:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Assuming the "background information" at the top of this discussion is accurate, this is the most common representation of Muhammad used in practice by Muslims and scholars. It makes sense to lead with this image (while still including other depictions later in the article). Dcoetzee 03:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • conditional Support agf on the introduction info that this is the most common representation, though if a scholarly recognised image is available(subject to copyright etc) then that should be used. Gnangarra 23:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The most common portrayal is the logical choice.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - rather useless, since its not a picture or a drawing of the person. Weissbier (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice. It's the most common portrayal (which we should follow) and has the plus of being least offensive. I'd highly encourage using this in conjunction with the 1b option of being to hide future images. I believe this combination would make this nasty problem go away, helping us to avoid further vandalism, criticism, lengthy RFCs, etc. ~
    talk) 15:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support - objectively speaking, this is the most common representation of Muhammad, so we should go by the mainstream view. Also, most importantly, this would avoid the question of authenticity of the images - in any case how do you accurately represent a personality from the 7th century when there are no popular representations of him around. Shaad lko (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As others have said, this is the representation that is, by far, the most common in contemporary use, and I don't see how using it violates
    WP:NOTCENSORED. That policy also does not mandate the use of images, and since the calligraphic use is now the most common form, I think it makes the most sense to use. -Jhortman (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support. Seems to be the standard depiction. LaTeeDa (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I am swayed by Balloonman's Francis of Assisi argument, above. Maproom (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Jhortman, as the best option. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support We avoid contentious or shocking imagery in an info box. See Wikipedia:Images#Images_for_the_lead. --agr (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, calligraphy requests an understanding of the Arab culture that the most of the readers do not have. And we cannot renuonce to the liberty of WP to please a single POV.A ntv (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Most the reader don't even have a visual representation of Muhammad either, but more think of Muhammad from the Calligraphy than the picture The Determinator
    t c 03:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support as per Wavehunter. -- Richiez (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Not because it's least offensive, but because this is the most common representation of Muhammad. As I wrote above, Wikipedia shouldn't accommodate any cultural norms. In this case, it shouldn't accommodate a (Western) norm expecting the first image in a biography to be portrait. A photograph or scan of a calligraphic design from a historical source would be preferable to a modern computer-generated one. A caption should explain to non-Muslim readers that calligraphy is the most common representation of Muhammad and why. — Kpalion(talk) 20:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
    WP:NOTCENSORED, no matter what the topic--Pat talk 02:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support the infobox should use a calligraphy since that is the normal way to depict Mohammed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Second choice. If the community decides not to be consistent with articles about other historical/religious figures and therefore not to use a likeness of Muhammad in the infobox, then the next best option would be to use calligraphy, since this is how Muhammad is - so I understand - most commonly represented. zazpot (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG SUPPORT This is how Muhammad is represented usually. The Determinator
    t c 03:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
"controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article." This is quote from
t c 03:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

d) Image of a location

  • Oppose. Not acceptable. Doesn't even make sense. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not how any other ancient religious figure for whom no contemporaneous images exist are depicted. Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Useless as a means of identification. Just increases page loading times. Goodraise 04:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because it's nonsense.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 07:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For all the reasons above: what would it be saying to show a picture of a cave or a sand dune or the Grand Mosque? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support where the location is tied to the man's life, this is the best option for this article because all the other choices are: 1) not as educational and 2) not as interesting. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A picture of a location cannot represent a human being in an article that covers a biography.--Aschmidt (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not relevant for a biographical article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Doesn't merit being the primary image. --CapitalR (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Muhammad is not a location. —SW— express 14:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A picture in the infobox should represent the subject of the article, not some related concept.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:32 (UTC)
  • Oppose, silly. Kelly hi! 14:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second choice. In looking through reliable sources (which I encourage commenters here to do), many illustrate biographies of Muhammad with an image of his tomb. This image would be appropriate. File:Mescidi_nebevi.JPG. --Elonka 15:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Silly nonsense. Why not put an image of Mickey Mouse instead? -- Alexf(talk) 16:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: this looks more like a placeholder. The worst option of all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- nonsensical suggestion. cmadler (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What kind of strange idea is that? --Voyager (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Niteshift36
  • Oppose as per all above comments. A location isn't a man, and is inherently POV at that (as it claims to tie the location and the man together in a way according to the religion's traditions). What's next? A picture of the tree at Gethsemane for Jesus Christ, or a picture of St.-Paul-Outside-the-Walls for St Paul? St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 00:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: per Alanscottwalker as well as a second choice to calligraphy. Suggesting image of the Mosque to be appropriate. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not helpful. --Pgallert (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose PuppyOnTheRadio talk 07:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per just about every comment above, but especially Scottywong's statement that "Muhammad is not a location". The suggestion of such a thing should be a troutable offense... Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last choice doesn't make sense. Here the only rationale would be because Wikipedia is censored.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 14:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I am not concerned with what type of image of Muhammad exists in the infobox - be it veiled, unveiled or calligraphy, so long as all three exist in the article proper - but this is not an acceptable alternative. Resolute 15:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Welcome to the Muhammad article. Instead of showing you an image of Muhammad in the infobox, we are going to show you a random location instead! Toa Nidhiki05 14:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the Tooth fairy precedent. where people are offended at this level, they have already disabled images in their browser Penyulap ☏ 15:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I project that editors and readers who are offended at this level have already disabled images from their browser, or should. Penyulap ☏ 15:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Putting a map where there should be an image is just nonsense.
    (Leave a message!) 15:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose non sequitur Neotarf (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A cop out. Geometry guy 23:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not acceptable. -- Laber□T 08:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Wikipedia is not censored! a×pdeHello! 18:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. The calligraphy of his name is the most frequently-used representation. It is absolutely pointless to use a geographic picture rather than a representation in some form. Amandajm (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as absurd. Makes about as much sense as putting an image of Versailles in
    Louis XIV's infobox. Rivertorch (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support looks more informative than calligraphy or artist impressions. Audriusa (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WTF? Bulwersator (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not representative of the subject of the article, so not appropriate for an infobox. Anaxial (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Makes no sense, looks like placeholder. Superp (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daft. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nonsensical - David Gerard (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not a clear representation of the subject of the article. JHSnl (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose - no context with articles subject. --Rax (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as second choice if Calligraphy is voted down. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Inconsistent with the way Wikipedia treats all similar historical figures.—Kww(talk) 13:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose weakest solution. prefer no image to geographic representation.--VikÞor | Talk 14:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as primary image. Doesn't make sense for infobox. Might be okay to say that "file...." is the way this would be depicted for iconoclasts. Forbidding images ought to be discussed in the context of Mideast iconoclasm, not unusual for the area in the early 1st millennium. Student7 (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this is worse than censorship It creates the impression that censorship is not taking place by having a placeholder image because the reader is accustomed to seeing images.--Benjamin 00:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Is this for real? Showing nothing would be better. --Seduisant (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose meaningless as it be no more informative than having a picture of the delaware river for George Washington. Gnangarra 23:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't have a strong opinion on the first three options, but this one clearly goes against
    CT Cooper · talk 23:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose - This one would just be downright confusing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - stupid idea. Thats like a picture of Tombstone, Arizona to depict the article Revolver. Weissbier (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Calligraphy is better. Thanks Weissbier for the laugh. ~
    talk) 15:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong Support, specifically in light of similar articles such as
    Baha'u'llah which have similar image disputes. The calligraphic representation seems valid as well. Peter Deer (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose - doesn't make any sense to me, probably the worst option available. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose - I can't even believe this is an option. Depicting a person as a symbol is one thing, but depicting that same person as a location? No. This seems unreasonable. Amarand (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose I'm sorry, I can't justify using a location as the primary image in any biographical article.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 16:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose using a location would lead to us filling in all missing photos with home town photos, this is more odd than the other propositions around here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

e) No image

  • Oppose WP:NOTCENSORED should not be compromised in the slightest
    Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No. Doesn't make sense. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images of Muhammad in the infobox may be considered too provocative. But his name in Arabic is redolent of devotional Internet art, which is not appropriate because Wikipedia is not a Muslim website. Plus, it can be argued that it is not very different in its message from creating an image of the word "censored" in Arabic and using that as the infobox image. Since we are not obliged to use an image in the infobox, using none is the best way of not pushing any particular point-of-view. FormerIP (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not how any other ancient religious figure for whom no contemporaneous images exist are depicted. Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • An image should be displayed because Wikipedia should be consistent in it's articles about religious figures. Knobbly (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If no image can be agreed upon, I wouldn't object to none being used, as long as others remain in the article body. Goodraise 04:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 07:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Again, this is what one would reasonably expect from looking at every other biographical article and it serves a purpose in identifying the subject. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; we have a variety of images to use - we just need to make a choice on what to use. Images are good. --Errant (chat!) 10:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Why no picture at all if even Muslims have a sign they seem to use in such cases, viz. the calligraphic sign we currently have in the infobox in en.wp.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, we have plenty of images that are appropriate so there is no justification for no image. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only acceptable situation when an infobox would contain no image is when no image is available. This is not the case with this article, so oppose.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:33 (UTC)
  • Oppose As images are available, there is no reason we should not be able to use them. —SW— prattle 14:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (Second Choice). As nobody knows how he really looked like, a picture of Muhammad himself wouldn't be representative so either a calligraphy or nothing makes sense. --Advocado 15:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are images created by Muslims intended for Muslim consumption in religious contexts; just because a proportion of believers are aniconic doesn't mean we would, for example, delete images of Jesus. Ogress smash! 22:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: as long as there is a generally acceptable practice of depicting Muhammad with calligraphy, this option just don't make sense. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ezhiki. cmadler (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Just turn off picture viewing in your browser, if it disturbs you so much. --Voyager (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Just plain silly 18:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per all comments in this section, and all above comments advocating the same treatment of Muhammad as any other religious leader (e.g. with the exception of the supports in the calligraphy section). St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 00:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, notcensored. --Pgallert (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It wouldn't indicate quickly whether or not they had their self censorship visors down.
    Dmcq (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support and extend to all 'images' of people for whom there are not contemporaneous, factual images (eg. Christ, Moses, Buddha). I don't object to any image being used on grounds of the religion concerned, but because such an image is meaningless. eg. Christ is often depicted as Caucasian yet he was - by location - middle-eastern/palestinian. By all means include images in an 'art relating to...' article, but not where it suggests that it actually depicts the individual concerned. --AlisonW (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose PuppyOnTheRadio talk 07:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nope. Absolutely not. Because censorship is not cool. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second to last choice... I'd rather have this than a completely arbitrary image of a place... which makes no sense... but this would be second to last choice.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC) NOTE: the only reason why this isn't the last choice, is because both this and the "location" image fail to have rational editorial reasoning, but pure censorship rationales. If we are going to be censored, I'd rather be honest in that position, which this is, than to have some random photo which is not only censorship but cowardice.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 05:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Clearly a ridiculous option given the existence of numerous images that depict the article subject in some fashion. Resolute 15:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Censorship issue, reduces value of Wiki, not appropriate in the 21st century. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second choice after calligraphy because it makes the point that we don't have a clue what really he looked like. To take a random example, there's no known image of George Green so his infobox is text only. Putting one of the later images in "pole position" would give the impression that the chosen image is definitive when it isn't. The later images belong in the body of the article. Woz2 (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional oppose So long as it is not an image of a person. I project that editors and readers who are offended at the level of any image have already disabled images from their browser, or should. I've heard that it's any depictions of living things that are offensive, so images of places, and writing is cool, people, not so cool, Mr M, untenable. Penyulap ☏ 15:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose Images do exist that can usefully represent the topic in an infobox. The selection of the image must be based on what is most encyclopedically valuable. The decision must not be influenced in any way by the offence that choosing any given image will cause. Thom2002 (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support But not for the reason you might think. It appears that there is no universally agreed upon appearance of Muhammad and depictions of him by those of the Islamic faith, who would be expected to agree upon such as a depiction, are verboten. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak support. Infoboxes don't need to have images: if nothing else sensible emerges from this RfC, leave the image out. Geometry guy 23:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Wikipedia is not censored! a×pdeHello! 18:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Jclemens and Errant. No reason to omit an image here. Rivertorch (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - even image of his tomb is a better solution Bulwersator (talk) 07:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not standard practice for infoboxes where images are available; can see no good argument in favour of this. Anaxial (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are abundant images available. JHSnl (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • support - info boxes don't need an image --Rax (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - use best available image. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per any other request for censorship.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 18:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Inconsistent with the way we treat any other parallel historical figure.—Kww(talk) 13:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak support. better than geographic, IMO.--VikÞor | Talk 14:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia is not in the business of the accommodation or enabling of a shelterd exsistence. Thats what your parents, church, mosque, etc are for.--Benjamin 00:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't have a strong opinion on the first three options, but not displaying an image at all makes little sense when plenty are available, even if there is difficulty in choosing one.
    CT Cooper · talk 23:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • oppose every one oppose a void, imageless info boxes depict the need for an image we have those and alternatives Gnangarra 00:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as there seem to be no consistent way to portrait him unlike Jesus who is generally portrayed in a consistent way. Images should of course be used in articles when appropriate. // Liftarn (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. None of the available imagery actually depicts Muhammad, they are merely artistic interpretations. As such, they don't add information to the infobox. I fully understand WP:NOTCENSORED as well as the "do not yield an inch" sentiment of many here, but I also do believe that putting an artistic interpretation in the infobox is pointless pointification. -- DevSolar (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think this would be the most astonishing option for your average WP reader. You learn to expect an image in the upper right corner. ~
    talk) 15:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support. Artistic depictions are not the same as a true likeness. The infobox should not include an image since there is no compelling reason to elevate one depiction above another. Betty Logan (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose silly. OSborn arfcontribs. 15:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose as I feel all notable figures should have images associated with their articles when said image is available. As there are options, I believe the best should be chosen and displayed. Amarand (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose catering to the most sensitive viewers is not a good idea - it leads to every group wanting its own take on WP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional discussion of question 2

The notion that "calligraphic representations" of Muhammad (assuming that concept makes sense in the first place) are more common than pictures of him is not supported by evidence. I've tried hard to find images from the history of Islamic art comparable to what we currently have in the infobox, but was only able to find three. On the other hand, I was able to find many many pictures of Muhammad. If they are so common, why have we needed to create a mock-up for the infobox? FormerIP (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that we actually have few good historic calligraphic images, and we should avoid nasty modern computer-assisted ones, which is what nearly all of the Commons category consists of. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this as being a question in the history of Islamic art per se, since that's a vague term (though unquestionably Islamic calligraphy is an extremely significant form of art in traditional Islam, far more so than, say, in Western art), but rather of the hard fact of what is used to depict Muhammad. However for specific evidence I can only recall Schimmel's analysis in "And Muhammad is His Messenger" from the books I have to hand. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants to argue that the "most common image" is calligraphy, or veiled, or, anything - the counter should easily be that the most published image, globally, seen by millions, was that from South Park. I don't think thats what anyone wants. Maybe we should have a frame grab of Santa Claus. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
There is at least anecdotal evidence. While we all have heard of incidents where Christians flock to an apparition of Jesus or Mary, we never hear of Muslims flocking to an apparition of Muhammad. In the Muslim world, it is rather the appearance of an Arabic inscription reading „Muhammad“ that draws the throngs. Ankimai (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate proposal Why not have a montage (a la a whole bunch of ethnic people group pages, such as Lebanese Americans) that has a handful of depictions and says something in the caption like "Depictions of Muhammad vary widely across centuries and throughout societies"? This seems the most useful instead of choosing a canonical form of Muhammad. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional support for montage/collage of several images. Depiction do indeed vary and if we can show this, why not? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support montage, that's a good idea. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure that I fully support this, but it could provide a good solution to a no consensus result. FormerIP (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ Scottywong ("SW") in d): Muhammad is emphatically not regarded as a "deity" in Islam, but as a prophet. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. My mistake. I'm not sure how that changes anything. Are you trying to say that other articles on prophets generally don't include depictions at the top of the article? Why is this distinction relevant to the discussion? —SW— converse 16:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Koavf's alternative proposal. I think we can all agree that no matter which of the previously existing options would have been chosen, controversy would ensue indefinitely. This alternative allows us to incorporate all options, thus eliminating future debate about which to use. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Muhammad_images/Question_2&oldid=1164321490"